Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 7:22 PM
26 online now:
4petdinos, AZPaul3, Coragyps, edge, Percy (Admin), xongsmith (6 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,868 Year: 8,904/19,786 Month: 1,326/2,119 Week: 86/576 Day: 86/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Author Topic:   Resident Evil Apocalypse is better than women
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 151 of 170 (143779)
09-21-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Rei
09-21-2004 8:57 PM


Your attempted dodge that this wasn't so much an issue because we don't know the number of men raped in the military is a dodge.

no, it's entirely the point. you're claiming rape as a basis for sexual discrimination. are the women being treated any differently than the men? if you don't know, than it's a pretty weak point to make, isn't it?

Even if the ratios were merely on par with those in the general population (doubtful), that would mean that 91% of the cases were "male rapes female", 8% would be "male rapes male", 0.8% would be "female rapes female", and 0.2% would be "female rapes male". However, seing as I can't find a *single* case of "male rapes male" or "female rapes male" that's made it to the media, or been uncovered in an investigation, I am only left to assume that they're relatively rare, and that we're only seing an increase in the "male rapes female" case.

it's an assumption, which probably comes from very very little knowledge of the military. male rape victims are actually very common in the armed forces, a lot more so than you'd think. any numbers on this would be completely innacurate, since there is a huge hierarchy of honor. it is a largely male based sub-culture, and being victimized in this manner shames men. even in your outside-world numbers, there are a lot more male victims that just have never come forward.

ok, so it's not cool the way the female victims are dealt with. how are the male victims dealt with? you can't claim it's sexist treatment without comparing the treatment of both sides -- otherwise you're the sexist because your just arguing for your side, not equality or betterment for all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Rei, posted 09-21-2004 8:57 PM Rei has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Rei, posted 09-21-2004 9:31 PM arachnophilia has responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1620 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 152 of 170 (143781)
09-21-2004 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by arachnophilia
09-21-2004 6:49 PM


Equalist
quote:
well, i figured that i was for equal rights for women in the political, social, and economic arenas and that made me a feminist. turns out i was wrong.

I guess I just be an Equalist then. It may not be a word, but I'm guessing Feminist wasn't either when they started.

I'll stick with my agriculture, it's healthier for me.

In the 1997 census of agriculture it showed that women own almost half of the private agricultural land in the United States. The number of independent female farmers is steadily increasing.


A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 6:49 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 9:40 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

Rei
Member (Idle past 5176 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 153 of 170 (143785)
09-21-2004 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by arachnophilia
09-21-2004 9:10 PM


Ok, Arachnophilia: Please explain why you would expect the rates of women being raped in the military to be a *lower* percentage of total rapes than in the military than in the general populace, in mixed sex environments. It's hard to find exact numbers; however, I did find the following study on men raped in the military:

http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=367669&PDF=1

It's been moved to pay content since it's now more than a year old, but the google text on the search (cached before it got moved) states "studies have estimated that between 5 and 10 percent of rapes are against men".

While it is not *exclusively* a crime against women, rape IS a crime against women the vast majority of the time. And the problem here is not so much the rapes, but the culture that allows it to continue, and promotes people who think that women should see it as coming with the territory to the rank of general. A culture which gets a "60% of women reporting rapes are lying" rate instead of the civilian 8%. A culture which vehemently resists investigations on the subject until forced to by people going to the press. Etc.

It's the same culture that didn't even allow women to be fighter pilots until recently, so it's not surprising. How can you try and portray something like that as not being a fallback to 19th century social attitudes toward women?

This message has been edited by Rei, 09-21-2004 08:32 PM


"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 9:10 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 9:56 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 154 of 170 (143788)
09-21-2004 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
09-21-2004 9:03 PM


As I showed before, this is simply a ludicrous statement in the face of hundreds of schools adopting paused tenure clocks for pregnancy. Pregnant women simply can't continue the academic pace through their pregnancy, especially in the sciences; this puts them at a disadvantage for making tenure.

you're reading something wrong here buddy. allowing tenure probationary periods to be paused allows women to not have to choose between having a child and working towards a professorial position. and it's not just for pregnant women, it's for people who fall seriously ill, have a death in the family, or other needs more important than school.

but this is just when a career is STARTING. many, many women in academic careers get their degrees and tenure first, and then have children. their careers did not end, and they did not lose their tenure for having a child.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", Arach.

no, it's personal experience. i know women with both children and academic careers.

Given that some 60-70 percent of undergrads are women, these days, wouldn't it be hiring discrimination by definition?

no, you don't hire undergrads, you hire post-grads. some 85% of undergrads take college-algebra. are y ou gonna hire them to teach discrete mathematics?

and most of the people working in academic careers today got hired more than 10 years ago. the people being hired today were undergrads 6-8 years ago.

So what? Again, despite the overwhelmingly black contribution to popular urban culture these days, we don't consider society "black-ized."

of course not, too many whiteys on tv.

Oh, well! Hire the band and we'll dance in the streets! There's one or two women CEO's! Feminism has won

there's two on the fortune 500. i just listed the 13th biggest company in the world, and it's run by a woman. there's a LOT more that are not on the fortune 500. like i said, the percentage is not great and has a long way to go, but it's not like they don't exist.

Boo-fuckin-hoo. Maybe the substantially larger pay for the same work we recieve as men will ease the sting a little bit.

i make 6.50 an hour. i'll call you when i see that substantially larger pay. in fact, i'll call you when i get either of the two raises they owe me. i keep hearing about this bigger pay for men thing, but i'm sure not seeing any of it. in fact, the last women that worked at our company made more than i did.

You know that it's not. You know that what I'm saying is that problems like sexual assault, pay equity, and other examples of sexism are far, far more important than making sure your feelings aren't hurt, Arach. Get over yourself, and don't try to offer such ridiculous strawmen in place of my arguments. You just look foolish.

you said birth control over viagra. i agree with you that birth control is the more important of the two, because more people need it. and i mean actually need. as purely sexual regulators, they should be ranked about equal as optional enhancements, but birth control serves a hormonal function as well. most of the women on birth control that i know are on it to even out their periods.

and like i'm really upset over not having viagra on a health plan. i'm 21, not 72. my feelings are real hurt by you liking vaginas over penises. hell, i even agree with you.

the point is that it's discriminatory, and you were intentionally being derogatory about it.

Oh, I see. You attended one college, so you're an authority on women's studies at all colleges?

no. i didn't say that.

i've taken a class in it. you haven't. no one else here has (except maybe brenna, i forget). yet i'm the one who doesn't understand all the facts? take a class.

i'm not saying it's what people who call themselves feminists are thinking, nor am i saying it's the way feminism should be. it's just the way it IS nowadays, as a school of postmodern thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 9:03 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Rei, posted 09-21-2004 9:51 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 158 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 10:02 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 155 of 170 (143789)
09-21-2004 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by purpledawn
09-21-2004 9:17 PM


Re: Equalist
I guess I['ll] just be an Equalist then

a good philosophy. i'm in favor of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by purpledawn, posted 09-21-2004 9:17 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 10:04 PM arachnophilia has responded

Rei
Member (Idle past 5176 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 156 of 170 (143791)
09-21-2004 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by arachnophilia
09-21-2004 9:39 PM


I didn't want to interfere with your debate with crash, but this really got to me...

quote:
quote:
Oh, well! Hire the band and we'll dance in the streets! There's one or two women CEO's! Feminism has won

there's two on the fortune 500. i just listed the 13th biggest company in the world, and it's run by a woman. there's a LOT more that are not on the fortune 500. like i said, the percentage is not great and has a long way to go, but it's not like they don't exist.


2 out of 500 means that there isn't a problem? Are you crazy? Because you're arguing that there's not a problem. How on earth can you reconcile this?

Also:

quote:
i make 6.50 an hour. i'll call you when i see that substantially larger pay.

Why are you so obsessed with anecdotal cases? I'm sure you know damn well that women on average make 3/4ths of what men make (in the US), and make between 80 and 90% for the same job. This is really evident in things like the Wal Mart numbers that I provided, but it exists across the board.


"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 9:39 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 10:18 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 157 of 170 (143792)
09-21-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Rei
09-21-2004 9:31 PM


Ok, Arachnophilia: Please explain why you would expect the rates of women being raped in the military to be a *lower* percentage of total rapes than in the military than in the general populace, in mixed sex environments.

military is more prone to rape in general.

first of all, we have voluntary service. the people who are there are there because they want to be. while it's not the case that all military personel are prone to violence, the military does attract more of the violent people than say, wallstreet does. the people who have a screw or two loose and just want to kill stuff (pyschopaths) often find appeal in the military. therefore, violent criminals such as rapists will be in a higher precentage in the armed service as compared to elsewhere.

second, the percentage of female personel in the military does not nearly represent the female population of the world. therefore, more rape and other violent crime will be committed against men than in the outside world.

so while an extraordinarily high percent of female servicemen have been raped, alot of men in the service are being raped (or otherwise dehumanized) too.

they're not talking about it, and nothing is being done. it's not being addressed at all.

And the problem here is not so much the rapes, but the culture that allows it to continue, and promotes people who think that women should see it as coming with the territory to the rank of general. A culture which gets a "60% of women reporting rapes are lying" rate instead of the civilian 8%. A culture which vehemently resists investigations on the subject until forced to by people going to the press. Etc.

agreed, but it's not sexist unles they're treating the men differently.

While it is not *exclusively* a crime against women, rape IS a crime against women the vast majority of the time.

rape is a crime against a human being, male or female.

the definition is a bit hazy too. i know i've been situations wher, had i been a woman, i could have won a rape case, easily. and there was one night when i bought a six-pack for me and my girlfriend. in my state, since i paid for more than half her alcohol that night, it was technically rape.

It's the same culture that didn't even allow women to be fighter pilots until recently, so it's not surprising. How can you try and portray something like that as not being a fallback to 19th century social attitudes toward women?

oh no, don't get me wrong. i'm not defending the military. i hate the military. in fact, i think they're outright stupid.

especially because studies have shown for YEARS that women tend to make better fighter pilots than men.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Rei, posted 09-21-2004 9:31 PM Rei has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 10:05 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 170 (143793)
09-21-2004 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by arachnophilia
09-21-2004 9:39 PM


but this is just when a career is STARTING. many, many women in academic careers get their degrees and tenure first, and then have children.

Right, obviously. Nobody loses tenure for having a child. But having a child can prevent you from getting it. These women you refer to had to make a choice between tenure and childbearing; that's not a choice men have to face.

Maybe I wasn't clear what I was talking about. I may have overstated my claim, by accident.

no, you don't hire undergrads, you hire post-grads.

Who, presumably, started out as undergrads.

We've got a pipeline here, where 70 percent women are going in, but a lot, lot less than that are emerging with academic positions. And you don't think that sexual discrimination is a potential factor?

like i said, the percentage is not great and has a long way to go, but it's not like they don't exist.

I didn't say that they didn't exist, and the fact that we have such a long way to go proves my point.

i make 6.50 an hour.

That's a good $.75 over what I make.

you said birth control over viagra.

Where? Show me where. Misrepresenting my argument isn't going to get you very far here.

the point is that it's discriminatory, and you were intentionally being derogatory about it.

Having birth control on the same plans as viagra, which, until recently, was not done? And still may not be universal? Where's the discrimination? Oh, I mean, I see the discrimination against women, obviously, but I don't see the discrimination against you and I.

no. i didn't say that.

No, you did say that:

quote:
That's all women's studies is, anyway. At least it was at my school.
quote:
you're obviously missing something.

The only way for you to know I had "missed" something at my school is if you had knowledge about women's studies programs at my school. Unless you're a Gustavus grad (go Gusties!), you don't have that knowledge.

it's just the way it IS nowadays, as a school of postmodern thought.

Right. And postmodernism is a school of criticism. Your own experience proves my point; you haven't mentioned doing anything in the class that wasn't criticism of literature or other reflections of society.

AbE: Do you understand what I mean when I refer to "criticism"? You equivcated on the term in post 142 so I'm not sure. Maybe you were being witty.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-21-2004 09:06 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 9:39 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 10:44 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 170 (143794)
09-21-2004 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by arachnophilia
09-21-2004 9:40 PM


a good philosophy. i'm in favor of it.

So, we're all in the same boat, but we're arguing about what to call it?

Why don't we go by what it was called first: feminism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 9:40 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 10:54 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 170 (143795)
09-21-2004 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by arachnophilia
09-21-2004 9:56 PM


they're not talking about it, and nothing is being done. it's not being addressed at all.

Data, please?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 9:56 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 161 of 170 (143797)
09-21-2004 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rei
09-21-2004 9:51 PM


2 out of 500 means that there isn't a problem? Are you crazy? Because you're arguing that there's not a problem. How on earth can you reconcile this?

nobody reads anymore.

quote:
like i said, the percentage is not great and has a long way to go, but it's not like they don't exist.

yes, there's a long way to go. there is still a problem. my point was that things are improving, and are not as bad as people make it out to be.

35% of mba's are women. what percentage of business jobs are held by women? 35%, according to eeoc. that's a start. now, for some other reason, only 0.004% of fortune 500 companies are lead by women. who are the men leading the rest? are they new companies or old companies? how long have they been ceo? how many ceo's would give up their job, just to be fair for a statistic?

Why are you so obsessed with anecdotal cases? I'm sure you know damn well that women on average make 3/4ths of what men make (in the US), and make between 80 and 90% for the same job. This is really evident in things like the Wal Mart numbers that I provided, but it exists across the board.

i don't have much to relate to other than my own experience.

and yes, i know the numbers. it's not great, but it's getting better not worse. and there are a few monsters like walmart who should be boycotted ANYWAYS for all of the really nasty things they do to their employees, not just the women (even if they do get most of the badness).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rei, posted 09-21-2004 9:51 PM Rei has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 162 of 170 (143801)
09-21-2004 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by crashfrog
09-21-2004 10:02 PM


that's not a choice men have to face.

a generalization. true a lot of the time, but men also don't grow babies inside them. although there are fathers who give up careers to look after children while mom works.

Who, presumably, started out as undergrads.

We've got a pipeline here, where 70 percent women are going in, but a lot, lot less than that are emerging with academic positions. And you don't think that sexual discrimination is a potential factor?

yes, but i think you're skewing numbers.
a. not everyone who starts college finishes it
b. not everyone who finishes college does graduate work
c. not everyone who does gradute work gets a degree
d. not everyone who gets a degree gets hired
e. not everyone who gets hired gets tenure.

discrimination can come in the last two steps, sure. but what percentage drops out? what percentage goes straight to another career from graduating? you can't account for those things, there are too many steps and too many variables. it's a very, very weak argument. it just looks cool because the numbers are so different.

maybe a few women candidates get passed over because of their gender. and i agree that doing that is wrong. but you can't argue that's what happened to almost ALL OF THEM.

Having birth control on the same plans as viagra, which, until recently, was not done? And still may not be universal? Where's the discrimination? Oh, I mean, I see the discrimination against women, obviously, but I don't see the discrimination against you and I.

no, i was talking about your wording. "manhood problems." your wording was discriminatory and derogatory.

Where? Show me where. Misrepresenting my argument isn't going to get you very far here

ok, so i guess it was only implied. but your argument was wrong, anyways, i proved it, so let's drop it?

No, you did say that:

let's review. my text is easy to pick out because i'm too lazy to capitalize letters.

me: but, uh, like i said. have you taken any women's studies classes?

you: Not specifically, but I'm familiar with feminist criticism through general literary theory classes. That's all women's studies is, anyway. At least it was at my school.

me: you're obviously missing something. even the non-activist camps do a lot more than criticize literature, they criticize all of society, popular opinion, science, math, just about everything. but i agree that it's just criticism.

you: Oh, I see. You attended one college, so you're an authority on women's studies at all colleges?

me: no. i didn't say that [i was an authority on women's studies at all colleges].

you: No, you did say that: [etc]

who claimed to be the authority on women's studies classes at all colleges? looks like you, which is funny, seeing as how you've never taken one course in it. i've taken calculus at college too. does that make me authority on it at all colleges? no. does it give me a better understanding of it than someone who saw calculus used one time on csi? yes. but is calculus any different if i'd gone to say texas a&m or mit?

Right. And postmodernism is a school of criticism. Your own experience proves my point; you haven't mentioned doing anything in the class that wasn't criticism of literature or other reflections of society.

i never said it wasn't! in fact, that's my major problem with postmodern feminism: all it is is criticism, or anything and everything. it's not activism, it's not for women's rights, it's not for equality. it's "problematizing" stuff. that's the point i've been trying to make all along!

AbE: Do you understand what I mean when I refer to "criticism"? You equivcated on the term in post 142 so I'm not sure. Maybe you were being witty.

yes, but applied to feminism i mean it in the strictly connotative meaning: "to deride." it's not so much a sad attempt at wit as an observation of what they actually do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 10:02 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 11:23 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 163 of 170 (143802)
09-21-2004 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by crashfrog
09-21-2004 10:04 PM


So, we're all in the same boat, but we're arguing about what to call it?

Why don't we go by what it was called first: feminism.

because, as i've been trying to say all along, that's not at all what feminism is.

i'll give you an example of what i mean that as nothing to do with anything here. the ancient egyptians are an oriental people. that area of the world, along with what we call the middle east and turkey is called the orient. but when you think of oriental art, do you think egyptian? babylonian? no, you think chinese. which is right? 99% of people will agree that chinese art is oriental, but they're wrong.

lots of people think feminism is about equal rights for women. i'm just trying to correct that misconception. feminism has evolved beyond that point.

they claim to be about equality and against bias still, but listen to the idealogy long enough and the contradictions start to stick out.

and since feminism largely "problematizes" language, i'm gonna problematize their name: if it's about equality, call equalism or something to that effect (hell, even communism, i don't care). but calling it "feminism" is not better than "masculinism" because it promots one gender over the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 10:04 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 11:25 PM arachnophilia has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 170 (143804)
09-21-2004 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by arachnophilia
09-21-2004 10:44 PM


true a lot of the time, but men also don't grow babies inside them.

So, women, by virtue of biology, should have no recourse?

Yes, men don't grow babies inside them. That's why we give women a break on the tenure clock, to reflect biological reality. It's the same reason we build wheelchair ramps.

Thanks, by the way, for addressing me like I'm an idiot.

but you can't argue that's what happened to almost ALL OF THEM.

I don't recall making that argument. For someone who's complaining about people not reading, your posts continue to bear little relation to mine.

no, i was talking about your wording. "manhood problems." your wording was discriminatory and derogatory.

Your assertion that percieved injusticies against men in popular entertainment was somehow more important than real inequity for women was an insult to me or any thinking person. I merely returned the favor.

who claimed to be the authority on women's studies classes at all colleges?

I claimed to be an authority in regards to my own experience with women's studies at my own college, which I am. I never claimed that my experiences were universal - in fact, I've been careful to specifically avoid making that claim - unlike you.

You're the one who told me that I was "missing something" at my own college.

yes. but is calculus any different if i'd gone to say texas a&m or mit?

Your experience of the class might be substantially different - as a matter of fact, speaking of calculus, I once had a calculus professor who taught the class with a decidedly feminist bent.

It is experiences of classes we're discussing, here, and you've repeatedly told me that somehow I "missed something"; that I didn't have the experience that I've said I had. That's a considerable arrogant presumption on your part.

in fact, that's my major problem with postmodern feminism: all it is is criticism, or anything and everything.

But what you've described is not feminism, it's women's studies. You're conflating feminist literary theory with the movement of feminism, which has been my point all along.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 10:44 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by arachnophilia, posted 09-22-2004 12:02 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 170 (143805)
09-21-2004 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by arachnophilia
09-21-2004 10:54 PM


because, as i've been trying to say all along, that's not at all what feminism is.

Who are you to speak for feminism?

I'm a feminist; I say that that refers to activism for gender equality. And you're going to have the arrogant presumption to tell me I'm not what I am? Please.

feminism has evolved beyond that point.

Not as long as there is gender inequity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 10:54 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2004 11:38 PM crashfrog has responded

RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019