Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hitch is dead
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 271 of 560 (875332)
04-22-2020 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Phat
04-22-2020 10:23 PM


Re: Tangles Insistence On Defining Gods Responsibilities
Phat writes:
Because there is no rational argument apart from belief.
Belief in what though. I contend that there is no rational argument to support the belief that we exist only as a result in mindless processes evolving form an endless stream of mindless processes all resulting in life as we know it.
IMHO it is more rational to believe that there is an intelligent agency responsible for our existence. To get from deism to theism is another discussion.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Phat, posted 04-22-2020 10:23 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2020 12:46 AM GDR has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 272 of 560 (875333)
04-23-2020 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by GDR
04-22-2020 10:47 PM


no rational argument ?
quote:
I contend that there is no rational argument to support the belief that we exist only as a result in mindless processes evolving form an endless stream of mindless processes all resulting in life as we know it.
It is the most parsimonious explanation, with no obvious inadequacies. That makes it the most rational explanation. And your desperate rationalisations suggest that you know that.
quote:
IMHO it is more rational to believe that there is an intelligent agency responsible for our existence
Funny how you can’t find any decent rational arguments for it, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 04-22-2020 10:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 04-23-2020 2:01 AM PaulK has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 273 of 560 (875336)
04-23-2020 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by PaulK
04-23-2020 12:46 AM


Re: no rational argument ?
PaulK writes:
It is the most parsimonious explanation, with no obvious inadequacies. That makes it the most rational explanation. And your desperate rationalisations suggest that you know that.
The obvious inadequacy is that the evolutionary process requires a process to get it started, which required a process etc, all by mindless chance. The most parsimonious answer is that an intelligent agency is behind it all regardless of how it was accomplished.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2020 12:46 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2020 2:20 AM GDR has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 274 of 560 (875337)
04-23-2020 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by GDR
04-23-2020 2:01 AM


Re: no rational argument ?
quote:
The obvious inadequacy is that the evolutionary process requires a process to get it started, which required a process etc, all by mindless chance
That’s a nice example of rationalisation. Any explanatory chain has to eventually run out, so that’s a problem for any view. And since there is no clear need for intelligence, assuming unintelligent causes is the parsimonious view (also note that intelligence is one of the things that cries out for explanation so assuming it without explanation actually is a problem)
quote:
The most parsimonious answer is that an intelligent agency is behind it all regardless of how it was accomplished.
That’s the sort of nonsense answer I’d expect from Faith. Parsimony is about throwing out unnecessary assumptions, not making massive assumptions you happen to like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 04-23-2020 2:01 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 04-23-2020 8:29 PM PaulK has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 275 of 560 (875338)
04-23-2020 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by GDR
04-22-2020 7:28 PM


Re: God and suffering
GDR writes:
I don't see why that's circular. It involves creating a world that involved bringing about creatures that were able to be involved in the creation of more life. It evolved the way it is.
'It is the way it is' has no explanatory value. All Polkinghorne is saying is that if god wanted us to be this way, then the way we got to be this way is necessary. That's circular, explains nothing and does not even need to be true.
For almost all of the time Christians had held beliefs, they believed that our existence was puffed into being all at once as we see it now. That, at least has explanatory value and requires a god. Now that we know that both the universe and all living things evolved over billions of years, the god is no longer required except - in a deist's view - at the inception. Hence the need for rationalisations.
Not at all. It's an argument for a god that created beings, that would being given the ability to sub-consciously connect to His loving concern for the creation, and choose to care for that creation.
That's just poetic pulpit waffle.
You could do better I suppose [] So maybe God does have limitations
That's the understatement of the year. It also removes god's omnipotence. Oops, there goes a cornerstone of monotheism.
Every living thing eh. Personally I'm not feeling the torture.
Yes, every living thing that there has ever been and will ever be suffers and dies. You are not an exception. Maybe you'll get lucky and get hit by a bus rather than die slowly in pain like my brother-in-law, but you will die. So far, you've had the best life available to modern humans - being born in a wealthy Western country with access to education, work, justice and health systems. You tell us that you spend a lot of time you helping the suffering, making life better for those not so lucky. Please don't pretend that suffering doesn't exist. I keep reminding you, is not about you or me.
And you know that how? The Garden of Eden is a metaphorical location and heaven is simply God's dimension.
And you know that how?
Of course both are imaginary. I'm simply playing back believer's beliefs. Both are biblical. You guys just pick and choose and rationalise.
Also the goal of ultimately getting to heaven is the Platonic beliefs that crept into Christianity early on. The Biblical view is that this world will be renewed and that somehow God's heavenly, and our earthly dimension in some manner.
Your interpretation of the biblical view is simply one of several. It's another belief. But you all admit to an afterlife. Are you telling me that the afterlife will contain suffering and death?
In the meantime I'll let go deal with that stuff and get on as best I can with my life now in this universe/dimension.
Which does not require all the artefacts of religious practice and paraphernalia.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 04-22-2020 7:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by GDR, posted 04-23-2020 8:40 PM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 276 of 560 (875339)
04-23-2020 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Phat
04-22-2020 10:23 PM


Re: Tangles Insistence On Defining Gods Responsibilities
Phat writes:
You likely would state that IF God exists and is all-powerful He not only has the ability but the responsibility to shield us and protect us from every harmful event that comes our way.
No I don't say that. I say that if your god is a loving all powerful god, then he wouldn't have created anything like the universe that exists.
Of course, we can claim to define His responsibility, but we are not the final arbiter of His duties and responsibilities.
And point out the contradictions between your belief and his values. A creature that ran such an obnoxious experiment as this is not the benevolent god that you worship, nor the god of the new testament.
There are certain conditions on this planet which are a part of the natural order and which...even if God had the power to change...are meant to be part of our character development.
If you practiced even a tiny part of those 'character development' activities on your own child you'd be imprisoned for life - if you survived the public wrath.
And of course, you have already concluded that God is a myth...despite having no conclusive proof that this is so. So on and on we go.
As have you, save one.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Phat, posted 04-22-2020 10:23 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Phat, posted 04-23-2020 9:32 PM Tangle has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 277 of 560 (875345)
04-23-2020 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by PaulK
04-23-2020 2:20 AM


Re: no rational argument ?
PaulK writes:
That’s a nice example of rationalisation. Any explanatory chain has to eventually run out, so that’s a problem for any view. And since there is no clear need for intelligence, assuming unintelligent causes is the parsimonious view
And that is how you rationalize your way around an endless non-evidenced stream of processes to arrive at our present world.
We have no way of knowing whether there is a need for an intelligent agent or not. Tangle claims that the process is the agency. That is a belief. WE can study the evolutionary process all we want but all that is going to give us is the latest process that got us to where we are. We don't know whether an intelligent agent was required or not.
PaulK writes:
also note that intelligence is one of the things that cries out for explanation so assuming it without explanation actually is a problem)
Sure it's a problem. Of course the theistic view is that God is not restricted to our one dimension of time and is eternal.
Of course I don't know that nut IMHO it makes a great deal more sense to believe that than it does to believe that sentient life could have arisen from mindless chemicals without even asking where those chemicals came from.
PaulK writes:
That’s the sort of nonsense answer I’d expect from Faith. Parsimony is about throwing out unnecessary assumptions, not making massive assumptions you happen to like.
OK, but then that is the case for both of us. You are simply assuming that we are the result of mindlessness and claiming that no intelligent agency is necessary.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2020 2:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2020 12:44 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 278 of 560 (875346)
04-23-2020 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Tangle
04-23-2020 3:23 AM


Re: God and suffering
Tangle writes:
Yes, every living thing that there has ever been and will ever be suffers and dies. You are not an exception. Maybe you'll get lucky and get hit by a bus rather than die slowly in pain like my brother-in-law, but you will die. So far, you've had the best life available to modern humans - being born in a wealthy Western country with access to education, work, justice and health systems. You tell us that you spend a lot of time you helping the suffering, making life better for those not so lucky. Please don't pretend that suffering doesn't exist. I keep reminding you, is not about you or me.
Yes, there is suffering and lots of it. I have acknowledged that suffering is the biggest problem that Christians have to face. We can reject God on that grounds and easily justify it. However, I chosen to accept that suffering is a part of this world and that God suffers along with us. Jesus suffered on the cross. God gets it.
On that basis I simply assume on faith that this is how it has to be and do my best to respond to the call to live out the life as seen in my signature.
Tangle writes:
That's the understatement of the year. It also removes god's omnipotence. Oops, there goes a cornerstone of monotheism.
As you have said before, except I don't know what it has to do with monotheism.
Tangle writes:
Your interpretation of the biblical view is simply one of several. It's another belief. But you all admit to an afterlife. Are you telling me that the afterlife will contain suffering and death?
Yes, it is all belief. It isn't something we can examine in a test tube or with a telescope,
Edited by GDR, : typo

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 04-23-2020 3:23 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Tangle, posted 04-24-2020 1:27 AM GDR has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 279 of 560 (875348)
04-23-2020 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Tangle
04-23-2020 3:58 AM


RE: Tangles Claim Regarding An Inconsistent and flawed God.
Tangle writes:
I say that if your god is a loving all-powerful God, then he wouldn't have created anything like the universe that exists.
Correct me if I'm wrong...but what you basically say is that if the universe exists and arose without a Creator than it is what it is, but that if God were involved He has a lot of 'splaining to do...in order to satisfy the charges that are leveled through humans. Essentially you are saying that God cannot be all-powerful and all-loving because___(fill in the blank)_________________. You are framing the argument so that belief in God makes no sense.
Tangle writes:
point out the contradictions between your belief and his values.
OK, but I will only use the red-letter words of Jesus in order to define God. I won't use the OT because I have no way of knowing if God were actually talking or if humans wrote what they felt He said and/or meant to satisfy their own behaviors. It is clearer with Jesus.
I will use a few precepts from the OT, however. We can debate the rationality of them later.
Allow me a bit to study what the book actually says that "God" and/or Jesus actually says.

The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.Calvin Coolidge
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

- You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.~Andre Gide

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Tangle, posted 04-23-2020 3:58 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Tangle, posted 04-24-2020 1:36 AM Phat has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 280 of 560 (875350)
04-24-2020 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by GDR
04-23-2020 8:29 PM


Re: no rational argument ?
quote:
And that is how you rationalize your way around an endless non-evidenced stream of processes to arrive at our present world.
It’s not a rationalisation. I don’t accept your decree that there has to be an infinite regress. That’s just your invention.
quote:
We have no way of knowing whether there is a need for an intelligent agent or not. Tangle claims that the process is the agency. That is a belief. WE can study the evolutionary process all we want but all that is going to give us is the latest process that got us to where we are. We don't know whether an intelligent agent was required or not.
Then assuming that there is an intelligent agent involved is not a rational position.
quote:
Sure it's a problem. Of course the theistic view is that God is not restricted to our one dimension of time and is eternal.
Yes you handwave away the problems of your assumption with another problematic assumption. But it doesn’t address the issue. So that’s just another example of irrationality.
quote:
Of course I don't know that nut IMHO it makes a great deal more sense to believe that than it does to believe that sentient life could have arisen from mindless chemicals without even asking where those chemicals came from.
In fact it makes less sense if we know that the chemicals were present. Accepting known facts without an explanation is fine. Making things up and calling them facts is not. But it is also something of a strawman since science certainly is looking into the origins of the chemicals. So there’s a double dose or irrationality there.
quote:
OK, but then that is the case for both of us. You are simply assuming that we are the result of mindlessness and claiming that no intelligent agency is necessary.
Well no. Since we don’t know of any need the parsimonious position is to assume that there isn’t one. So again you fail to understand parsimony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 04-23-2020 8:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by GDR, posted 04-24-2020 1:56 AM PaulK has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 281 of 560 (875351)
04-24-2020 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by GDR
04-23-2020 8:40 PM


Re: God and suffering
GDR writes:
Yes, it is all belief.
And I'm providing you with reasons why the belief is an error.
But you skipped answering whether there is suffering and death in the afterlife?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by GDR, posted 04-23-2020 8:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by GDR, posted 04-24-2020 2:13 AM Tangle has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 282 of 560 (875352)
04-24-2020 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Phat
04-23-2020 9:32 PM


RE: Tangles Claim Regarding An Inconsistent and flawed God.
Phat writes:
Correct me if I'm wrong...but what you basically say is that if the universe exists and arose without a Creator than it is what it is, but that if God were involved He has a lot of 'splaining to do...in order to satisfy the charges that are leveled through humans. Essentially you are saying that God cannot be all-powerful and all-loving because___(fill in the blank)_________________. You are framing the argument so that belief in God makes no sense.
It's not a new argument Phat, it's been made here dozens of times. Your god can not be both all powerful and all loving if he creates/allows suffering.
GDR has surrendered the all powerful bit to get round it. A massive weakening of theology.
OK, but I will only use the red-letter words of Jesus in order to define God. I won't use the OT because I have no way of knowing if God were actually talking or if humans wrote what they felt He said and/or meant to satisfy their own behaviors. It is clearer with Jesus.
So now, like GDR, you're throwing away half of the bible. Your god is shrinking in size and shape with every sentence.
Allow me a bit to study what the book actually says that "God" and/or Jesus actually says.
Surely you know that already - it's a small book, not the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. You guys are supposed to be reading it all day everyday...
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Phat, posted 04-23-2020 9:32 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Phat, posted 04-25-2020 3:04 PM Tangle has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 283 of 560 (875353)
04-24-2020 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by PaulK
04-24-2020 12:44 AM


Re: no rational argument ?
PaulK writes:
It’s not a rationalisation. I don’t accept your decree that there has to be an infinite regress. That’s just your invention.
OK. Let's make it easy. Just outline the process that was responsible for the process of evolution. Maybe when you've done that start thinking about the process that started that process.
GDR writes:
We have no way of knowing whether there is a need for an intelligent agent or not. Tangle claims that the process is the agency. That is a belief. WE can study the evolutionary process all we want but all that is going to give us is the latest process that got us to where we are. We don't know whether an intelligent agent was required or not.
PaulK writes:
Then assuming that there is an intelligent agent involved is not a rational position.
...then assuming that there is no intelligent agency involved isn't a rational position either. In either case we look at what we know and come to a subjective conclusion. I have subjectively concluded that sentient life evolving through a series of mindless chemical processes is far less likely than there being an intelligent agency responsible for all of the processes. I know that Tangle would say that only gets us to deism. It is a different discussion to get to theism from deism.
PaulK writes:
Yes you handwave away the problems of your assumption with another problematic assumption. But it doesn’t address the issue. So that’s just another example of irrationality.
But the issue is how do we get sentient life from the mindless fundamental particles from the big bang. That is without even asking where those particles were before the BB. Did that all happen with or without intelligent agency?
PaulK writes:
Well no. Since we don’t know of any need the parsimonious position is to assume that there isn’t one. So again you fail to understand parsimony.
That just isn't correct. Your position requires a series of processes each requiring a cause. I take the parsimonious position that there is only one cause which is that there is an intelligent agency responsible for the whole shebang.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2020 12:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2020 2:16 AM GDR has replied
 Message 286 by Tangle, posted 04-24-2020 2:18 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 284 of 560 (875354)
04-24-2020 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Tangle
04-24-2020 1:27 AM


Re: God and suffering
Tangle writes:
And I'm providing you with reasons why the belief is an error.
As I have provided you with reasons that your belief is in error. And, if you want to say that you have no belief then how about settling on your belief that I am wrong.
Tangle writes:
But you skipped answering whether there is suffering and death in the afterlife?
Well I do believe that in the next life our world won't be subject to time in one direction as we know it, and as a result death and decay aren't a factor. I don't believe that there will be suffering as we know it, but I do believe that the lives that we are living now will have an impact on how we live in the next life. I tend to think of it in the ways that your favourite philosopher C S Lewis wrote about it in The Great Divorce and in some ways even more so in The Last Battle. I do believe that we won't be subjected to a theological quiz to make sure we got our theology right.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Tangle, posted 04-24-2020 1:27 AM Tangle has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 285 of 560 (875355)
04-24-2020 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by GDR
04-24-2020 1:56 AM


Re: no rational argument ?
quote:
OK. Let's make it easy. Just outline the process that was responsible for the process of evolution. Maybe when you've done that start thinking about the process that started that process.
That’s just changing the subject.
So let’s deal with the original point. You don’t get to artificially limit the possibilities available to me. And to accuse me of rationalisation because I refuse to accept your diktat is pretty disgusting.
And to answer your question I think the idea that there is a process responsible for the process of evolution is daft.
quote:
...then assuming that there is no intelligent agency involved isn't a rational position either.
Yes it is. Parsimony is rational.
quote:
In either case we look at what we know and come to a subjective conclusion. I have subjectively concluded that sentient life evolving through a series of mindless chemical processes is far less likely than there being an intelligent agency responsible for all of the processes. I know that Tangle would say that only gets us to deism. It is a different discussion to get to theism from deism
However, my position is more rational which is the point of discussion. Your opinion lacks any firm basis.
quote:
But the issue is how do we get sentient life from the mindless fundamental particles from the big bang. That is without even asking where those particles were before the BB. Did that all happen with or without intelligent agency?
In the absence of any solid reason to think otherwise the rational answer is yes. And in fact we do know quite a bit about these things and nowhere do we see any clear sign of intelligent agency.
quote:
That just isn't correct. Your position requires a series of processes each requiring a cause.
So you say, but I don’t assume any processes without evidence. The idea that I believe in an infinite chain of additional processes is simply something you made up.
quote:
I take the parsimonious position that there is only one cause which is that there is an intelligent agency responsible for the whole shebang.
That isn’t parsimonious at all. My actual position is the parsimonious one because it avoids all the unnecessary assumptions of yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by GDR, posted 04-24-2020 1:56 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by GDR, posted 04-24-2020 10:26 AM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024