Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
101 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,006 Year: 22,042/19,786 Month: 605/1,834 Week: 105/500 Day: 2/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The use of logic in establishing truths
Percy
Member
Posts: 19078
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 91 of 171 (439066)
12-07-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 8:55 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
Hi Dawn,

Let me try to restate our objection to the "Dead men tell no tales" issue very succinctly.

The objection isn't that we don't accept that "Dead men tell no tales."

The objection is that if axioms require that something be "self-evident" or "incontrovertibly true", then that is a very high standard. In fact, it is such a high standard that even a statement like "Dead men tell no tales" doesn't qualify as self-evident or incontrovertibly true. The mere fact that there's a difference of opinion about whether "Dead men tell no tales" is self-evident argues conclusively that it is not self-evident. If it were really self-evident there would be no argument. It is the absence of an argument that would be an indication of possible self-evidence. Once there's an argument it obviously cannot be self-evident.

Think about what self-evident means. It means evident to the self without any outside influences. Anything that requires that someone argue with you before you're persuaded is not self-evident, it is self-persuaded-by-somebody-else-evident, and therefore not an axiom.

The reason you're getting an argument about something that seems so self-evident to you is that most of the people here are approaching this from a scientific perspective, and within science there is almost nothing that is axiomatic. The principle of tentativity allows no other conclusion. The only axioms in science are those that actually define science, such as its focus on the natural world, or the accepted belief that physical laws apply equally throughout all space and time (and some scientists believe this isn't necessarily true).

As has also been pointed out, "Dead men tell no tales" is hopelessly ambiguous, and this is a one reason why many are rejecting this as axiomatic. This ambiguity is another problem that you should address. I know you don't feel it is ambiguous, but if you have to keep explaining to multiple people precisely what it means then that indicates that quite likely it is ambiguous.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 8:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by JB1740, posted 12-07-2007 9:27 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 96 by bluegenes, posted 12-07-2007 9:56 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 4284 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 92 of 171 (439068)
12-07-2007 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
12-07-2007 9:20 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
The reason you're getting an argument about something that seems so self-evident to you is that most of the people here are approaching this from a scientific perspective, and within science there is almost nothing that is axiomatic. The principle of tentativity allows no other conclusion. The only axioms in science are those that actually define science, such as its focus on the natural world, or the accepted belief that physical laws apply equally throughout all space and time (and some scientists believe this isn't necessarily true).

Percy, well said.

And Dawn, the reason we're harping so hard on this particular point is that it directly illustrates how natural science views and deals with the world and thus points right back at the question of whether or not ID qualifies as something that can be held up as an alternative to the ToE, which is how this whole thing ultimately started.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 12-07-2007 9:20 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 10:21 AM JB1740 has responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 93 of 171 (439070)
12-07-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 12:37 AM


this is a complete waste of time
The evidence is that they believe it.
We need nothing more.
The fact that anyone believes it is more than enough to prove that your 'axiom' is NOT self evident.

It simply is no evidence that people believe things.Enough said.


You really don't have a clue do you?
Do you even know what evidence means?

Your assertion == "Dead men tell no tales" is a self evident truth, an AXIOM.
This absolutely requires that everybody who sees this statement HAS to believe it. If it is self evident then they have no choice.
Therefore your assertion is that EVERYBODY sees the obvious truth in it.

What kind of evidence could invalidate/debunk/nullify your assertion?

Simple. Evidence that any person DOES NOT see the obvious truth in it.
I provided evidence of one person at least who does not agree with you. It is utterly irrelevent whose belief is correct. The actual evidence in this situation is very simply that not everyone sees your 'axiom' as a self evident truth. As long as there are those who believe otherwise then it cannot be self evident.
If you can't even understand the concept that this utterly destroys your assertion then I am wasting my valuable time on you.

ALIVE, DEAD. ALIVE, DEAD. Jesus was then alive. Hence the foundation of the Christian belief. Hence he was not dead. Dead men tell no tales. The expression animated corpes is a contradiction of terms. I am not trying to be funny here, only to help you see that it is an axiom of the highest order.

What can i say?
You are basically redefining the meaning of "dead" so that no example can ever debunk your idea. That is called moving the goalposts.
Basically you are saying that even if a dead man gets up and talks then you will define him as being alive for the purpose of your argument.
That is total BS.
Plenty of people believe in animated corpses. Zombies they call them. Take a look at some of the voodoo beliefs. Zombies are often involved there and that too invalidates your assertion that your 'axiom' is really a self evident truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 12:37 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 10:01 AM PurpleYouko has responded

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 171 (439073)
12-07-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by JB1740
12-07-2007 8:10 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
Dawn, this statement is simply not true.
Gravity is absolutely not the same all the time.

?please explain!
F=GMm/R^2

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by JB1740, posted 12-07-2007 8:10 AM JB1740 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by JB1740, posted 12-07-2007 9:57 AM LucyTheApe has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 95 of 171 (439075)
12-07-2007 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by JB1740
12-07-2007 9:11 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
There isn't any evidence, Dawn (this is "talking" in the strict sense, using vocal chords). We're not saying that there is (maybe you need to read Radz's comment yet again if you think this is his position). To my knowledge no dead person has ever manipulated air using their vocal chords to speak while dead. We're not asserting that they can. We're not even asserting that it has ever happened. I'm not even asserting that I personally think it's possible. What I am saying is that billions of dead people not talking DOES NOT BY ITSELF ENSURE that it's impossible. It does not PROVE it.

Ok , please stay with the propositions. RAZDs simple proposition and cahallenge to me was provide an axiom, the truth of which is INCONTROVERTIBLE. I provided that in this axiom. It is simply evassive and almost foolishness to sit there and contend that because it hasnt happened after 1 to 3 billon years, that we might be expected to. You can IF and MAYBE all day long. "If worms had machine guns birds wouldnt mess with them". See how the, ya but, can go on forever.

C. The answer is (C) that this is an axiom of the highest order. It is clear proof (that which you fellas are always seeking) that if the EVIDENCE demonstrates to the contrary for this long a period of time, its a good axiomatic TRUTH to move forward with. Now to be reasonable and completely honest this is and does constitute proof by any strech of the imagination. I understand what RAZD is saying, its just that, at some point you need to acquiesce and acknowledge the OBVIOUS and accept that which is clearly demonstratable. It is proof as much as anyone can have proof and therefore is PROOF.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by JB1740, posted 12-07-2007 9:11 AM JB1740 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by JB1740, posted 12-07-2007 10:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2007 8:31 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 96 of 171 (439077)
12-07-2007 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
12-07-2007 9:20 AM


Half summary for the 100 post mark..!
Percy writes:

Let me try to restate our objection to the "Dead men tell no tales" issue very succinctly.

There's a funny side to this. DB is taking "Dead men tell no tales" in a very literal sense as in "corpses don't speak using their brains and vocal chords". What's funny about that is that scientists would agree that this observation could be taken as virtual fact based on empirical evidence. It has nothing to do with coming to conclusions based on logic alone.

But it's DB who's claiming the logic point, so the science types, quite correctly, are pointing out that logically it cannot be claimed as a 100% incontrovertible fact, because nothing really can.

(The fact that in a non-DB sense, linguistically, dead men can tell us tales in the same way that archaeological sites can, just adds to the confusion).

I think that where DB is heading, and why the "dead men" and "Spock" red herrings should be put aside, is that he wants to say that because intelligent design is a possibility that can't be ruled out, then that makes it science, which is why some of us are mentioning the "E" word, evidence, loudly.

If I'm right, then we need to explain that something being possible, alone, does not make for a scientific theory, or even arguably a hypothesis, in the way that scientists understand the word.

The dead men and star trek examples that Dawn gave just didn't happen to be very good examples. Which is why I've suggested a truism like:

"Either life on earth involves interventionist intelligent design or it doesn't" as perhaps a better "axiom" for his/her purposes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 12-07-2007 9:20 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 4284 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 97 of 171 (439078)
12-07-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by LucyTheApe
12-07-2007 9:38 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
?please explain!

1. First, I admit I assume that Dawn really meant everywhere and all the time. That statement is obviously incorrect. Gravity is not the same everywhere even in our little solar system (indeed not even everywhere on the earth).

2. If we look at Dawn's actual wording "all the time," the statement is still incorrect. Even if we restrict our view just to the Earth, gravity isn't a constant force over time because (for one reason) the Earth's mass isn't constant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 9:38 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 12:03 PM JB1740 has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 98 of 171 (439080)
12-07-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by PurpleYouko
12-07-2007 9:31 AM


Re: this is a complete waste of time
What kind of evidence could invalidate/debunk/nullify your assertion?

None. Thats why it is an axiom of the highest order.

You really don't have a clue do you?
Do you even know what evidence means?

Yes I do and I am still waiting for it.

What can i say?
You are basically redefining the meaning of "dead" so that no example can ever debunk your idea. That is called moving the goalposts.
Basically you are saying that even if a dead man gets up and talks then you will define him as being alive for the purpose of your argument.
That is total BS.
Plenty of people believe in animated corpses. Zombies they call them. Take a look at some of the voodoo beliefs. Zombies are often involved there and that too invalidates your assertion that your 'axiom' is really a self evident truth.
The evidence is that they believe it.
We need nothing more.
The fact that anyone believes it is more than enough to prove that your 'axiom' is NOT self evident.[/qs]
It simply is no evidence that people believe things.Enough said.
You really don't have a clue do you?
Do you even know what evidence means?

Your assertion == "Dead men tell no tales" is a self evident truth, an AXIOM.
This absolutely requires that everybody who sees this statement HAS to believe it. If it is self evident then they have no choice.
Therefore your assertion is that EVERYBODY sees the obvious truth in it.

What kind of evidence could invalidate/debunk/nullify your assertion?

Simple. Evidence that any person DOES NOT see the obvious truth in it.
I provided evidence of one person at least who does not agree with you. It is utterly irrelevent whose belief is correct. The actual evidence in this situation is very simply that not everyone sees your 'axiom' as a self evident truth. As long as there are those who believe otherwise then it cannot be self evident.
If you can't even understand the concept that this utterly destroys your assertion then I am wasting my valuable time on you.

ALIVE, DEAD. ALIVE, DEAD. Jesus was then alive. Hence the foundation of the Christian belief. Hence he was not dead. Dead men tell no tales. The expression animated corpes is a contradiction of terms. I am not trying to be funny here, only to help you see that it is an axiom of the highest order.

What can i say?
You are basically redefining the meaning of "dead" so that no example can ever debunk your idea. That is called moving the goalposts.
Basically you are saying that even if a dead man gets up and talks then you will define him as being alive for the purpose of your argument.
That is total BS.
Plenty of people believe in animated corpses. Zombies they call them. Take a look at some of the voodoo beliefs. Zombies are often involved there and that too invalidates your assertion that your 'axiom' is really a self evident truth.[/qs]

How do redefine the word dead? If a dead person gets up and talks to you , then they are not dead. Are you starting to get it now. You cant debunk this axiom, because is it is irrefutable. I dont care what people believe, its what they can demonstrate. If you show me a Zombie that is both dead and alive at the same time, I will believe you. Fair enough. Heck if you can even show me a dead Zombie talking, Ill believe. As you can see though, Im not worried that this is going to happen. As I told JB1740 and RAZD. You need to quit using these people as examples if you dont even belive in their stories. that dosent make much sense.

Its funny here, I almost sound like the skeptic now and you guys sound like the believers. Theres an irony for you.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2007 9:31 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2007 10:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2007 9:09 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 4284 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 99 of 171 (439081)
12-07-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 9:43 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
It is simply evassive and almost foolishness to sit there and contend that because it hasnt happened after 1 to 3 billon years, that we might be expected to.

Your take on language is very curious, Dawn. I presume you're still talking about dead people? I never said that just because it hasn't happened, that we can expect it to. Read what I wrote. I said that it doesn't PROVE it according to science. No C. Please choose: A or B. AND WHERE DO YOU KEEP GETTING 3 BILLION YEARS?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 9:43 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 100 of 171 (439087)
12-07-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 10:01 AM


Re: this is a complete waste of time
You really don't have a clue do you?
Do you even know what evidence means?

Yes I do and I am still waiting for it.


You are totally missing the point.
The evidence is that there are people who believe other stuff. That is all it requires, that somebody somewhere believes something different. It makes no difference what they believe. it makes no difference if they are correct or not.
All that matters is that these people, when faced with your assertion that dead men don't speak, will likely laugh in your face and tell you not to be so stupid.
These people honestly believe that it happens so to them it is NOT self evident that it does not.

I don't understand why you can't see that just saying that something is self evident, doesn't make it self evident to everybody. I have provide many examples of people to whom it isn't.

As i have said before (many times ad nauseum) all it takes to invalidate your axiom is that just one person does not agree that it is self evident.

If you show me a Zombie that is both dead and alive at the same time, I will believe you. Fair enough. Heck if you can even show me a dead Zombie talking, Ill believe. As you can see though, Im not worried that this is going to happen. As I told JB1740 and RAZD. You need to quit using these people as examples if you dont even belive in their stories. that dosent make much sense.

Whether I believe their stories or not is totally beside the point.
The only point is that THEY believe and therefore to them your axiom is NOT an axiom. It is NOT self evident. They will NOT accept it as true because to them it just plain isn't.

If something is an Axiom it must be accepted as true by everybody that sees it. Any exception to this rule proves it is not an axiom in the real world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 10:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 101 of 171 (439088)
12-07-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by JB1740
12-07-2007 9:27 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
Percy, well said.

And Dawn, the reason we're harping so hard on this particular point is that it directly illustrates how natural science views and deals with the world and thus points right back at the question of whether or not ID qualifies as something that can be held up as an alternative to the ToE, which is how this whole thing ultimately started.

Well said, but that has been the point all along, that if you are going to limit the word science to mean only your definiton of science, then of course from your perspective nothing else will be science or evidence. Now without rehearsing all of Modulous, SilentH, RAZDs and PaulKs very eloquent definitions of science, they simply do not say that those are the only ways to gather Facts, as I have demonstrated to the contrary. You can of course demonstrate the science of ID outside of your very narrow and monopolized definition of science by the simple definiton and explanation of an axiom and the application of logic directed twords axioms.

If it is true (as you assert) that Facts are not really facts even after we discover them. Then it would follow that nothing that yopu provide from the so-called scientific method is reliable or dependable either. In other words, the way I am establishing the validity of ID is as valid a method as yours according to your own definitions and explanations, so either are valid or neither are valid, you cant have it both ways. Or have it one way for you and another for us. It is science just not your definition of science.

D Bertot

Oh crap here we go again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by JB1740, posted 12-07-2007 9:27 AM JB1740 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by bluegenes, posted 12-07-2007 11:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 105 by JB1740, posted 12-07-2007 11:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 12-07-2007 11:31 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2007 9:49 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 171 (439093)
12-07-2007 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 12:55 AM


Re: Down with Logic
Something cannot be taken as true, if it can be shown, to be not true.

But that's what an axiom means. It means we accept it as true, for purposes of argument, without testing or confirming it.

If you test or confirm it, then it's not an axiom, it's a conclusion. Accepting Euclid's fifth axiom as true defines one kind of geometry. Accepting a contradictory postulate as fifth axiom instead defines a completely different kind of geometry that is every bit as valid as the first kind.

Euclid's fifth axiom is the perfect example of an axiom - it's accepted as true for no other reason but to define what conclusions you're going to be able to make. If you want to operate in a geometric system where the sum of the angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees, then you assume Euclid's fifth postulate as axiomatic. There's no other reason to. As Lucy has pointed out, Euclid's fifth isn't actually true in the universe we inhabit. It's certainly not true on Planet Earth (which has elliptic geometry, because we live on the surface of a sphere.)

The axioms that apply to these mathmatical processes may or may not be true depending on the accuracy of the mathmatical premises.

They are the premises. Axioms are the foundational premises of all mathematical reasoning. Every premise that isn't axiomatic can be proven through a series of transformations back to other premises, but eventually you get to a series of premises that can't be proven - that you just have to assume are true for purposes of argument.

Those are axioms. They're what we assume to be true, for no other reason than to get mathematics off the ground.

However, axioms that apply to the real world are testable and at times can be demonstrated completely accurate, with no fear of contradiction.

There are no axioms in the real world. There are only conclusions we have derived from evidence and testing, and those are always tentative and provisional. The "complete accuracy" you refer to is a feature of axiomatic reasoning like mathematics, but it doesn't exist in empirical science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 12:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 171 (439094)
12-07-2007 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by LucyTheApe
12-07-2007 4:07 AM


Re: Down with Logic
Natural Scientists will
never
hijack science.

Too late. We hijacked it a millennium ago. "Science" refers to that body of knowledge gathered by the scientific method, which is inductive, empirical, and provisional.

Mathematics simply doesn't apply. It's deductive, axiomatic, and absolute. Mathematicians are not scientists; they're mathematicians. (Or, at worst, philosophers. I give most mathematicians more credit than that.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 4:07 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 12:36 PM crashfrog has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 104 of 171 (439095)
12-07-2007 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 10:21 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
DB writes:

In other words, the way I am establishing the validity of ID is as valid a method as yours according to your own definitions and explanations, so either are valid or neither are valid, you cant have it both ways.

What you seem to be talking about is the possibility of I.D.

Establishing the possibility of I.D. isn't necessary, as no-one thinks it's impossible.

But its validity as a scientific theory requires evidence. There's nothing wrong in science in proposing anything.

I can propose that the fairies come out at night and help to pollinate flowers. It's not impossible, and it can't be disproved. But scientists wouldn't accept it as a valid theory because I have no evidence for it.

That puts it in the same position as I.D.

So you, as an I.D. advocate, and I, as a pollinating fairies advocate, are in the same situation in relation to science.

Life's tough for those without evidence, isn't it?:)

Edited by bluegenes, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 10:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 4284 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 105 of 171 (439097)
12-07-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 10:21 AM


Re: Observation/Truth
Well said, but that has been the point all along, that if you are going to limit the word science to mean only your definiton of science, then of course from your perspective nothing else will be science or evidence.

It isn't my definition of science, Dawn. As has been repeatedly observed here, science moved away from a logic-only-based view of the world. If you want it to regress, then you need to show WHY we need to abandon our insistence on evidence. Show us how your view of science works better than what we're already doing.

How does your version of science explain the morphology of Archaeopteryx better than mine?

Now without rehearsing all of Modulous, SilentH, RAZDs and PaulKs very eloquent definitions of science, they simply do not say that those are the only ways to gather Facts, as I have demonstrated to the contrary.

There seems to be pretty serious disagreement that you succeeded in demonstrating this.

You can of course demonstrate the science of ID outside of your very narrow and monopolized definition of science by the simple definiton and explanation of an axiom and the application of logic directed twords axioms.

This is a can of worms

If it is true (as you assert) that Facts are not really facts even after we discover them.

I asserted nothing of the sort. Facts are observations with error. That is what I asserted.

Then it would follow that nothing that yopu provide from the so-called scientific method is reliable or dependable either.

That might follow from your gross mischaracterization of what I supposedly asserted, but it makes little sense in the real world. The scientific method works just fine; you utilize the results of it working every day.

In other words, the way I am establishing the validity of ID is as valid a method as yours according to your own definitions and explanations,

That's false. I don't think I gave you any definitions and my explanations do not support ID as science.

so either are valid or neither are valid, you cant have it both ways. Or have it one way for you and another for us. It is science just not your definition of science.

It doesn't appear to be anyone's definition of science, but okay.

Oh crap here we go again.

Sigh...probably.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 10:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019