Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 6:29 AM
14 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,955 Year: 4,992/19,786 Month: 1,114/873 Week: 10/460 Day: 10/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   Harvard Researcher May Have Fabricated Data
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 65 (577652)
08-29-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 10:08 PM


Are you trying to tell me that you don't believe that scientists who are hired by large companies like pharmaceutical companies or oil and environment companies, don't withhold data they know is damaging to their company, or skew results that paint their companies interests in the best possible light?

Just look at virtually ANY self-funded research into the ill effects of a companies product and try to tell me you honestly believe this. It is not even possible to be that naive.

Not at all.

Do you read what I post?

Contract and Trade Secret Laws do lead to what you describe. But that has nothing to do with the Scientific Method or the community of Scientists. And guess what, when that happens it is the Scientific Community that exposes such practices and sanctions the people involved.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 10:08 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-30-2010 7:51 AM jar has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 17 of 65 (577654)
08-29-2010 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 7:23 PM


Bolderdash writes:

Surely you are not also going to claim that because a guy lie and cheated, and was caught by a major university, and they actually did something about it, that this is a great badge of honor for the scientific community are you?
The Catholic church also punished a few priests you know?


(1) Did the scientific community spend hundreds of millions of dollars to cover these up like the catholic church?

(2) His own students turned him in. Can you say the same about those priests and the catholic church?

(3) What about all those miracle healers like Peter Popoff?

That's right, it took a gay atheist skeptic to expose this fraud instead of you hollier than thou religionists. How do you explain that?

(4) This is a classic example of science's self-correcting nature. It is impossible for any researcher to commit fraud without somebody blowing the whistle. In this case, his own students did before any other researchers tried to replicate his experiments. And even if they hadn't, eventually people who couldn't replicate the results of his experiments would have called him on it.

Can the same thing be said about the faith healers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 7:23 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by archaeologist, posted 08-30-2010 7:24 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 65 (577666)
08-30-2010 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 7:23 PM


The Catholic church also punished a few priests you know?

For the wholesale rape of children. Priests who raped hundreds of children were punished.

This guy made up some data. If the general ethics of a system or organization can be judged by what they let you get away with before they slap your wrist, then I have to say the scientific community comes out ahead by that standard.

That he got away with it for so long, and rose to such a place of prominence - that's a black mark on the nation's public university research apparatus, no question. Catching him goes a ways towards correcting the damage but there are going to be thousands of journals out there with his fraudulent work in them.

That's not cool, and that's not the scientific system functioning as it should. We shouldn't be too quick to pat ourselves on the back about this. But comparing scientific fraud to systematic rape of hundreds of children? I don't see how a reasonable person can draw that equivalence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 7:23 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 19 of 65 (577674)
08-30-2010 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 7:23 PM


Surely you are not also going to claim that because a guy lie and cheated, and was caught by a major university, and they actually did something about it, that this is a great badge of honor for the scientific community are you?

No, that's just ordinary good practice.

It is, however, a shining example of virtue by comparison with creationists, faith-healers, and snake-oil salesmen.

The Catholic church also punished a few priests you know?

And concealed their crimes. If they'd turned all the kiddy-fiddlers in to the police, one would have nothing to say against them on this score.

I wonder what you think would be evidence for some LACK of ethics in the scientific community-if they never caught anyone cheating? If they never had written a letter demanding action, and never reprimanded anyone, would that mean that cheating must be rampant?

Scientists have the means, motive and opportunity to cheat. If no-one was ever detected in fraud we would have to conclude either that all scientists receive impeccable moral standards at the same time they get their BScs, or that no-one was bothering to look. And the presumption would have to be in favor of the latter.

If from now on no athlete was ever caught using performance-enhancing drugs, would you suspect (a) that the morality fairy had waved her magic wand and made all athletes honest from then on in, or (b) that someone had invented a completely undetectable performance-enhancing drug?

BTW, Freud was never rebuffed, or discredited.

If he was never discredited, what makes you think that he should have been?

He is still widely regarded today by many in the scientific community.

Who?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 7:23 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 20 of 65 (577697)
08-30-2010 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 7:23 PM


No you are wrong: at least in the UK where interventions need to be evidenced for positive outcomes. Freud's influence on modern mental health practice is practically non existent because of the lack of supportive evidence for his crack pot theories.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 7:23 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 21 of 65 (577705)
08-30-2010 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 7:23 PM


Surely you are not also going to claim that because a guy lie and cheated, and was caught by a major university, and they actually did something about it, that this is a great badge of honor for the scientific community are you?

I am not going to claim that because a guy lied and cheated this is a great badge of honour for the scientific community.

That a guy lied and cheated is almost an inevitability in any human endevour. It is neither an honour nor is it necessarily a stain on on science. It's to be expected.

What I am, and what others have likewise claimed, is that 'honour' is gained in the method of handling cheats.

There is no honour in football where one player assaults another. There is honour in football when a player is sent to prison, given a playing ban, and a hefty fine for assaulting an opponent during a game.

The Catholic church also punished a few priests you know?

From what I can tell, the main executive branch of the Catholic Church has gone out of its way for thousands of years to avoid looking bad by whatever means necessary. Prosecute the occasional transgressor, move a transgressor to another location in another case, bribe/threaten the victims in yet another, commit mass slaughter in another, torture in yet another, book burnings, legal wranglings, etc etc This does not strike me as being a particularly honourable way to deal with things.

I wonder what you think would be evidence for some LACK of ethics in the scientific community-if they never caught anyone cheating?

No - that would be suspicious in its own right! Evidence would include things like concerns about ethics are raised by small groups and individuals who are sufficiently close to detect them - which are denied, ignored, glossed over etc by scientific institutions.

BTW, Freud was never rebuffed, or discredited. He is still widely regarded today by many in the scientific community.

quote:
Freudian theory is now, at this point of time, extremely controversial and there is a lot of well-known criticisms and attacks on Freud. This is just actually an excellent book on The Memory Wars by Frederick Crews, which--and Frederick Crews is one of the strongest and most passionate critics of Freud. And the problems with Freud go like this. There are two ways you could reject a theory. There are two problems with the scientific theory. One way you could reject a theory is that it could be wrong. So, suppose I have a theory that the reason why some children have autism, a profound developmental disorder, is because their mothers don't love them enough. This was a popular theory for many years. It's a possible theory. It just turns out to be wrong but another way--And so one way to attack and address a scientific theory is to view it as just to see whether or not it works. But there's a different problem a theory could have. A theory could be so vague and all encompassing that it can't even be tested. And this is one of the main critiques of Freud. The idea could be summed up by a quotation from the physicist Wolfgang Pauli. And Pauli was asked his opinion about another physicist. And Pauli said this: "That guy's work is crap. He's not right. He's not even wrong." And the criticism about Freud is that he's not even wrong.

The issue of vagueness is summarized in a more technical way by the philosopher Karl Popper who described--who introduced the term of falsifiability. The idea of falsifiability is that what distinguishes science from non science is that scientific predictions make strong claims about the world and these claims are of a sort that they could be proven wrong. If they couldn't be proven wrong, they're not interesting enough to be science. So, for example, within psychology the sort of claims we'll be entertaining throughout the course include claims like, damage to the hippocampus causes failures of certain sorts of memory, or everywhere in the world men on average want to have more sexual partners than women, or exposure to violent television tends to make children themselves more violent. Now, are they true or are they false? Well, we'll talk about that, but the point here is they can be false. They're interesting enough that they can be tested and as such they go to--they might be wrong but they graduate to the level of a scientific theory.

...

Arguably, Freud fails the test because Freudian theory is often so vague and flexible that it can't really be tested in any reliable way. A big problem with this is a lot of Freudian theory is claimed to be validated in the course of psychoanalysis. So, when you ask people, "Why do you believe in Freud?" they won't say, "Oh, because of this experiment, that experiment, this data set and that data set." What they'll say is, "It's--The Freudian theory proves itself in the course of psychoanalysis the success of psychoanalysis." But it's unreliable. The problem is, say, Freud says to a patient, "You hate your mother." The patient says, "Wow. That makes sense." Freud says, "I'm right." The patient--Freud says, "You hate your mother," and the patient says, "No, I don't. That's titillating. That's disgusting." Freud says, "Your anger shows this idea is painful to you. You have repressed it from consciousness. I am right."
And the problem is the same sort of dynamic plays itself out even in the scientific debate back and forth. So Freud--Freudian psychologists--I'm putting Freud here but what I mean is well-known defenders of Freud will make some claims like: adult personality traits are shaped by the course of psychosexual development; all dreams are disguised wish fulfillment; psychoanalysis is the best treatment for mental disorders. Scientists will respond, "I disagree. There's little or no evidence supporting those claims." And the Freudian response is, "Your rejection of my ideas shows that they are distressing to you. This is because I am right." And this is often followed up, seriously enough. "You have deep psychological problems."
And now, I don't want to caricature Freudians. A lot of Freudians have tried and made a research program of extending their ideas scientifically, bringing them to robust scientific tests. But the problem is, when you make specific falsifiable predictions they don't always do that well. So, for instance, there's no evidence that oral and anal characteristics, the personality characteristics I talked about about being needy versus being stingy relate in any interesting way to weaning or toilet training.

...

...the truth is Freudian psychoanalysis is almost never studied inside psychology departments. Not the cognitive or developmental side, not the clinical side. There are some exceptions but, for the most part, even the people who do study Freud within psychology departments do so critically. Very few of them would see themselves as a psychoanalytic practitioner or as a Freudian psychologist.
Freud lives on both in a clinical setting and in the university but Freud at Yale, for instance, is much more likely to be found in the history department or the literature department than in the psychology department. And this is typical enough but, despite all of the, sort of, sour things I just said about Freud, the big idea, the importance of the dynamic unconscious, remains intact.


From Lecture 3, Introduction to psychology, Prof Paul Bloom: Professor of Psychology at Yale University. Sorry, you were saying something about Freud never have been rebuffed or discredited and how the scientific community holds him in high regard?

I guess no students ever wrote a letter demanding action about his fraudulent behavior.

To what fraudulent behaviour are you referring?

Funny though, Modelmiss.

Modelmiss?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 7:23 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-30-2010 7:48 AM Modulous has responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 65 (577712)
08-30-2010 7:18 AM


Hahaha...catching someone in science using unscrupulous and fraudulent tactics to gain academic noteriety is evidence for the ethical, and scrupulous culture of science. Wahahaha.

i just have to agree with this poster. it took students to complain, NOT real scientists nor did science say anything about it till then. even then it TOOK 8 YEARS to catch this guy. got to laugh at this one.

It would be nice if religion would shut down their charlatans, like faith healers Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn.

we already know that they are false teachers, as we do for all prosperity gospel evangelists. we are NOT allowed to 'shut them down' because of a few minor details called the Bill of rights, the constitution, litttle documents like that.

we have been speaking against them for years, warning people but guess what, people still have free choice. we are not allowed to infringe upon that, all you can do is do not send them money, do not attend their meetings and so on.

but here, your guy taught at harvard, for years and no one said a word. science fails big time--again.

there is no 'self-correcting' in science, they do not do anything till someone blows the whistle on them. you people love to delude yourselves.

by the way, the self-correcting format is alive and well in christianity as we flushed out (that isif you want to use secular science's idea of self-correcting) jim bakker, jimmy swaggert, ted haggerty to name but a few. christianity today has a few articles on one woman preacher right now who i snot inline with God's word. her last name is moore.

we have the guidelines, the criteria to flush these people out, science doesn't.


  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 65 (577714)
08-30-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taz
08-29-2010 11:03 PM


It is impossible for any researcher to commit fraud without somebody blowing the whistle.

it took OVER 40 YEARS before someone thought that piltdown man was a fraud. no it is not impossible for any researcher to commit fraud. evolutionists do it every day.

if you think that the 'self-correcting' aspect of science is alive and well think again, the christian church has been detecting frauds for over 2,000 years. we can start with marcion to the gnostics and their books {collected in the nag hammadi library} on up further to the rcc when luthor exposed them and on up to the 21st century.

you guys do not hold a candle to the christian church.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 08-29-2010 11:03 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 08-30-2010 7:36 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 08-30-2010 1:38 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2010 2:31 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 35 by bluescat48, posted 08-30-2010 4:05 PM archaeologist has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 24 of 65 (577717)
08-30-2010 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by archaeologist
08-30-2010 7:24 AM


archaeologist writes:

it took OVER 40 YEARS before someone thought that piltdown man was a fraud.


If it can't be examined, it can't be found out to be a fraud. By the way, who discovered it was a fraud? Hint: It wasn't a creationist.

no it is not impossible for any researcher to commit fraud.

Nobody ever said it was.

evolutionists do it every day.

No we don't, we're not creationists, afterall.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by archaeologist, posted 08-30-2010 7:24 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1736 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 25 of 65 (577720)
08-30-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
08-30-2010 5:32 AM


Well, where to start?

You completely missed the point about Freud. Freud falsified data. He completely made things up, and he created false patients. He was a fraud. The people who are discussing his ideas are not condemning him because of his falsified data, they are condemning his ideas-ideas which people are still aware of even to this day, 70 years after his life. Indeed you are aware of Freud because of his fame within the world of psychology, and are apparently are not even aware of his instances of falsified data. That right there shows that the "scientific community" is not vigorous in its self-policing because of some great ethical commitment. Is there a more famous psychologist ever? So you used all of that digital space talking about him which re-enforces my point, not contradicts it.

Likewise, as archaeologist pointed out, it was not the great scientific community that uncovered his fraud, it was the students! How in the world can anyone try to use this as evidence of the great moral code of science? That's utterly ridiculous.

Its also utterly ridiculous to even try to use any rationale to claim any type of ethical superiority from this instance-which was what the very first poster Jar attempted to do. "Oh, look at how great the scientific community is, someone cheated, and got caught! See how diligent, ethical, and honest the world of science is compared to the world of the mere debauched public."

Come on, what level of stupidity do you think the readers of this site are apt to be fooled by?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 08-30-2010 5:32 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 08-30-2010 8:14 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Vacate, posted 08-30-2010 8:51 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 08-30-2010 9:25 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2010 9:40 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1736 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 26 of 65 (577721)
08-30-2010 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
08-29-2010 10:27 PM


Trade secret laws are the reasons industry sponsored scientific testing tends to produce results that favor those industries?

I can't handle any more of the stupidity here, I have to sign out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 10:27 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 08-30-2010 11:09 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 27 of 65 (577725)
08-30-2010 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Bolder-dash
08-30-2010 7:48 AM


I'll leave the comments about Freud, because I don't know alot about it. In any case, could you provide some evidence for these claims?

Bolder-dash writes:

Likewise, as archaeologist pointed out, it was not the great scientific community that uncovered his fraud, it was the students!


They are a part of the scientific community.

How in the world can anyone try to use this as evidence of the great moral code of science? That's utterly ridiculous.

Becuase it is. As soon as it was found out, it was reported to the authorities and the person was dealt with.

As for the rest of your comments, do you think this kind of hate will be aprreciated, or shows an accurate representation of what a Christian should be like? If not, then why do you do it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-30-2010 7:48 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2707 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 28 of 65 (577736)
08-30-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Bolder-dash
08-30-2010 7:48 AM


Likewise, as archaeologist pointed out, it was not the great scientific community that uncovered his fraud, it was the students!

The article linked in the OP made it sound as if the students where lab students involved in the study. "students felt they were being pushed to reach a particular conclusion that they thought was incorrect" If this is the case then it seems quite obvious that the very people directly involved in the study would be the first people to discover a fraud. I think it would be great news if the very first people that could have possibly exposed a fraud did in fact expose the fraud.

How in the world can anyone try to use this as evidence of the great moral code of science?

Because not even the people he used to help with the study could be trusted to cover up a fraud? Not even lowly students would shut up, let alone competitors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-30-2010 7:48 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 29 of 65 (577748)
08-30-2010 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Bolder-dash
08-30-2010 7:48 AM


You completely missed the point about Freud. Freud falsified data. He completely made things up, and he created false patients. He was a fraud.

How did I miss the point? I asked you want examples of fraud you were referring to, that's all.

The people who are discussing his ideas are not condemning him because of his falsified data, they are condemning his ideas-ideas which people are still aware of even to this day, 70 years after his life.

Indeed. That's because his ideas are far more interesting than than that. But my point was that your statement:

quote:
BTW, Freud was never rebuffed, or discredited. He is still widely regarded today by many in the scientific community.

Is false. Because he was, and is as demonstrated.

But I must once again correct you: Many people are discussing not only Freud's unfalsifiable theories but the cases that he claimed he had cured (when he hadn't). Which, as Dr A tried to alert you to, is how you know it is true.

you are aware of Freud because of his fame within the world of psychology, and are apparently are not even aware of his instances of falsified data.

His infamy, more accurately, I'm afraid. As I have demonstrated - within Psychology, Freud is largely ignored as irrelevant in most ways. His fame outside of the academic arena is largely not down to the act of 'science'. Freud courted the public and his ideas captured the public's imagination and famous jokes surrounding his work have cemented his identity in our consciousness.

99.9% of people who know about Freud would only be able at best to give a halting account of the Oedipus complex and the anal/oral stages and stuff. But that's because they're so outrageous they stick in one's memory quite well.

That right there shows that the "scientific community" is not vigorous in its self-policing because of some great ethical commitment.

So let me get this straight. A person falsified their data to conform their unfalsifiable theories which science wouldn't accept even if it were true does it matter that they falsified their data? Their theory is hopeless anyway!

For his original ideas of non-conscious events, for example, he is celebrated. For the clinical results of psychoanalysis: Not so much.

Likewise, as archaeologist pointed out, it was not the great scientific community that uncovered his fraud, it was the students!

I find it funny that you give archaeologist 'credit' for pointing this out. Presumably you refer to Message 22. One assumes you didn't really read Message 10 in which my opening paragraph goes:

quote:
I believe his students first raised concerns about some of his conclusions by writing a letter. Then Harvard began an internal investigation, found evidence of misconduct under Federation of American Scientists' regulation and are now cooperating with the Mass. District Attorney's office in their investigation (federal funds were used).

Nevertheless, a Professor's students are very much part of the scientific community. Indeed, much of the grunt work of the paper would probably have been carried out by his students - so they are often the best people to raise the concerns in the first place.

How in the world can anyone try to use this as evidence of the great moral code of science? That's utterly ridiculous.

What happens when concerns are raised by people about creationists? They are apologised for, excused - or supported with vitriol and anger agaisnt the 'rabid atheists'. Those claiming fraud are likened to Hitler and any other distraction techniques.

Compare what Harvard did - launch a vigorous internal investigation - find problems, sanction the scientist, alert the Feds and release a press release. They didn't try and cover it up.

One shows integrity. The other shows cowardice.

What would you teach your children? To own up to mistakes and take steps to rectify them? Or to lie, deceive, dig ones heels and and refuse to accept mistakes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-30-2010 7:48 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 30 of 65 (577752)
08-30-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Bolder-dash
08-30-2010 7:48 AM


You completely missed the point about Freud. Freud falsified data. He completely made things up, and he created false patients. He was a fraud. The people who are discussing his ideas are not condemning him because of his falsified data, they are condemning his ideas ...

And since no-one condemned him for his falsified data, I guess it was left up to you to obtain a ouija board and extract a confession from his departed spirit.

Either that or someone did expose him so loudly and publicly that even you know about it.

Likewise, as archaeologist pointed out, it was not the great scientific community that uncovered his fraud, it was the students!

A professor's graduate students aren't part of the scientific community?

What are they, chopped liver?

Its also utterly ridiculous to even try to use any rationale to claim any type of ethical superiority from this instance-which was what the very first poster Jar attempted to do. "Oh, look at how great the scientific community is, someone cheated, and got caught! See how diligent, ethical, and honest the world of science is compared to the world of the mere debauched public."

Why are you pretending that he wrote that or anything like that?

To put it another way:

Come on, what level of stupidity do you think the readers of this site are apt to be fooled by?

Certainly not your clumsy efforts at deceit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-30-2010 7:48 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019