Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1251  
Old 04-04-2011, 09:28 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXLV
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Another fairly obvious problem with Lessans' notion of vision is that if it were true, there's no apparent reason why there should be blind spots in our visual field. Of course, each eye does have a blind spot ... and the reason why is very well-understood.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ceptimus (11-08-2012)
  #1252  
Old 04-04-2011, 09:30 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Presenting whatever as "I believe this is true..." or "In my view this" is one thing because what's to argue..."No you don't believe that!" or "No you do not hold that view!"*. That is not apologetics, and that is not presenting your beliefs as Truth For All!

*Of course that opens discussion such as the basis for your belief or view
You asked me to explain this that I posted to Wildy. I was describing the difference between evangelizing from personal beliefs/experiences and apologetics.

Apologists argue that they have an objective and proveable truth applicable to all, so they do not use qualifies such as "I think", "I believe" or "In my opinion".

They even avoid subjective descriptors such as "beautiful" because the "in my opinion" or "to me" is understood when someone says "That is beautiful". You are aware of that are you not? That the subjective aspect is completely understood?
Reply With Quote
  #1253  
Old 04-04-2011, 09:49 PM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Another fairly obvious problem with Lessans' notion of vision is that if it were true, there's no apparent reason why there should be blind spots in our visual field. Of course, each eye does have a blind spot ... and the reason why is very well-understood.
Oh hell, we can get all technical on their ass and start asking why there is a chiasm and all of the fun things you get from that!

--J.D.
Reply With Quote
  #1254  
Old 04-04-2011, 09:50 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMLV
Images: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yes, that's is exactly what I'm saying. If the eyes were a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master (without the added help of his sense of smell or hearing), because the light is bringing the image to his eyes. If a dog is able to recognize a ball, a plush toy, or other objects, he should be able to identify his master's features when the word 'master' is used. But I'm not sure if a dog is capable of taking a photograph of a group of features (which is more complicated than one object) and associating them with a word, which would allow recognition to occur.
But we already know that dogs can distinguish between otherwise identical objects by color alone. Not as many as humans because dogs only have dichromatic vision (essentially they are red-green color blind). You can design studies that would demonstrate that without the use of a command to "associate" those features with the red or blue ball (of course, in your version of things, how they know what features to associate with the word they learn if sight is not a sense is beyond me). You could for example give them two balls and whenever they pick a certain color, give them a treat. Which is probably how they've studied dog vision before.

Other problems are that dogs pay more attention to moving things than static images - but tv screens don't have a high enough frame rate for dogs (they distinguish movement better than humans). If you had a high frame rate video screen and a recording of sufficient frame rate, then a dog might react to a video of their master.

Also I ask again: should a deaf person with no sense of smell or taste be able to see?

Last edited by erimir; 04-04-2011 at 10:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-04-2011)
  #1255  
Old 04-04-2011, 10:46 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's a face that personally appeals to you. The word beautiful is a misnomer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
The word 'beautiful' is nothing more than a label that we attach to that which we find attractive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Exactly. The definition of the word beautiful is "pleasing to the mind or senses", it is simply one of the choices of words one can use to describe the personal appeal and is not limited to use with other humans by any means. How on Earth is it a "misnomer"?
These two expressions: "She is beautiful" and She appeals to me" are vastly different. In the new world people will be able to say or do whatever they want. What will stop them from using these words will come from the knowledge that they inaccurately symbolize reality. More importantly, they will be causing a serious hurt to those individuals who now believe they don't possess what others have.

Definition of misnomer: A misnomer is a wrong or inaccurate name or designation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Until these words are removed
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Do you want to remove all words from the language that describe subjective experiences rather that externally existent objects?
If the words don't represent the truth, and people develop inferiority complexes as a result, yes, they need to be removed. If a person uses the term 'beautiful sunset' no one is being hurt. The only standard we are using is whether something that is said or done is a concrete, not imaginary, hurt to another.
Reply With Quote
  #1256  
Old 04-04-2011, 10:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demimonde View Post
Shit that is both a frightening suggestion and an interesting creative writing challenge. A world without subjective qualifiers? Such a world would be boring stifling awful a world.
Those are the kinds of challenges that would need to be addressed by lawmakers (not lawyers; they are going to be displaced) who will determine what words and actions are first blows. Obviously, we wouldn't want to hurt anyone under the changed conditions (I realize that most of us wouldn't want to hurt anyone even now), and if using these qualifiers indirectly cause harm, then we wouldn't want to use them.

Last edited by peacegirl; 04-05-2011 at 01:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #1257  
Old 04-04-2011, 10:53 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Wow, who are all these fragile people that develop inferiority complexes because the word beautiful is in our vocabulary?

Quote:
Those are the kinds of challenges that would need to be addressed by lawmakers (not lawyers; they are going to be displaced) who will determine what words and behaviors are first blows. Obviously, we wouldn't want to hurt anyone under the changed conditions (I realize that most of us wouldn't want to hurt anyone even now), and if using these qualifiers indirectly cause harm, then we wouldn't want to use them.
Nanny state, no thanks
Reply With Quote
  #1258  
Old 04-04-2011, 10:55 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMLV
Images: 11
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Oh god. And I thought the comparisons to The Giver were a little over the top.

Turns out I was wrong.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Demimonde (04-05-2011), LadyShea (03-10-2013)
  #1259  
Old 04-04-2011, 10:59 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I never go over the top!
Reply With Quote
  #1260  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:03 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Much of what we learn we take at face value, at least when we're in school. We take what we learn from our professors and accept that what is in the textbooks is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I think textbooks are the poorest tool used in education, actually. Also, I do not have a college degree in case you are wondering if I adhere to some dogma that education=truth. I have many threads regarding education and schools and such in the Study Hall if you're interested.
I would be interested, but I want to finish this thread before I start reading others, or I'll get totally sidetracked.

Quote:
I can see that you question everything LadyShea, which is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I was raised by hippies.
Really? Then there is something good to be said for my generation. :yup:

Quote:
No, this guy isn't around anymore. His name was Dave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And what was the scope of his involvement? Did he do any writings or explanations?
No, he was a family friend. He did go to Canada and saw that expo and when he saw a sign that said the eyes are not a sense organ, it got him interested in the book because he knew that Lessans was also referring to the eyes as not being a sense organ. He also loved the idea of no blame, but he didn't realize that blame and punishment are necessary in our present environment.


Quote:
In the case of hearing, a nerve ending is being stimulated by frequencies and wavelengths and is then interpreted by the brain, whereas in the case of sight, there is nothing in the light that sends signals to the brain to be interpreted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So light frequencies and wavelengths are not in the light? But sound frequencies and wavelengths are in the sound?
No, they both have wavelengths and frequencies but the properties of light are different than sound. I don't know if the fact that light does not require a medium means anything in relation to this discovery, but there are definite differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You are aware that light is electromagnetic radiation, correct? You are aware the brain is an electromagnetic system, correct?
So what are you implying?

Quote:
It seems logical, but it doesn't work that way according to Lessans' observations. Again, I don't want people to get defensive. If we can't resolve this issue, we should move on and come back when everyone is cooled off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am not defensive nor do I need to cool off. I am trying to understand why you believe Lessans is correct
I didn't mean you personally. But there are some people in here who are ready to blow their top.
Reply With Quote
  #1261  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:03 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=peacegirl;932983]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't have a clue whether the Jupiter moons example was indisputable.
It is!

Quote:
As I said just now, if there is no other possible explanation, then Lessans would be wrong.
He is!

OK! the train wreck is over. Nothing more to see here, folks.

Quote:
You tell me, and I'll tell you if you're correct. :yup:
I'm supposed to tell you what your hard evidence is? :eek:

Quote:
I'm not questioning The Lone Ranger's knowledge. His knowledge is based on man's present understanding and he does a very good job. I even told him so. But how can you tell me to agree with something I don't?
If you don't agree that the world is round instead of flat, that is your problem, not mine.

Quote:
I'm truly sorry if I'm taking you out of your comfort zone. That was never my intention.
This is typical of the condescension of the True Believer. The idea that you are presenting Revolutionary New Ideas that make people uncomfortable. Your "ideas," if one may use such a word to grace this bullshit, don't make anyone uncomfortable. It is kind of uncomfortable, though, to watch you continue to flounder and flail about and make a fool of yourself. Watching another person behave like this does rouse feelings of discomfort in all but sadists.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Doctor X (04-05-2011)
  #1262  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:06 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The rest of your questions deal with empirical data, and I cannot give you that. I can only give you his astute observations.
:eek: :doh: :roll:

You can't give the empirical data. But you can give his astute observations.

Empirical means "observed," for fuck's sake!

:faint:
David, stop using the word 'fuck' please.
Consternation waves
:ohnoes:


Quote:
Empirical means testable, falsifiable, and proved through the gathering of data. Even though his conclusions came from astute observation and sound reasoning, there is a way to test his knowledge empirically.
Erm, derm, once again, what the fuck does the above even mean? If his fucking "ideas" came from fucking "astute observation," then they are fucking empirical. But you just fucking said that you can't provide the fucking empircal data! Fuck the what? I mean, like, fuck!
Reply With Quote
  #1263  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:09 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
He was trying to show that the eye did not meet the definition of sense, just as you can't put a potato in the same category as fruit because it doesn't meet the definition. Yes, photons make contact with the optic nerve. They are a condition of sight. We cannot see without light being present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yes, I understand the potato and fruit analogy, what I don't understand is why he thought that. He asserts that with the senses are "stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending"
Light is not carrying any stimuli as sound does; light is a necessary condition for sight. Sound is carried through solids, liquids, and gases. Light does not carry stimuli through any of these mediums. You are assuming that the stimuli is in the light itself, but it is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So in the case of sight, stimuli (light photons) from the outside world make contact with a nerve (the optic nerve). That perfectly fits with Lessan's definition of sense, correct? So why is sight not a sense?
As I said, it is a necessary condition of sight, but it is not bringing stimuli (as sound does) to the optic nerve where it is then transformed into an image.
Reply With Quote
  #1264  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:18 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Oh, and, by the way, if you "don't have a clue" whether the Jupiter moons example is indisputable or not, then you don't have a clue whether the author's moronic ideas are true or not, right?

So, basically, you don't have a clue! :D

Fuck!
Reply With Quote
  #1265  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
I'm not at all being mean or unfair, but I very much doubt that you could design and conduct a proper experiment. Do you know what a control is and why it's important? Do you know what confounding variables are and how to control for them? Do you understand the necessity of replication and the danger of pseudoreplication? Do you know what double blinding is? Designing a proper experiment is a lot more difficult than you might think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not sure what a confounding variable or double blinding is. I realize how important it is for an experiment to be reliable.
I looked up confounding variable and I understand what it means now. I already knew what a double blind study is, but I got thrown off when you called it double blinding. My son is always asking me when I tell him I found some information on the internet, "Were double blind studies done?" He says you can't know anything by a few case studies, which is what you were saying. My son is a radiologist and very methodical in his thinking. If someone hears of a case study where a person used a certain alternative therapy because conventional treatments failed, and they started to get better, we don't know for sure if returning health was from the treatment or from a placebo effect. There are occasionally spontaneous remissions that are unexplainable scientifically.

Last edited by peacegirl; 04-04-2011 at 11:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1266  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:25 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light is not carrying any stimuli as sound does;
Oh, RULLY?

Here, try a little experiment. Go out on a bright day. Stand around for a few minutes. Then immediately go into a very dark room. Explain what you experience. Extra credit for explaining why you experience this.

Here is another experiment to test your claim that light does not carry any stimuli as sound does: Take a pair of scissors, and stick them into your eyes. Tell us what you see afterward!

Quote:
Sound is carried through solids, liquids, and gases.
Ja?

Quote:
Light does not carry stimuli through any of these mediums.
Bullshit! Light can pass through liquids and gases, solids not so much; but then we are only talking about visible light. Have you ever heard of X-rays? Do you know what those are?

Quote:
You are assuming that the stimuli is in the light itself, but it is not.
Honestly, what the fuck does this even mean?

Quote:
As I said, it is a necessary condition of sight, but it is not bringing stimuli (as sound does) to the optic nerve where it is then transformed into an image.
What? Sound brings stimuls to the optic nerve, but not light? :foocl:

Or maybe you meant: "Light is not bringing stimulus to the optic nerve, as sound does to the eardrums."

But that is exactly what it is doing! Where the fuck did you ever get the idiotic notion otherwise?
Reply With Quote
  #1267  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:30 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

The difference between light waves and sound waves is this: sound requires a medium to carry it; sound waves are a pattern on the substance conveying it. Light, however, does not require a medium; that's why light can travel through a vacuum and sound cannot. Light also displays wave-like and particle-like behavior, depending on what one looks for; this is from quantum physics, and rather mysterious, but the actual effects of light on the eye are well understood, some shatterpot's protests to the contrary notwithstanding.
Reply With Quote
  #1268  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:33 PM
DaveT DaveT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: CCXXV
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
In the new world people will be able to say or do whatever they want.
That reminds me, I must get to work on that story involving the complete absence of all laws (of man and God/nature/physics, whatever), and the talking police horse. Thanks for the reminder. :yup:

ETA: A comma, lest people mistakenly infer I am for the eradication of talking police horses.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (04-04-2011), Demimonde (04-05-2011), Pan Narrans (04-05-2011), Stephen Maturin (04-04-2011)
  #1269  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:44 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveT View Post
Quote:
In the new world people will be able to say or do whatever they want.
That reminds me, I must get to work on that story involving the complete absence of all laws (of man and God/nature/physics, whatever), and the talking police horse. Thanks for the reminder. :yup:

ETA: A comma, lest people mistakenly infer I am for the eradication of talking police horses.
I am in chat, but you are mysteriously silent. Is it because light is not carrying any information to your eyes? :sadcheer:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Doctor X (04-05-2011)
  #1270  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:45 PM
DaveT DaveT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: CCXXV
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

It says you're not in there. :confused:
Reply With Quote
  #1271  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:48 PM
DaveT DaveT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: CCXXV
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Oh, fuck, you meant fucking FF chat, for fuck sake! I was fucking about in fucking TGL chat, waiting for you and Scotty and others to discuss the fucking Pood.

Oh, DCD was in earlier, as was that fucking fuckwit, SelflessEgoist. What a fucking obnoxious fuck-head that fucker is!
Reply With Quote
  #1272  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:51 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveT View Post
Oh, fuck, you meant fucking FF chat, for fuck sake! I was fucking about in fucking TGL chat, waiting for you and Scotty and others to discuss the fucking Pood.

Oh, DCD was in earlier, as was that fucking fuckwit, SelflessEgoist. What a fucking obnoxious fuck-head that fucker is!
Fuck! Stop saying fuck so much! Fuck! I mean, fuck!
Consternation waves
:ohnoes:
Reply With Quote
  #1273  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:55 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light is not carrying any stimuli as sound does;
Oh, RULLY?

Here, try a little experiment. Go out on a bright day. Stand around for a few minutes. Then immediately go into a very dark room. Explain what you experience. Extra credit for explaining why you experience this.

Here is another experiment to test your claim that light does not carry any stimuli as sound does: Take a pair of scissors, and stick them into your eyes. Tell us what you see afterward!

Quote:
Sound is carried through solids, liquids, and gases.
Ja?

Quote:
Light does not carry stimuli through any of these mediums.
Bullshit! Light can pass through liquids and gases, solids not so much; but then we are only talking about visible light. Have you ever heard of X-rays? Do you know what those are?

Quote:
You are assuming that the stimuli is in the light itself, but it is not.
Honestly, what the fuck does this even mean?

Quote:
As I said, it is a necessary condition of sight, but it is not bringing stimuli (as sound does) to the optic nerve where it is then transformed into an image.
What? Sound brings stimuls to the optic nerve, but not light? :foocl:

Or maybe you meant: "Light is not bringing stimulus to the optic nerve, as sound does to the eardrums."

But that is exactly what it is doing! Where the fuck did you ever get the idiotic notion otherwise?
I concede. I'm getting in over my head. I said before the way he came to these conclusions had more to do with how the brain learns words (which indirectly led him to his findings). If his findings regarding words are wrong; then he was wrong. I am not going to get into areas that are not my expertise. If you don't think he has proof, then continue to believe the eyes are a sense organ. I'm not forcing you to believe anything that doesn't make absolute sense to you.
Reply With Quote
  #1274  
Old 04-05-2011, 12:00 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If you don't think he has proof, then continue to believe the eyes are a sense organ. I'm not forcing you to believe anything that doesn't make absolute sense to you.
Oh, yes, thank you very much. I'll continue to believe that eyes are a sense organ, for the simple reason that they are a fucking sense organ! :sarclap:

BTW, if you don't think they are a sense organ, then what the fuck do you think they are??

Oh, and, if eyes aren't stimulated by light, what happens when you put a scissors into your eyes? What happens when you step out of a bright day into a dark room? Did you notice those questions? Can you answer them?
Reply With Quote
  #1275  
Old 04-05-2011, 12:05 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I didn't mean you personally. But there are some people in here who are ready to blow their top.
Still looking in that mirror? :pat:

We watch in reverence,
As Narcissus is turn into a flower.


--J. "A Flower?!" D.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (04-05-2011)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (0 members and 9 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.44414 seconds with 14 queries