RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/2/2008 1:27:16 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7833
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
OK... So, what are the criteria? Does the application change for each example of design?
Well the general criteria are events that are too improbale to reasonably consider incidental events.
quote:
Some aspects of some object-oriented programing languages are organized into hierarchies, but most aspects are not. DNA has been compared to program code. Program code certainly does not fall into a nested hierarchy in any language, but DNA does. It is not true that technologies are organized into nested hierarchies.
DNA is one language; as a language, it apparently falls into a nested hierarchy like many programming languages.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/2/2008 1:55:00 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
OK... So, what are the criteria? Does the application change for each example of design?
Well the general criteria are events that are too improbale to reasonably consider incidental events.
I'll take that as a yes, the application changes for each example of design.
quote:
quote:
Some aspects of some object-oriented programing languages are organized into hierarchies, but most aspects are not. DNA has been compared to program code. Program code certainly does not fall into a nested hierarchy in any language, but DNA does. It is not true that technologies are organized into nested hierarchies.
DNA is one language; as a language, it apparently falls into a nested hierarchy like many programming languages.
Languages do not fall into a nested hierarchy. I can give you counter-examples. But whether languages fall into any sort of hierarchy is not the issue.
It is not DNA that falls into a nested hierarchy, but sequences of codons. If you are trying to compare this to program code, it would correspond to programs written in a particular language falling into a nested hierarchy, not the languages themselves. I assure you computer programs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, no matter what language they are written in. Limiting programs to some sort of hierarchy like we see in DNA would be very poor design.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/2/2008 3:01:21 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7833
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
I'll take that as a yes, the application changes for each example of design.
Take it how ever you want; the general criteria are the same.
quote:
Languages do not fall into a nested hierarchy. I can give you counter-examples. But whether languages fall into any sort of hierarchy is not the issue.
Actually, it is the issue. In fact the only other thing that falls into nested hierarchies beside life are intelligently designed systems.
quote:
It is not DNA that falls into a nested hierarchy, but sequences of codons. If you are trying to compare this to program code, it would correspond to programs written in a particular language falling into a nested hierarchy, not the languages themselves. I assure you computer programs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, no matter what language they are written in. Limiting programs to some sort of hierarchy like we see in DNA would be very poor design.
Actually, object oriented programming is defined as a hierarchy, with child classes inheriting characteristics of parent classes - and a genome is written in a code, and assembled into modular structures - which are now recognized as re-usable components, utilized throughout living systems.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/2/2008 7:34:20 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 368
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Really? What are these indicators?
I believe the criterion used is called systematic flaking.
My laptop does not have systematic flaking. Does that mean it was not designed?
How does ID know that my laptop was designed? Let me guess, my looking for something you ALREADY KNOW is present in laptops, which you ALSO ALREADY KNOW indicates design.
Just like you used something you ALREADY KNOW is present in stone tools, which you ALSO ALREADY KNOW indicated design.
Like I said, ID is useless, since it can only detect design in things we already KNOW are designed.
I have a rock in my hands. How can I tell it was designed or not? Please tell me what to look for.
quote:
quote:
In that case, can you give me a list of predictions ID has made?
Also, how does ID explain the nested hierarchy?
Sure; that complexities in organisms would be ubiquitous,
We already knew this.
quote:
that 'junk DNA' would be found to have purpose, that genetics would not depend on selective factors to exist, that no unguided means to produce the gentics and machinery of cells would be found, that the conditions for the existence of life would not be ordiary, but exceptional. Those are a few.
ID predicted that junk DNA MUST have purpose? Explain please. How did ID do this?
quote:
quote:
Give me an example of how ID can be falsified.
Behe offered the demonstration of an unguided origination of a simple cell.
So, if any possible explanation of how a cell could have evolved is offered, ID would be falsified?
quote:
quote:
Pyramids are not imperfect replicators. Which means they cannot incrementally reach thier current shape. THAT is why we conclude that intelligence is needed. It is the same reason whe conclude that intelligence is needed to create a watch. Watches are not imperfect replicators.
Interestingly, all life on Earth ARE imperfect replicators. Which means thier complexity can be explained with evolution. Evolution cannot explain complexity in ANYTHING if that thing is not an imperfect replicator. Do you understand?
Well materialism holds that 'imperfect replicators' are the product of ordinary unguided forces acting on non-living matter - the point still holds.
quote:
If we want to claim the Pyramids was built by the Egyptians, we have to show that the Egyptians actually existed. It's really that simple. If you want to claim that a designer diversified and created life on earth, you have to show that the designer exists.
No, you don't - only someone who was completely disingenuous or completely ignorant of scientific exploration would claim that science would stop in its investigation of the pyramids simply because the designers were unknown - this is evidenced by the fact that there are many archeological artifacts whose designers are unknown, but are still considered designed objects.
Please please please pay attention. Focus Juhd.
I did NOT say that investigation would stop. What I said was that IF you want to use Egyptians as an explanation, you HAVE to show that they exist. Using the Egyptians as an explanation for the existance of pyramids, WITHOUT supporting the existance of the Egyptians will make you look like an ID supporter, and you will not be taken seriously.
If you want to use a designer as an explanation, you have to show that the designer exists. See?
quote:
quote:
Why would we conclude that the pyramids arose naturally?
Because by your criteria no design hypothesis could be offered absent direct evidence of the existence of a designer - absurd, isn't it?
Not so fast. Of course an HYPOTHESIS other than a completely natural one could be offered.
I will explain in more detail.
Lets say we discover a pyramid on an alien planet. There is no evidence for a designer, and there is no evidence for any natural mechanism that could have resulted in the pyramid.
Now, lets say there are two hypothesis.
Hypothesis A : The pyramid was created by some natural mechanism, currently unknown.
Hypothesis B: The pyramid was created by intelligent agents, currently unknown.
At this point in time, the two are basically worth the same. They are both supported equally.
Now, lets say they find tools that could have been used to create the pyramids. A gains strength. Now they find a quarry where stone blocks were removed. A becomes stronger again. Now they examine the quarry and find that the blocks removed are the same dimentions as those used in the pyramid. A becomes stronger still.
Do you see that now, A is becoming a theory, while B is still an hypothesis? Now, we have theory A. Now we make a prediction: We should find some way the creators of the pyramid moved the stone blocks from the quarry to the build site. This is a prediction made by the theory.
Now, lets look at it another way.
Begin over, with both still in the hypothesis stage.
Now, scientist finds other smaller pyramids on the surface of the planet, some of them only a few cm high. They analyse the chemical structure, and find that they are growing crystals. They analyse the big pyramid, and see that it has the same chemical makup. A theory is born: Perhaps the pyramid is a giant growing crystal. Scientists manage to grow thier own in a lab. Theory B gains in strength. Scientists descover that sunlight inhibits the growth. They predict that the big pyramid will stop growing in the day, and then start growing again at night. They install lazer reflectors, and find that indeed this is the case.
Do you see that in the seconds scenario, Theory B is the stronger one?
Now, ask yourself, what made them strong? The evidence, as well as the accuracy of thier predictions.
When we examine life on Earth, the evidence shows that they evolved over time. There is evidence supporting this. This is why the ToE is a scientific theory. ID on the other hand is not, because there is no evidence supporting it.
If you want to use crystal growth as a mechanism in which the pyramid came into existance, you have to show that the mechanism exists.
If you want to use designers as a mechanism in which the pyramid came into existance, you have to show that the mechanism exists.
If you want to use evolution as a mechanisn in which life diversified, you have to show that the mechanism exists.
If you want to use a designer as a mechanisn in which life diversified, you have to show that the designer exists.
You have NOT shown that a designer exists. You have not even identidied a designer. ID theory is still on square one.
So, to answer your question, there might very well be an HYPOTHESIS for a designer. But THEN it must be supported using EVIDENCE derived from REALITY.
Do you understand now?
quote:
quote:
Were they imperfect replicators?
Actually, that makes the case stronger, not weaker - of the known causes of the development of imperfect replicators, only intelligence is known to be a cause.
Answer the question please. You mentioned tools that were found, where no one knows who designed them. I repeat my question: Were any of these tools imperfect replicators?
quote:
quote:
ID is not going anywhere, before the designer is not identified and shown to exist.
As I have shown that isn't a necessity.
Ah, so you have not even identified the designer yet? Are you confirming this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/2/2008 10:49:42 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I'll take that as a yes, the application changes for each example of design.
Take it how ever you want; the general criteria are the same.
From what I've seen the criteria amount to saying with a wave of the hand that the probability of the outcome is less than some very small number. Rather like saying the probability of a winning lottery ticket is so small that we should not expect a winner by random draw.
And the implementation of the criteria are vastly different in each case.
quote:
quote:
Languages do not fall into a nested hierarchy. I can give you counter-examples. But whether languages fall into any sort of hierarchy is not the issue.
Actually, it is the issue. In fact the only other thing that falls into nested hierarchies beside life are intelligently designed systems.
But designed systems so not fall into nested hierarchies.
quote:
quote:
It is not DNA that falls into a nested hierarchy, but sequences of codons. If you are trying to compare this to program code, it would correspond to programs written in a particular language falling into a nested hierarchy, not the languages themselves. I assure you computer programs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, no matter what language they are written in. Limiting programs to some sort of hierarchy like we see in DNA would be very poor design.
Actually, object oriented programming is defined as a hierarchy, with child classes inheriting characteristics of parent classes - and a genome is written in a code, and assembled into modular structures - which are now recognized as re-usable components, utilized throughout living systems.
OO programs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. In C++ for example, classes can be defined without a parent. And classes that have parents can have multiple parents. Classes in C++ do not form a hierachy, they form multiple independent webs of classes. In Java, all classes descend from the base class Object. However, since designed systems do not fall into hierarchies, Java has interfaces which allow two classes to share characteristics -- methods -- that are not shared by any of their common ancestors. Again, we do not see the sort of hierarchy we observe in DNA. Object Oriented programs are a excellent example that shows that designed systems do not fall into nested hierarchies.
The patterns formed by Object Oriented programs refute your claim that designed systems fall into nested hierarchies.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/2/2008 7:42:35 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7833
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
Veritas, I will let you have the last word; boredom is setting in, and as neither of us has said anything particularly different to the other since 2005, I don't anticipate anything new being said in this thread.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/2/2008 11:22:07 PM
|
|
|
Molotor
Posts: 28
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
Just a short comment here.
Source code regardless of the language always compiles the same way. You get the same exe or dll or what have you each time. Not so with DNA.
How can code that gives unreliable outcomes each time be considered the same as computer code? If you can't predict how the resultant app is going to turn out it's unreliable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/3/2008 8:45:01 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 368
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Veritas, I will let you have the last word; boredom is setting in, and as neither of us has said anything particularly different to the other since 2005, I don't anticipate anything new being said in this thread.
Cop out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/3/2008 11:17:35 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Veritas, I will let you have the last word; boredom is setting in, and as neither of us has said anything particularly different to the other since 2005, I don't anticipate anything new being said in this thread.
Cop out.
Well, yeah. That's as close to a concession we're going to see from Jack.
There is no reason why designed systems should fit into a nested hierarchy; there are reasons why they do not. Evolution neatly explains the observed nested hierarchy. Whether ID proponents can bring themselves to admit it or not, this is a serious problem for ID.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/3/2008 9:19:21 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4931
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
ATTENTION: Moderator's Note
Please bring this Thread back on Topic. Thank you.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Thank you for your attention and complicance in this matter.
Lisa Luper
Faith Community Network
Forums Moderator
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/4/2008 3:42:33 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
I don't know Jack. What do you think the chances are that a school would teach that evolution might not be the answer, and it get through the "system" of activist organizations and lawyers and such. You really think they're loosing this battle?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/5/2008 7:47:13 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I don't know Jack. What do you think the chances are that a school would teach that evolution might not be the answer, and it get through the "system" of activist organizations and lawyers and such. You really think they're loosing this battle?
The activists in this battle are the ID creationists organizations and school boards like Dover and Butteville. They are the ones that want to bring about political change.
Judge Jones anticipated that he would be called an activist judge
quote:
FROM: Judge Jones' decision:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Creationists, whether they call themselves "scientific" creationists or ID proponents, have lost each and every battle. They will continue to lose. They may be unwilling to admit it, but their cause is already lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/5/2008 12:24:03 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I don't know Jack. What do you think the chances are that a school would teach that evolution might not be the answer, and it get through the "system" of activist organizations and lawyers and such. You really think they're loosing this battle?
The activists in this battle are the ID creationists organizations and school boards like Dover and Butteville. They are the ones that want to bring about political change.
Judge Jones anticipated that he would be called an activist judge
quote:
FROM: Judge Jones' decision:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Creationists, whether they call themselves "scientific" creationists or ID proponents, have lost each and every battle. They will continue to lose. They may be unwilling to admit it, but their cause is already lost.
I would consider the activists those organizations which stifle free thought under the pretense of protecting the science curriculum. Such organizations as the National Center for Science Education will never be convinced of the veracity of Intelligent Design because they are not interested in evidence. They are interested in keeping Creation (and now Intelligent Design) out of the classroom, and the most naturalistic possible form of evolution in the classroom. These are the activists that I am talking about.
I don't assume judges are activists because activist judges are scum, and I'm not going to assume that a public servant is scum.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/5/2008 1:45:00 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Such organizations as the National Center for Science Education will never be convinced of the veracity of Intelligent Design because they are not interested in evidence.
Quite the opposite. Science is evidence based, while ID is supported primarily by philosophical argument rather than evidence and scientific research. The NCSE is interested in Science Education, and part of that mission is clearly to make sure that science is taught in science class. ID is not (yet) science. It may never be.
The activist organizations are people like the Discovery Institute, which is conning school boards into teaching ID as science before ID has been adequately developed into a scientific theory.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/5/2008 2:25:14 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Such organizations as the National Center for Science Education will never be convinced of the veracity of Intelligent Design because they are not interested in evidence.
Quite the opposite. Science is evidence based, while ID is supported primarily by philosophical argument rather than evidence and scientific research. The NCSE is interested in Science Education, and part of that mission is clearly to make sure that science is taught in science class. ID is not (yet) science. It may never be.
The activist organizations are people like the Discovery Institute, which is conning school boards into teaching ID as science before ID has been adequately developed into a scientific theory.
Right so the ACLU wasn't acting as an activist organization during the Scopes trial debacle? One is on the outside of the education system the other is on the inside. Just because NCSE is playing a preservative role doesn't mean that they are not, in fact, activists. The Discover Institute is also an activist organization. This is not the point. The point is that the NCSE will never do anything other than keep evolution in schools, and creation out of schools. The law and evidence will not dissuade them from this primary purpose.
My question is not whether or not an activist organization accepts science, my question is whether or not free thought will every be allowed in schools so long as these organizations are always looking for a teacher to teach something that is not the most naturalistic form of the GUS and sue them for it. It doesn't matter where the debate is among the scientific community, activist organizations will have their mission, and will carry on in spite of it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/5/2008 5:56:10 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Such organizations as the National Center for Science Education will never be convinced of the veracity of Intelligent Design because they are not interested in evidence.
Quite the opposite. Science is evidence based, while ID is supported primarily by philosophical argument rather than evidence and scientific research. The NCSE is interested in Science Education, and part of that mission is clearly to make sure that science is taught in science class. ID is not (yet) science. It may never be.
The activist organizations are people like the Discovery Institute, which is conning school boards into teaching ID as science before ID has been adequately developed into a scientific theory.
Right so the ACLU wasn't acting as an activist organization during the Scopes trial debacle?
I didn't say that. The only organization you mentioned was the [EDIT]NCSE. ----- (idiotically, I previously wrote ACLU).
I didn't even say that the NCSE is not an 'activist' organization. Are there passivist organizations that don't do anything?
I only argued with your conviction that the NCSE is not interested in evidence.
< Message edited by essentialsaltes -- 9/7/2008 10:57:57 AM >
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/7/2008 10:35:02 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Right so the ACLU wasn't acting as an activist organization during the Scopes trial debacle? One is on the outside of the education system the other is on the inside. Just because NCSE is playing a preservative role doesn't mean that they are not, in fact, activists. The Discover Institute is also an activist organization. This is not the point. The point is that the NCSE will never do anything other than keep evolution in schools, and creation out of schools. The law and evidence will not dissuade them from this primary purpose.
The Scopes trial was about whether to allow the teaching of evolution. The current battle is about whether to allow the teaching of ID creationism. Whatever role the ACLU played in the Scopes trial is irrelevant to Butteville.
It is not the NCSE that is not dissuaded from their primary purpose by the law and the evidence; it is the ID creationists -- the Discover Institute. The evidence does not support ID creationism, and ID creationism has lost each and every legal battle it has faced. The law certainly has not dissuaded the ID creationists.
quote:
My question is not whether or not an activist organization accepts science, my question is whether or not free thought will every be allowed in schools so long as these organizations are always looking for a teacher to teach something that is not the most naturalistic form of the GUS and sue them for it. It doesn't matter where the debate is among the scientific community, activist organizations will have their mission, and will carry on in spite of it.
When has free thought ever been allowed in schools? Schools are not about free thought and never have been, schools are about teaching what is currently accepted. We don't allow free thought in math or history or any other class. We don't consider holocaust deniers in history in the interest of free thought. We don't allow students to decide what is and is not proper grammar or spelling. We don't teach astrology in science classes because it is not accepted by the scientific community. Do you also think we should allow children to decide whether the holocaust actually happened or whether astrology is science? We don't allow the promotion of ID creationism for that reason and additionally because it is illegal for government institutions to promote religion in the US.
It does not matter that ID creationism is not science or that it is illegal to promote religion in public schools, activist organizations will still try to promote it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Butteville school board exploring intelligent design - 9/8/2008 12:44:02 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
The Scopes trial was about whether to allow the teaching of evolution. The current battle is about whether to allow the teaching of ID creationism. Whatever role the ACLU played in the Scopes trial is irrelevant to Butteville.
The Scopes trial was a masquerade put on by the ACLU and the liberal media. There was nothing being "decided". The play/movie "Inherit the Wind" is what they wanted the world to think happened. It's a clear example of the entire system at work. This system drives anti-evolution thought out of public schools. It was a masquerade then. It's a matrix now.quote:
It does not matter that ID creationism is not science or that it is illegal to promote religion in public schools, activist organizations will still try to promote it.
I wonder if the day will ever come when the phrases "I don't believe it" and "It's not science" will no longer be interchangeable.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
