Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 5:32 AM
20 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,631 Year: 3,668/19,786 Month: 663/1,087 Week: 32/221 Day: 3/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
18Next
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 181 of 268 (425054)
09-30-2007 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
09-30-2007 5:28 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
quote:
What? This all seems wrong.

If one talks cosmology, or about evolution - there can be two universes being considered: a finite or infinite one. The conclusions for each is markedly different. With a finite universe - one cannot omit a cause factor - which becomes far more demanding of science.

quote:
What? What source? What are you talking about?

That speech is unique to humans is first declared in Genesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 5:28 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2007 6:44 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 204 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 2:50 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1677 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 182 of 268 (425057)
09-30-2007 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 5:55 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
That speech is unique to humans is first declared in Genesis.

Not true. Genesis also ascribes speech to God (not human) and snakes (not human).

Thank you for playing, Mr Joseph.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 5:55 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 7:07 AM Archer Opteryx has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 183 of 268 (425058)
09-30-2007 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Archer Opteryx
09-30-2007 6:44 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
Yes, humans are said to have this Gd-like feature of speech ['In His Image'] - the first speech [*said* let there be light] was ascribed to the creator. Genesis also says, speech is unique to humans - in this physical universe. Grammar requires you take the only possible opening in the path of what it means.

The reading of 'serpent' depends on your textual comprehension: it is metaphorically given this human trait in the setting described, at all times subject to it being set in a realm other than the physical one. The text also says, to make it blatant, re-entry was barred, with angelic beings hurling firey swords every which way at the gates. So in the metaphorical analogy [there are no talking serpants or angels with swords in the physical universe - Adam was cast down here from someplace else/the text]- the applicable factor is about the impacts of speech, not contrived, base semantics.

Genesis is heavy stuff - harbouring much hidden cadence above MC2. I know your laffing now - been there, done it. I advice to thread with caution at this deceptively simple disney story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2007 6:44 AM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2007 7:42 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1677 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 184 of 268 (425061)
09-30-2007 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Jon
09-29-2007 7:22 AM


read her lips
Dr. Pepperberg refuses to call Alex's vocalizations ''language.'' ''I avoid the language issue,'' she said. ''I'm not making claims. His behavior gets more and more advanced, but I don't believe years from now you could interview him.''

Jon: It's quite clear that those working closest with the bird do not feel what he's done to be 'language'.

False characterization.

Her statement is that she avoids the issue and makes no claims.

It is bias to the point of blindness to say she has stated a 'clear' position on the matter that agrees with your own. Her clear intention is to state no position at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 7:22 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1677 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 185 of 268 (425064)
09-30-2007 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 7:07 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
IaJ:

The reading of 'serpent' depends on your textual comprehension: it is metaphorically given this human trait in the setting described, at all times subject to it being set in a realm other than the physical one.

Thank you for telling us Genesis is not a scientific document. You say it employs metaphors that deal with spiritual rather than physical phenomena.

It follows that Genesis cannot set the parameters of what we may logically conclude from the results of valid scientific research. The subject of surreal images in ancient literature is off topic here.

Thank you for playing, Mr Joseph.

___


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 7:07 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:12 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 186 of 268 (425075)
09-30-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Archer Opteryx
09-30-2007 7:42 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
Metaphors, expressionisms, symbolisms and analogies are hardly unscientific premises, whereas I pointed out an error in texts and its decipherings. Science, in almost all areas, have developed via the metaphoric and hypotheticals: what does 'GD DOES NOT PLAY DICE' mean, and where has this led science? The first utterence in Genesis is dualist, 'LET THERE BE LIGHT', meaning both a scientific and expressionist premise. Science is more than numbers, angles and lines. The thought is the pivotal here.

This does not mean there is a lack of scientific, mathematical or historical evidences in a document. Genesis is brimming with all of these, and we are discussing some of its stats as we speak. The Adam story you referred to, which follows the creation chapter and is multi-leveled, is one which has captured the imaginings of all generations of mankind, w/o any loss of continueing impact.

I believe the debate here and now relates to two of Genesis' stats, namely that speech is a unique human phenomenon, and whether, subsequently, the categorising of humans as a separate 'kind' [similar to a macro, big pic view of species/life forms, predating ToE] is appropriate and legitimate from scientific and logical views. Here, I should remind, respectfully, that another POV from an atheistic science view, does not render Genesis unscientific by that reason. Genesis is positing a science too, one which requires deliberation when variance is seen from other science views.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2007 7:42 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 09-30-2007 10:33 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 187 of 268 (425082)
09-30-2007 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 10:12 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
I believe the debate here and now relates to two of Genesis' stats, namely that speech is a unique human phenomenon, and whether, subsequently, the categorising of humans as a separate 'kind' [similar to a macro, big pic view of species/life forms, predating ToE] is appropriate and legitimate from scientific and logical views.

Possessing a unique trait is one of the pieces of evidence that science looks at when determining categories for life. Humans are certainly a 'kind' in the sense that they are in a category of their own (they are in effect, a species). There is some debate over whether they are alone in their genus, Homo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:12 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:39 AM Modulous has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 188 of 268 (425083)
09-30-2007 10:34 AM


Article below represents more relevent scientific positations, which state that aside from being a unique human trait, speech appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state [a contradiction of ToE]; compounded by the positation the uniqueness of speech is not explainable, reducable to [equalisable] or repeatable by, any other life form.

The aspect of a sudden and already advanced trait is an anomoly and mystery, and a reason why it is not explainable for even prominant scientists today. With regard Genesis, the document which introduced this enigma for science, it also appears to be alligned with this mystery: it too seems to have appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state of language, in its grammar, being the first alphabetical 'books' [as opposed manuscripts and picure writings], in its exclusive and introductory historicity stats, and other factors - with no equavalence of such writings a 1000 years before or after.

Perhaps someone can input on this, but w/o using the M [myth] word, and hard copy against hard copy instead - does anyone here know of such telephone-sized alphabetical books, prior or near the Genesis date setting - or even the dead sea scrolls, for that matter - as a hard-copy evidence? Is this an important factor or irrelevent, even if it is inexplicable?

quote:
Complexity of Language—Uniquely Human

http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

No known language in the whole of human history can be considered ‘primitive’ in any sense of the word. In her book, What is Linguistics? Suzette Elgin wrote:

‘the most ancient languages for which we have written texts—Sanskrit for example—are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many other contemporary languages.’[40]

Figure 5. The most ancient languages for which we have written texts are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many contemporary languages.
The late Lewis Thomas, a distinguished physician, scientist, and longtime director and chancellor of the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, acknowledged: ‘ ...Language is so incomprehensible a problem that the language we use for discussing the matter is itself becoming incomprehensible’.[41] It appears that, from the beginning, human communication was designed with a tremendous amount of complexity and forethought, and has allowed us to communicate not only with one another, but also with the Designer of language.

In a paper titled ‘Evolution of Universal Grammar’ that appeared in the January 2001 issue of Science, M.A. Nowak and his colleagues attempted to discount the gulf that separates human and animals.[42] This paper, which was a continuation of a 1999 paper titled ‘The Evolution of Language’,[43] used mathematical calculations in an effort to predict the evolution of grammar and the rules surrounding it. While Nowak and his team inferred that the evolution of universal grammar can occur via natural selection, they freely admitted that ‘the question concerning why only humans evolved language is hard to answer’ [emphasis added].[44] Hard to answer indeed! The mathematical models presented in these papers do not tell us anything about the origination of the multitude of languages used in the world today. If man truly did evolve from an ape-like ancestor, how did the phonologic [the branch of linguistics that deals with the sounds of speech and their production] component of our languages become so diverse and variegated? Nowak’s paper also did not clarify the origination of written languages, or describe how the language process was initiated in the first humans, considering we know today that parents teach languages to their offspring.

Also, consider that when language first appears on the scene, it already is fully developed and very complex. The late Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson described it this way:

‘Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. The oldest language that can be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.’[45]
Chomsky summed it up well when he stated:

‘Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world ... There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking.’[46]



Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 10:44 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 189 of 268 (425084)
09-30-2007 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Jon
09-29-2007 11:27 PM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
Then you are arguing a strawman against IaJ, using a word for a meaning that you know he didn't intend for it to have.

Yet you have not demonstrated that. Nor have you demonstrated a great understanding of IamJoseph:

Message 177
No... language has been well-defined. You're wrong.
Well, you can't just break them up like that. Then we could get 'non-dog communication' and 'dog communication'.

Message 178
What? This all seems wrong.

Message 179
What? What source? What are you talking about?
Especially... what does this mean?

It also doesn't look like IamJoseph is agreeing with you (is anyone agreeing with you?), ergo it looks like your version of his position OR your version of the OP is a strawman that you have invented.

The OP does not assume what his position is for the simple reason that he had not stated it in any defined way at the time (and still hasn't), it talks about what the definition of the term speech is and asks how that can be applied to determine "speech enabled" to distinguish humans:

quote:
The question is how do we ascertain this "speech endowed" characteristic using science.

Now to determine whether this "speech endowed" characteristic appears in other animals we need a definition of what we mean by "SPEECH" that we can agree on.

I think we can agree that definition (1) is the appropriate definition, and that this corresponds with the "Speech is the expression of ideas and thoughts by means of articulate vocal sounds, or the faculty of thus expressing ideas and thoughts" under synonyms. Thus a member of the "speech endowed" kind of organisms would have the "ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture."

Please explain how this cannot be considered "speech endowed" by the above definitions.


IamJoseph's response is basically that it is not speech because it does not come from a human. This lead to the demonstration that his argument was a trite tuatology involving begging the question in his definition of speech as human speech. He has not presented any qualifications for the term speech other than it comes (uniquely) from humans.

Of course. We need a 'system of rules' to have language.

But we don't need to demonstrate grammar to have rules, just syntax. Again, as I pointed out in Message 143

ZD
Yes, they made it quite clear in the report. I shall quote it again:

And just before your quote the part you ignored:

quote:
She continued: ''What little syntax he has is very simplistic.

She says Alex has simple syntax.

syn·tax –noun 1.a. The study of the rules whereby words or other elements of sentence structure are combined to form grammatical sentences.
- b. A publication, such as a book, that presents such rules.
- c. The pattern of formation of sentences or phrases in a language.
- d. Such a pattern in a particular sentence or discourse.
2. Computer Science The rules governing the formation of statements in a programming language.
3. A systematic, orderly arrangement.
(American Heritage Dictionary )

quote:
Dr. Pepperberg refuses to call Alex's vocalizations ''language.'' ''I avoid the language issue,'' she said. ''I'm not making claims. His behavior gets more and more advanced, but I don't believe years from now you could interview him.''¹

It's quite clear that those working closest with the bird do not feel what he's done to be 'language'.

Or those working with him don't think the language he's learned would be enough for an interview conversation. Meanwhile they aren't making conclusions one way or the other.

You can, on the other hand, interview Koko. It's all a matter of degree.

You seem to be looking for a whole complete and entire language with a complete lexicon and wholly formed grammar in the conversation of two beings, and this is just irrational no matter which two beings you include, and how long and intellectual their discourse.

To demonstrate speech - vocal communication of ideas and feelings - at a minimum from one individual to another all you need is a rudimentary vocabulary and a simple syntax. Where individuals come from different cultures and languages (each with different lexicons and grammar) you sometimes need a pidgin language to translate those ideas and feelings from one individual to the other across the language barrier - a pidgin language with simplified lexicon and syntax. This is still speech (by the only definition of speech we have yet on this thread that is usable). This is the minimal test to distinguish speech. Alex has these.

To exclude Alex from "speech endowed" then we would need a different definition of speech with a different test of what is the minimum requirement.

As for the rest of what you said...
READ MY SOURCES!
You people reply to my posts in seconds flat. I cannot imagine how you are even clicking on my sources let alone reading the damn things. Most of your misunderstanding of language would be cleared up if you'd just READ MY SOURCES.

I read them, but the issue is not language, seeing as we can have speech between people with two entirely different languages. Your sources, being about language, are irrelevant to the issue of speech.

Let me be very clear: until IamJoseph presents a clear usable definition of what he means by "speech" LANGUAGE is off topic. If you want to talk about it start another thread.

be totally impossible if they had no native language of their own and no capacity for one.

*sigh* Language = lexicon (word bank) + grammar (system of rules). You still can't show how any other animal possesses the rules. You are just being an argumentative ass. I'm sorry, but you win... you outposted me. You outdid me in my ability to rebut your same points over and over and over again. Congrats... here's a cashew.

And yet you have outposted me by over two to one. Alex (and Koko and others) have syntax and vocabulary. Syntax and vocabulary combined into phrases that communicate ideas and feeling. You don't need to demonstrate the whole lexicon or all the rules of grammar in every communication, just the ones necessary to communicate the ideas and feelings.

Consider the analogy of human\other species communication to the communication between two people from different cultures and languages -- we know they both have language (lexicon and grammar), but each is totally incomprehensible to the other. Over time, with the use of trial and error testing and retesting they develop a rudimentary lexicon and a simplified syntax (dropped plurals, simplified or eliminated pronouns, adjectives etc) - a pidgin language - that allows communication from one to the other.

Can you deny this communication of thoughts and feelings even though you - as a member of one group - have no idea of the language, lexicon and grammar, of the other?

Can you distinguish between this speech communication between two such groups of humans and that between humans and animals?

Can you deny that Alex meets this criteria for the verbal communication of ideas and feelings?

Would you agree that this is just a difference in degree of communication compared to two people who have the same culture and language?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 11:27 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:45 AM RAZD has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 190 of 268 (425085)
09-30-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Modulous
09-30-2007 10:33 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
quote:
Possessing a unique trait is one of the pieces of evidence that science looks at when determining categories for life. Humans are certainly a 'kind' in the sense that they are in a category of their own (they are in effect, a species). There is some debate over whether they are alone in their genus, Homo.

IMHO, this gives the point made in genesis full scientific legitimacy, even more than I would have ventured. Had this been the view countenanced by some more participants, we could progress to other subsequent factors. And of course, there are other factors which result from here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 09-30-2007 10:33 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Modulous, posted 09-30-2007 10:52 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 191 of 268 (425087)
09-30-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 10:34 AM


Article below represents more relevent scientific positations, which state that aside from being a unique human trait, speech appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state [a contradiction of ToE];
quote:
Complexity of Language—Uniquely Human

Are you now saying speech == language, that they are interchangeable? If not, what is the relationship between one and the other? We can talk about whether or not it contradicts ToE later.

Message 190
IMHO, this gives the point made in genesis full scientific legitimacy, even more than I would have ventured. Had this been the view countenanced by some more participants, we could progress to other subsequent factors. And of course, there are other factors which result from here.

But first you need to demonstrate that the trait is in fact unique.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : msg 190


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:34 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:52 AM RAZD has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 192 of 268 (425088)
09-30-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by RAZD
09-30-2007 10:38 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
quote:
He has not presented any qualifications for the term speech other than it comes (uniquely) from humans.

I did present the premise, that there is no equivalence or similarities, as the reason for it. Had there been - the factor of unique would become muted. This appears backed by prominent scientests, listed in articles posted. I correctly steered away from the definition quest, genuinely and coherently seeing this as inapplicable and counter productive in the understanding of the premise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 10:38 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 10:49 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 193 of 268 (425090)
09-30-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 10:45 AM


Dodging the issue once more ... the Creationist tapdance around reality ...
I correctly steered away from the definition quest, genuinely and coherently seeing this as inapplicable and counter productive in the understanding of the premise.

Meaning that you kept it untestable and unverifiable.

Thanks for making that distinction between your position and science.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:45 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:57 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 194 of 268 (425091)
09-30-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by RAZD
09-30-2007 10:44 AM


quote:
Are you now saying speech == language, that they are interchangeable?

There is no need to get quagmired again in semantics and runaway deflection under the guise of science. If the factors debated mean anything, it is that speech and language are, if not quite the same issue - or so alligned that is falls in a category of two solely unique phenomenons alligned together - with no alternative application. Its like intelligence and scienctific thought are alligned. I;ve no notion of what is speech w/o language: grunts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 10:44 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 11:02 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 195 of 268 (425092)
09-30-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 10:39 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
IMHO, this gives the point made in genesis full scientific legitimacy, even more than I would have ventured.

I don't see how. The minds behind genesis quite clearly saw humans as being different from the other animals. Special somehow. This is just an observation. You might call this empiricism scientifically valid, but the conclusions they come to are not. And the same logic applies to the other animals. The Leporidae is different from all the other animals so they are somehow special. Indeed, we can point to any family and say likewise. This is why the conclusions they reach (humans are uniquely special and thus especially special) are invalid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:39 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 11:09 AM Modulous has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019