Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #10426  
Old 06-28-2012, 05:11 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: Part Two

Quote:
I explained why this is not a tautology or a modal fallacy, but it went in one ear and out the other
No you didn't, you merely asserted that it is not tautological or fallacious. No explanations ever, at all. I went back and checked even to ensure I wasn't misremembering.

However, if you can provide a link to your alleged explanations I will apologize.
Reply With Quote
  #10427  
Old 06-28-2012, 06:38 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I explained why this is not a tautology or a modal fallacy, but it went in one ear and out the other
No you didn't, you merely asserted that it is not tautological or fallacious. No explanations ever, at all. I went back and checked even to ensure I wasn't misremembering.

However, if you can provide a link to your alleged explanations I will apologize.
I don't want your apology. I thank you for helping me with that one sentence, but that doesn't mean you are right in this case. Lessans' observations were spot on. These observations can and will be tested and proved correct one day. Mark my words. If you're not interested in the book, I suggest you move on. I won't be offended.
Reply With Quote
  #10428  
Old 06-28-2012, 06:55 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: Part Two

LOL
Reply With Quote
  #10429  
Old 06-28-2012, 08:37 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I explained why this is not a tautology or a modal fallacy, but it went in one ear and out the other
No you didn't, you merely asserted that it is not tautological or fallacious. No explanations ever, at all. I went back and checked even to ensure I wasn't misremembering.

However, if you can provide a link to your alleged explanations I will apologize.
I don't want your apology. I thank you for helping me with that one sentence, but that doesn't mean you are right in this case. Lessans' observations were spot on. These observations can and will be tested and proved correct one day. Mark my words. If you're not interested in the book, I suggest you move on. I won't be offended.
peacegirl, everyone here is well past any interest in Lessans. It is you, the crazy lady, they are interested in. As long as you respond to posts, it is gonna go on like this forever. You will be poked, and prodded and people will marvel at how screwed up you are.

Get help peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
  #10430  
Old 06-28-2012, 09:45 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Since I am no longer discussing the book, here is a link to a PBS report that some people may find informative.

Dollars and Dentists | FRONTLINE | PBS
Reply With Quote
  #10431  
Old 06-28-2012, 09:49 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: Part Two

If you are no longer discussing the book then you should move to different threads to discuss different topics.
Reply With Quote
  #10432  
Old 06-28-2012, 10:14 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
If you are no longer discussing the book then you should move to different threads to discuss different topics.
It was just a t.v. show I came across and I wanted to give people the link. I'm not interested in discussing it. If I have a topic of interest to discuss, I will start a new thread.
Reply With Quote
  #10433  
Old 06-28-2012, 10:29 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, but your questions regarding the two-sided equation do show me that there is a lack of understanding on your part.
Again, such as? Be specific. What questions have I asked that show a lack of understanding?

(Not agreeing with unevidenced and unargued-for presuppositions does not count.)
Scroll back, you'll find them Spacemonkey. I'm not going to work harder than you do, sorry.
Can't do it can you? You're full of shit, Peacegirl. You can't produce a single question from me that shows a lack of understanding.

You can't defend his claims about vision, and you can't defend his presuppositions about conscience. Yet you can't bring yourself to leave.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10434  
Old 06-28-2012, 11:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, but your questions regarding the two-sided equation do show me that there is a lack of understanding on your part.
Again, such as? Be specific. What questions have I asked that show a lack of understanding?

(Not agreeing with unevidenced and unargued-for presuppositions does not count.)
Scroll back, you'll find them Spacemonkey. I'm not going to work harder than you do, sorry.
Can't do it can you? You're full of shit, Peacegirl. You can't produce a single question from me that shows a lack of understanding.

You can't defend his claims about vision, and you can't defend his presuppositions about conscience. Yet you can't bring yourself to leave.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will leave when I'm good and ready. Maybe I can't explain the exact mechanism as to how the eyes work, but that doesn't mean that his claim is wrong. As far as your understanding of his first discovery, you don't even come close. You can stamp your feet all you want, and call me all kinds of names, it doesn't change the facts. He made no assumptions or presuppositions whatsoever. His reasoning came from astute observation and accurate inferences. Take it or leave it.
Reply With Quote
  #10435  
Old 06-29-2012, 12:06 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will leave when I'm good and ready. Maybe I can't explain the exact mechanism as to how the eyes work, but that doesn't mean that his claim is wrong. As far as your understanding of his first discovery, you don't even come close. You can stamp your feet all you want, and call me all kinds of names, it doesn't change the facts. He made no assumptions or presuppositions whatsoever. His reasoning came from astute observation and accurate inferences. Take it or leave it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: You're full of shit. You are also mentally ill. You can't explain real-time vision without directly contradicting yourself, and that does mean his claim is wrong. You have never established any lack of understanding on my part with respect to his first non-discovery, nor are you able to do so. His presuppositions have been listed and you have acknowledged that his conclusions require them to be true. Your faith-based insistence that they were somehow reliably inferred from 'observations' that you do not know anything about and cannot present does nothing to change the fact that they are still unsupported presuppositions in the context of hs work. Take it or leave it? Everyone here has already left it. But you can't leave because your mental illness compels you to stay. Get help Peacegirl. Everyone here knows you need it.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (07-06-2012)
  #10436  
Old 06-29-2012, 01:16 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, but your questions regarding the two-sided equation do show me that there is a lack of understanding on your part.
Again, such as? Be specific. What questions have I asked that show a lack of understanding?

(Not agreeing with unevidenced and unargued-for presuppositions does not count.)
Scroll back, you'll find them Spacemonkey. I'm not going to work harder than you do, sorry.
Can't do it can you? You're full of shit, Peacegirl. You can't produce a single question from me that shows a lack of understanding.

You can't defend his claims about vision, and you can't defend his presuppositions about conscience. Yet you can't bring yourself to leave.
Maybe I can't explain the exact mechanism as to how the eyes work, but that doesn't mean that his claim is wrong.
Quite right. Even a crazy person can be right if what they claim is right. However when it comes to vision and senses Lessans was just wrong. There is no amount of testing that is gonna change that. And only treatment for your schizophrenia will ever allow you to realize this.

Get help peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
  #10437  
Old 06-29-2012, 12:06 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will leave when I'm good and ready. Maybe I can't explain the exact mechanism as to how the eyes work, but that doesn't mean that his claim is wrong. As far as your understanding of his first discovery, you don't even come close. You can stamp your feet all you want, and call me all kinds of names, it doesn't change the facts. He made no assumptions or presuppositions whatsoever. His reasoning came from astute observation and accurate inferences. Take it or leave it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: You're full of shit. You are also mentally ill. You can't explain real-time vision without directly contradicting yourself, and that does mean his claim is wrong. You have never established any lack of understanding on my part with respect to his first non-discovery, nor are you able to do so. His presuppositions have been listed and you have acknowledged that his conclusions require them to be true. Your faith-based insistence that they were somehow reliably inferred from 'observations' that you do not know anything about and cannot present does nothing to change the fact that they are still unsupported presuppositions in the context of hs work. Take it or leave it? Everyone here has already left it. But you can't leave because your mental illness compels you to stay. Get help Peacegirl. Everyone here knows you need it.
There were no presuppositions Spacemonkey. The only thing he needed to prove is that, when there is no justification to hurt others with a first blow, conscience WILL NOT ALLOW one to choose this option as a preferable alternative. I'm done talking to you. You've gotten too rude for my taste.
Reply With Quote
  #10438  
Old 06-29-2012, 12:35 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There were no presuppositions Spacemonkey.
Of course there were. There are the listed points concerning conscience. Until you can support them they remain no more than presuppositions. That's what the word 'presupposition' means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only thing he needed to prove is that, when there is no justification to hurt others with a first blow, conscience WILL NOT ALLOW one to choose this option as a preferable alternative.
And he didn't prove that. The only reasoning he provided presupposed his listed presuppositions about conscience.

Oh, and where were those red photons? Have you worked out yet whether they were stationary photons or teleporting photons? (Because you have inconsistently claimed that they were both.)
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10439  
Old 06-29-2012, 12:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There were no presuppositions Spacemonkey.
Of course there were. There are the listed points concerning conscience. Until you can support them they remain no more than presuppositions. That's what the word 'presupposition' means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only thing he needed to prove is that, when there is no justification to hurt others with a first blow, conscience WILL NOT ALLOW one to choose this option as a preferable alternative.
And he didn't prove that. The only reasoning he provided presupposed his listed presuppositions about conscience.

Oh, and where were those red photons? Have you worked out yet whether they were stationary photons or teleporting photons? (Because you have inconsistently claimed that they were both.)
I'm going to say this one more time. The only thing he has to prove is that, under certain environmental conditions, conscience cannot justify hurting others with a first blow. If he can do that, then his reasoning is spot on, and this new world is coming whether you can see it or not. That's all I'm going to add. The responses have gotten so mean and nasty that I'm not going to tolerate it anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #10440  
Old 06-29-2012, 01:37 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There were no presuppositions Spacemonkey.
Of course there were. There are the listed points concerning conscience. Until you can support them they remain no more than presuppositions. That's what the word 'presupposition' means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only thing he needed to prove is that, when there is no justification to hurt others with a first blow, conscience WILL NOT ALLOW one to choose this option as a preferable alternative.
And he didn't prove that. The only reasoning he provided presupposed his listed presuppositions about conscience.

Oh, and where were those red photons? Have you worked out yet whether they were stationary photons or teleporting photons? (Because you have inconsistently claimed that they were both.)
I'm going to say this one more time. The only thing he has to prove is that, under certain environmental conditions, conscience cannot justify hurting others with a first blow. If he can do that, then his reasoning is spot on, and this new world is coming whether you can see it or not. That's all I'm going to add. The responses have gotten so mean and nasty that I'm not going to tolerate it anymore.
And when your memory and reasoning fails you yet again because of your mental illness you will tolerate it again, and again, and again till the end of your days.....
or you could get help.

Get help peacegirl, schizophrenia is treatable.
Reply With Quote
  #10441  
Old 06-29-2012, 02:01 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There were no presuppositions Spacemonkey.
Of course there were. There are the listed points concerning conscience. Until you can support them they remain no more than presuppositions. That's what the word 'presupposition' means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only thing he needed to prove is that, when there is no justification to hurt others with a first blow, conscience WILL NOT ALLOW one to choose this option as a preferable alternative.
And he didn't prove that. The only reasoning he provided presupposed his listed presuppositions about conscience.

Oh, and where were those red photons? Have you worked out yet whether they were stationary photons or teleporting photons? (Because you have inconsistently claimed that they were both.)
I'm going to say this one more time. The only thing he has to prove is that, under certain environmental conditions, conscience cannot justify hurting others with a first blow. If he can do that, then his reasoning is spot on, and this new world is coming whether you can see it or not. That's all I'm going to add. The responses have gotten so mean and nasty that I'm not going to tolerate it anymore.
And when your memory and reasoning fails you yet again because of your mental illness you will tolerate it again, and again, and again till the end of your days.....
or you could get help.

Get help peacegirl, schizophrenia is treatable.
Of course NA is going to try and get the last word. He's been doing this all along, as if his remarks discredit this major discovery. For those people who have a tad of humility left (which I doubt), I am giving the address to my website just in case they may be interested after this thread is gone. I promise, I won't tell anyone since I know there's so much pressure in here to make Lessans look like a fool, which he is anything but. So mums the word. shhhh Please be aware that my website is not yet constructed. Hopefully it will be up and ready in a short time.

Coming Soon - Future home of something quite cool

www.trafford.com

Last edited by peacegirl; 06-29-2012 at 02:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10442  
Old 06-29-2012, 06:46 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Get help peacegirl, schizophrenia is treatable.
Again, what is your evidence or argument that she is schizophrenic?
Reply With Quote
  #10443  
Old 06-29-2012, 07:03 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Compare Peacegirls posts on these 2 threads and this,

Schizophrenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
  #10444  
Old 06-29-2012, 08:04 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Yeah. Looks like complete bullshit.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
peacegirl (06-29-2012)
  #10445  
Old 06-29-2012, 08:10 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Get help peacegirl, schizophrenia is treatable.
Again, what is your evidence or argument that she is schizophrenic?
He got it from "shut up and calculate," which according to him is absolutely authoritative. "Shut up and calculate" is God for him, all inquiry stops there.

Of course, there is no "shut up and calculate" to diagnose schizophrenia, so I guess he's just a big hypocrite, since he is stating a "fact" without shutting up and calculating! Goodness, does this mean there could be more to life and to intellectual inquiry than "shut up and calculate"? :freakout:
Reply With Quote
  #10446  
Old 06-29-2012, 09:30 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

If everything is black and white, 'Shut up and calculate' works, but if there are gradiations of knowledge, then it would require some thought.
Reply With Quote
  #10447  
Old 06-29-2012, 09:54 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Get help peacegirl, schizophrenia is treatable.
Again, what is your evidence or argument that she is schizophrenic?
He got it from "shut up and calculate," which according to him is absolutely authoritative. "Shut up and calculate" is God for him, all inquiry stops there.

Of course, there is no "shut up and calculate" to diagnose schizophrenia, so I guess he's just a big hypocrite, since he is stating a "fact" without shutting up and calculating! Goodness, does this mean there could be more to life and to intellectual inquiry than "shut up and calculate"? :freakout:
You are in a world of your own. That's all I have to say.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
naturalist.atheist (06-29-2012)
  #10448  
Old 06-29-2012, 10:11 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm going to say this one more time.
Why? Why are you repeating a point that was already addressed and refuted?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only thing he has to prove is that, under certain environmental conditions, conscience cannot justify hurting others with a first blow.
And he didn't prove this. As I already explained, his reasoning for this relies upon those presuppositions that you cannot support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If he can do that, then his reasoning is spot on, and this new world is coming whether you can see it or not.
And he can't do that, therefore his reasoning is not spot on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's all I'm going to add. The responses have gotten so mean and nasty that I'm not going to tolerate it anymore.
But you will. Because you will forget that you've said this, and your mental illness won't let you stop replying.

Where were those red photons? Were they stationary or did they teleport? You don't have the faintest idea, do you?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10449  
Old 06-29-2012, 10:38 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm going to say this one more time.
Why? Why are you repeating a point that was already addressed and refuted?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only thing he has to prove is that, under certain environmental conditions, conscience cannot justify hurting others with a first blow.
And he didn't prove this. As I already explained, his reasoning for this relies upon those presuppositions that you cannot support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If he can do that, then his reasoning is spot on, and this new world is coming whether you can see it or not.
And he can't do that, therefore his reasoning is not spot on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's all I'm going to add. The responses have gotten so mean and nasty that I'm not going to tolerate it anymore.
But you will. Because you will forget that you've said this, and your mental illness won't let you stop replying.

Where were those red photons? Were they stationary or did they teleport? You don't have the faintest idea, do you?
I hope you don't give up on these amazing discoveries. I am not depending on you, but I know that you've spent a lot of time here, and it certainly would make me feel glad that you don't jump ship and give up entirely. The website will be up soon. Go to it if you ever have the inclination. :wink:
Reply With Quote
  #10450  
Old 06-29-2012, 10:48 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I hope you don't give up on these amazing discoveries.
You don't have any amazing discoveries. You have only an amazing mental illness and faith-based delusion, and an amazing inability to answer questions or address objections.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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 01:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.70665 seconds with 14 queries