Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 136 of 877 (834089)
05-30-2018 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
05-29-2018 9:10 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Covered better in other messages
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 9:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 137 of 877 (834090)
05-30-2018 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
05-28-2018 3:24 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
It's amazing how you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again from scratch as if it had never been refuted. It's like your mind is numb to information showing you are wrong, and you just say the same thing you just said all over again, forcing people to repeat the refutations they just provided.
Faith writes:
What is it about "The National Geographic knows their audience better than you do" that you don't understand?
It's not about their audience, it's about how the whole scientific community presents this stuff to the public,...
General audience magazines are not the scientific community. The scientific community also complains about how their work is presented in magazines for general audiences. Get in line.
...as if it were set in stone that the Jurassic period existed and had such characteristics, as if this were revealed to them from heaven.
This is the consensus view of science, accepted as likely true not because there's a consensus, but because consensuses only tend to develop around ideas with the persuasive power of a great deal of accumulated evidence.
It's typical and it has nothing to do with the audience as you all keep trying to claim.
Don't be absurd. Of course magazines cater to their audience. Those that don't disappear.
It's just typical historical science mystification: we say it, therefore it's absolutely true, therefore you must believe it.
You're confusing reporters and journalists with scientists, and mystification exists only in your own mind. You keep claiming mystification but you can never show it. You have religious objections to geology and evolution and astronomy and cosmology and probably other fields as well. These religious objections have no relevance to how sciencey sort of magazines present information. You want a magazine that presents things your way then try Answers from AIG, which, by the way, caters to its audience, just like all magazines try to do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:24 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2018 10:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 138 of 877 (834091)
05-30-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
05-28-2018 3:45 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
They are a science magazine.
What is wrong with you? This has been refuted already. Can you never learn anything?
National Geographic magazine is at best a sciencey kind of magazine. It covers a wide range of areas like adventure, travel, foreign cultures, science, history, archeology, religion, etc., and with a strong emphasis on photos. It is no more part of the scientific community than reporters in the White House press room are members of the West Wing staff.
They are doing what the science does, pretending they know things they don't...
When National Geographic writes about science they are presenting the consensus views of science, views that have a consensus because of the persuasive power of the accumulated evidence.
...and presenting their information in such a way that nobody can raise a question about it.
Raise all the questions you like. They have a letters section, you can write them at editor@natgeo.com, or you can send a written letter to:
National Geographic Magazine
P.O. Box 98199
Washington, D.C. 20090-8199
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 139 of 877 (834092)
05-30-2018 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
05-28-2018 12:54 PM


Micro and Macro Evolution Simplified
And why do you enjoy your straw man stuff so much> No I do NOT accept "evolution" by which any reasonable person would know I meant the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Of course I accept MICROevolution.
quote:
Evolution of Pelycodus
an early Eocene Primate from Big Horn Basin, Wyoming
The chart documents the evolution of the Eocene lemur-like primate Pelycodus into Notharctus. The horizontal scale is an index of molar tooth size. Each horizontal bar gives the mean (vertical bar), two standard deviations (thick horizontal bar) and range (thin horizontal bar) for the indicated number of skulls from a series of fossil deposits. The index increase from 1.0 to 1.4 is an approximate doubling in size. The inset photograph shows a reconstruction of Notharctus venticolis, the species in the upper right of the series. [diagram after Gingerich]
The change in size distribution from one layer to the next is MICROevolution.
The overall change from the bottom to the top, including the divergence into two different species, is MACROevolution.
There is no other evolution: both are covered by the Theory of Evolution.
It's that simple:iIf you accept one, you accept the other.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 12:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 140 of 877 (834093)
05-30-2018 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
05-30-2018 10:13 AM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
You're confusing reporters and journalists with scientists, and mystification exists only in your own mind.
I think the issue is more fundamental than that. A physicist would not start every inquiry by proving that F = ma, and he would not question the origin of the sun every time he counted the number of sunspots on them.
Similarly, a scientist studying the Jurrasic period is not going to write a bunch of papers proving that the earth is old or proving that dating methods work. That groud was well covered decades ago. If a popular science book is written describing the same period, the authors are not going to cover that material either. They do assume that the earth is old, for reasons that were covered when they were in college in countless fields of scientific endeavor.
If you want to question the time periods, you need to seek out the science or specific articles that actually address the age of the earth. But questioning why biologists and paleontologists do not do that in every single article or bit of research they do, whatever the audience, is beyond ridiculous.
This thread is just about Faith being butt hurt that the findings of science are taken seriously by some, and are not even being questioned by the authors of 99 percent of every article she will ever read. Yet when scientific papers are cited, suddenly her eyes glaze over, the paper is too white, the text too small even for optical aids, and the posts too long. The evidence is available, but it is not in kids coloring books about dinosaurs.
Nobody need apologize for what popular science rags do. It is totally legitimate to write even scientific articles that don't question the fact that the earth is billions of years old, or that humans evolved. There is a place for the details and the questioning too. But it is not in articles or research that is about something else entirely.
Isn't that Discovery Institute hard on the case disproving this stuff? Where is their science?
Like every thread Faith offers, this one is a farce that tells us much more about her than it does the purported topic. Keep them coming.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 10:13 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-11-2018 11:36 PM NoNukes has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 141 of 877 (834094)
05-30-2018 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
05-30-2018 8:43 AM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail, as is crack flow.
We're talking about water running across a huge plateau RAZD. ...
You are, not anyone else.
I'm really sorry, I like diagrams but I really can't figure out what yours is trying to say. I wish I could.
If you take a cross section perpendicular to the GC (ie WNW to ESE) the areas with the black arrows are LOWER than the rims of the canyon.
The is no evidence of NNE to SSW (ie parallel to the GC) rivers, streams or even rivlets. Why not? If water was flowing across these areas it should leave erosion patterns of such flow.
AND because they start lower than where the GC crosses the Kaibab they should have their own "grand canyons." None are observed: why not?
See above. They probably mostly got channeled into the Grand Canyon,
So flood water flows uphill?
... Cracks form in those layers. They start to break up. The water is starting to move, the cracks widen, chunks of the broken up strata are washing into the cracks as well as across what eventually becomes the Kaibab Plateau. ...
It's where the tectonic upheaval pushed up the Kaibab Uplift which created the strain in the uppermost layers which caused the cracks in the strata which eventually became the canyon as the uppermost strata broke up and the water channeled into those widening cracks.
Those black lines on the picture are fault lines from the uplift. Most are perpendicular to the canyon rather than the alignment you claim. Of the many shown only one on the Kaibab Plateau flows to the canyon and has carved it's own subcanyon.
At the second dark green (higher) area a fault line parallels that part of the canyon and intersects it at the northern end, but there is no canyon, no evidence of flow along that fault line, and there is even a tributary stream to the GC that crosses it.
Another epic fail.
Valid explanations cover all the evidence, and are supported by that (objective empirical) evidence, not just preferred, or made up, evidence forced to fit a fantasy scenario.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 8:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 142 of 877 (834095)
05-30-2018 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
05-30-2018 8:43 AM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
Not understanding a diagram is not a refutation, it means you should try harder.
Here's another post, Message 7 from If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS? with more detail on the two low spots, particularly the northern route:
quote:
Interesting site - USGS topo maps interactive
http://store.usgs.gov/...OT&layout=6_1_61_48&uiarea=2%29/.do
You can also download maps.
Northern Route
I captured this shot of where rte 89 crosses the ridge north of Grand Canyon:
The contours are at 40ft intervals and the two markers are on the 5600 ft contour with no other contour between them, so we know the highest point is less than 5640 ft.
The rims of the canyon are 7250 ft (south) and 7750 (north) ... and the high point of the Kaibab plateau is over 8400 ft ...
So the water would need to cut through (7250-5640 =) 1,610 ft of Kaibab Plateau before it gets to the elevation of the Rte 89 pass ...
A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.
There's another pass a bit more north where another road crosses the Plateau, and its highest elevation is ~5800 ft and the width of water at the 7000 ft elevation is wider than the Grand Canyon ...
A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.
That's a lot of water to just disappear or magically NOT flow downhill.
Southern Route
The highest elevation on the southern route shown is ~6460 ft, still ~800 ft below the canyon rim and this too would have a wide span of water at the 7000 ft elevation.
A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.
Conclusion
Any flood flow that could have cut the canyon in its current location with the ridge intact would also have cut drainage channels in these locations. There is no evidence of drainage channels across these passes. There was no flood flow.
If flood flow carved the Grand Canyon then there should be at least two other canyons that would have been carved at the same time.
1,610 ft is a LOT of delta elevation to wave away and ignore.
Repeat: NO sign of water erosion across this section: no canyon, no river, no stream, no rivulet, nada.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 8:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 4:39 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 143 of 877 (834096)
05-30-2018 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
05-28-2018 9:08 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
You would completely disregard any basic supporting evidence as we see you always do here, so don't expect anyone to respect your point.
I don't, but it's true anyway.
There's your use of pronouns sowing confusion again. You were talking about "science mystification." The only mystification is in your own mind, powered by an ignorance that you constantly feed by ignoring all information that doesn't conform to your religiously based views, which ironically are based upon highly flawed and overwrought Biblical interpretations.
I wouldn't exactly "disregard" it but I would regard it as confirmation of the silly methods of historical geology.
So tell us about these "silly methods of historical geology," but from an evidence-based perspective, not your usual name-calling, denigrating, accusatory, evidence-free, no-idea-what-you're-talking-about approach.
It would just be nice to see it acknowledged instead of covered up in favor of a dogmatic pronouncement of fake facts about a fake landscape.
And yet you provide no evidence that anything's fake, and not even an argument, just claims along the lines of, "They're just rocks." We agree - they're just rocks. Rocks that have a geological context and that can be analyzed, the resulting information provided to you many times but that you continue to ignore in favor of repeating your same old unevidenced and ignorant declaration unchanged ad infinitum in thread after thread. I'm with Tangle - we're idiots for continuing this ridiculous dance with you.
Finding evidence that supports or refutes scientific articles in magazines is understood to be the reader's responsibility and it is entirely your own fault if you are too lazy or ignorant or stubborn to do that.
But of COURSE, I take it for granted here that everything is my own fault. There is no doubt in my mind that if I said the sky is blue today I'd be told I'm so wrong I shouldn't be allowed to breathe.
I continue to encourage you to not comment about yourself in this thread (or any thread), both because this thread is not about you, and because it forces people to rebut your claims about yourself. In any case, since you continue not to follow that advice I have to say that any time you say something true, such as the sky is blue, we're all shocked and stunned. It is rare for one of your posts to have as much as a single correct statement. Responses to your posts tend to be detailed because almost every sentence is a misstatement of fact or an irrational claim or an error in simple reasoning.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 9:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 144 of 877 (834097)
05-30-2018 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
05-28-2018 9:26 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
Faith writes:
I'm really trying to make a bigger point, edge: I think this way of handling the idea of time periods reflects the basic unscientific and irrational character of the whole theory.
Do you have any evidence supporting this view of the geologic column?
Actually I do.
Will you be providing any of this evidence in this post? Reading on...
Wherever it is mentioned it is always described as a complete entity just as I describe it.
Calling the geologic column an entity makes it sound like you don't understand that it's conceptual, not something that actually exists. This appears to represent a misunderstanding on your part, and in any case isn't evidence.
All this other hooha doesn't enter into it.
Calling something "hooha" is not evidence.
And wherever it is found...
What do you mean, "Wherever it is found." The geologic column cannot be found anywhere because it doesn't even specify strata types or strata orders or thicknesses or anything physical like that. It's not something that actually exists. It's conceptual. The Geologic column is a synonym for the geologic timescale. How many times have we told you this? What does it take to force information into that brain of yours?
What actually exists are stratigraphic columns that fit into the framework of the geologic column.
Again, no evidence.
...it is quite clearly a stack of similarly formed rocks,...
Stratigraphic columns, not the geologic column, consist of many things, mostly strata composed of sedimentary rock, but also of salt layers, volcanic ash, volcanic basalt, intrusions, etc.
Again, no evidence.
...while all the nonsense you try to palm off as part of it is nothing like them in shape or size or location.
This is just derogatory accusatory nonsense and definitely not evidence. Nobody here could misdescribe either strata or the geologic column because a) Others here would catch it; and b) There are images and articles about both all over the place.
You've managed to complete yet another completely substanceless post.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 9:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4319
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 145 of 877 (834098)
05-30-2018 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
05-28-2018 9:08 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Finding evidence that supports or refutes scientific articles in magazines is understood to be the reader's responsibility and it is entirely your own fault if you are too lazy or ignorant or stubborn to do that.
But of COURSE, I take it for granted here that everything is my own fault. There is no doubt in my mind that if I said the sky is blue today I'd be told I'm so wrong I shouldn't be allowed to breathe.
And yet, the point went right over your head. Once again, your lack of knowledge is the result of your own rejection of every source of knowledge that has been presented to you here.
[sarcasm]Your martyrdom for "the truth" is noted by everone![/sarcasm]
Faith writes:
There is no doubt in my mind that if I said the sky is blue today I'd be told I'm so wrong I shouldn't be allowed to breathe.
Well, we will never know, will we, since you never say anything true.
And even when you are completely, amazingly wrong and nasty, rude and arrogant, no one has ever said anything close to "You're so wrong you shouldn't be allowed to breathe."
The only participant here who uses that sort of rhetoric is you, toward people who disagree with your political, religious, social, and philosophical views.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 9:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 146 of 877 (834099)
05-30-2018 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
05-28-2018 11:35 PM


Re: A Digression to define the Theory of Evolution
I have again fallen far behind, so I don't know how this discussion of the definition of the theory of evolution has turned out beyond the three responses already posted to your message, but I have these reactions:
  • Why are you bringing up the theory of evolution in a thread in the Geology and the Great Flood forum?
  • Why are you posting a definition that a journalist obtained through interviews? You don't want definitions, even from scientists, that were offered off the cuff and on the spur of the moment. You want definitions that have been given careful thought and been reviewed several times.
  • Why the Live Science website? I never heard of it, but it says it's a general science and technology news site. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't seem like a good choice for seeking definitions.
  • What is wrong with Wikipedia?
  • After all your time here, how can you ask this now?
  • The definition you quoted is sort of okay. What it says is true, it just doesn't say it very well, and if the goal was a detailed definition then there seem to be a few missing elements.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 11:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 4:33 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 147 of 877 (834103)
05-30-2018 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
05-30-2018 12:07 AM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Yes and if all that water rushed over the sides of the canyon all at once then it would create a very big canyon. But it's running in a narrow track and not pouring into the canyon from all sides all at once.
Well I guess you get to show how it's done. Without pontification can you explain how you know that the quantity of water over the time I'm talking about can't produce the effect that we see.
I came upon what seems to be a reasonable explanation:
From 22 minutes until the end discusses the carving and widening of the canyon. I can't see any reason this doesn't make sense of what we see, but you seem confident so perhaps you can avoid the pitfalls you are criticizing the journalists of making by explaining how this idea is certainly wrong.
Show me what you expect from science communicators.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 12:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 5:58 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 6:36 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 148 of 877 (834105)
05-30-2018 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Percy
05-30-2018 3:00 PM


Re: A Digression to define the Theory of Evolution
I did't really intend this thyread to be about only the Jurassic period article or the Flood or anything strictly geological but I wasn't paying attention when it got promoted. I had more in mind collecting instances of dogmatic statements about both geological and evolutionary information without giving the evidence because I was frustrated with having run into both. When it finally dawned on me the thread was miscategorized and we were mostly talking about the Flood anyway I just introduced the evolution question as a "digression" because I really did want to have the information. But I didn't expect it to become the topic. And by that time I was getting frustrating with the thread itself anyway which often happens. So I have no idea what to do with it now.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 3:00 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ringo, posted 05-30-2018 4:41 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 149 of 877 (834106)
05-30-2018 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by RAZD
05-30-2018 11:55 AM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
RAZD I can't SEE your diagram clearly enough. I can't even distinguish between the supposedly light green and dark green. The rest is glaringly white and the print is way too small. And the diagram you post here is almost invisible to my eyes.
But I don't think your concern about elevation matters anyway as I went through my own scenario for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 05-30-2018 11:55 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 9:11 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 150 of 877 (834107)
05-30-2018 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
05-30-2018 4:33 PM


Re: A Digression to define the Theory of Evolution
Faith writes:
I had more in mind collecting instances of dogmatic statements about both geological and evolutionary information without giving the evidence because I was frustrated with having run into both.
If it's about dogmatic statements that you have run into, shouldn't it be you who gives the examples?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 4:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 4:54 PM ringo has seen this message but 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