A Message to Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2012, 12:41 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(31-03-2012 12:09 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  It is, as an abstraction.

No, it is, as a dimension.

Try again.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 11:27 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(31-03-2012 12:41 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-03-2012 12:09 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  It is, as an abstraction.

No, it is, as a dimension.

Try again.

Okay, as you say. It's an abstract dimension. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 12:07 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
Going over this nonsense-dump of a blog again:

Quote:In a nutshell, the forces of interaction between particles at the atom level–the forces that actually keep the particles inside the atoms–are incomparably greater than the forces at work in our normal-size world, like the force of gravity. As a matter of fact, scientists have yet to understand the nature of those forces although they’ve been studying them for decades.

Electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force.

Try again.

Quote:The problem is, proof for what? That time is a fundamental variable which can be influenced by gravity, or that the movement of those particles was influenced by the slight change in the intensity of the gravitational field? I think the answer is obvious.

Question: do you honestly think that this was not accounted for in the physicists' experiment?

And, believe it or not, yes, at such small distances the difference in the amount of gravitational force being experienced by each clock can be ignored. It is so weak at that level compared to the other fundamental forces that its effects are so nearly totally washed out as to be negligible. It is only when absurdly large masses are involved that gravity becomes worth noticing at all, because the gravitational constant is so small and gravity obeys an inverse-square law.

Quote:As you probably know, the gravitational pull of the moon is six times lower than that of the earth. In other words, the intensity of the gravitational field of the moon on the moon’s surface is six times smaller than its counterpart on earth. What do you think will happen to the clock we send up there? Yes, you guessed right! It’ll slow down. As a matter of fact, it will slow down approximately 2.45 times (√6). “One hour” on the moon, according to that clock, is going to be 2 hours and 27 minutes of “our” time. Does that mean time was “altered” by the change in the gravitational field? Duh! Of course not. Gravity did not affect time; it simply affected the device through which we empirically measured time.

Guess what? This is why they didn't use grandfather clocks.

Quote:To finally realize that time is nothing more than an abstract concept we invented

Even assuming that everything you said before this was correct, you haven't given us any reason to think that. You've only given us a reason to think that the results of that single experiment should be reviewed.

In fact, even your argument that time is an abstraction and so therefore does not exist is self-contradictory. It has to be an abstraction of something.

Quote:and why the American scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology were wrong, you need to understand the way time is measured. We notice that a certain physical phenomenon is cyclic and we associate an arbitrary length of “time” to that cycle. We literally “borrow” the period or the duration of one complete cycle and by convention give it a “time value.” The rotation of the earth around is axis: one day; the complete rotation of the earth around the sun: one year, and so on.

Yes, this is true. But tell me - did you ever realize that the term "cyclic" is literally meaningless if time does not exist?

You keep saying that time is an abstraction, but you completely fail to realize that an abstraction can't just be an abstraction of nothing. It has to be used to represent something. In this case, time is an abstraction of the way that we perceive our movement through that dimension.

You really don't understand anything that you're talking about, and yet you keep trying to convince other people that you've overturned the most advanced scientific knowledge in the world. It's rather sad to watch, really.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 02:15 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2012 02:32 PM by tudorthetutor.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(31-03-2012 12:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Even assuming that everything you said before this was correct, you haven't given us any reason to think that. You've only given us a reason to think that the results of that single experiment should be reviewed.


Reviewing the experiment would not help. What you need to understand is that we measure time by "borrowing" other physical phenomena that are real, like the movement of the Earth around its axis, gravity, particle oscillations and many others. That means there is no way to actually measure "absolute" time, because absolute time doesn't exist. This is what I'm trying to tell you. We only use relative time, which means not the time in the theory of relativity but the time measured with different methods. Time is, therefore, simply a CONVENTION! We called the rotation of the Earth around the Sun a "year," around its axis a "day," we decided a day should have 24 "hours," one hour 60 "min," and so on. By convention! I think this should be clear to everybody. Then, after we INVENTED the ABSTRACT concept of time, we started finding reliable physical phenomena that could help us measure it more accurately. Hour glasses and sundials were some of the first methods used. Later came clocks and digital watches and you know the rest. But no matter how much technology has advanced, it still has to use a real physical phenomenon to measure time. We simply cannot bypass it because time is, again, an abstract concept we invented. And when we perform experiments to "prove" time is affected by gravity, we simply prove that the particular physical phenomenon we are using to measure time is affected by gravity, not time itself! What is so hard to understand?

Also, you seem to have misunderstood one detail about the two ion clocks used in that experiment. You said that the difference in the gravitational field was too small (only 12 inches in "altitude") to influence the result. The accuracy of those clocks was up to the 18th digit of the second. That's how they were able to detect that extremely small change in the gravitational field. Do you understand now? I'm not implying that I am smarter than you because I "understood" and you didn't. Many people didn't understand that the experiment was wrong in principle, including those physicists. That experiment should not have been conducted in the first place. They should have realized what I'm writing to you now before they started spending their money on the experiment. Am I saying that I am smarter than those physicists? No. Those physicists need to do something to justify their hefty budgets, and they do that kind of experiments. If they stopped, their budget would be reduced, of course. It's simple economics for them. You know how much they spent on the particle accelerator in Switzerland? The now famous Large Hadron Collider. Ten billion dollars! To learn what? That the subatomic world is more complex than we could possible imagine? Or that we will never be able to reveal its true nature? They didn't have to spend all that money to get to that conclusion. I could have told them that for free!

(31-03-2012 12:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In fact, even your argument that time is an abstraction and so therefore does not exist is self-contradictory. It has to be an abstraction of something.

Yes, this is true. But tell me - did you ever realize that the term "cyclic" is literally meaningless if time does not exist?

You keep saying that time is an abstraction, but you completely fail to realize that an abstraction can't just be an abstraction of nothing. It has to be used to represent something. In this case, time is an abstraction of the way that we perceive our movement through that dimension.

I said, and I'm saying again: time doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. It's an invented concept that exists as an invented concept. An abstraction. An abstraction doesn't have to be an abstraction of "something." It's just an abstraction. Like music. You would argue that music is simply mechanical waves traveling through air. That's a physical phenomenon. Now, are you going to tell me that Beethoven's fifth symphony is just "mechanical waves traveling through air"? I beg to differ.
As a conclusion, since time is an abstract concept, it cannot be "added" to the three dimensions of space. The shadow your body is making on the beach is never going to combine with the sand! And yes, I am disclaiming all the new theories of physics that consider time as the fourth dimension of "spacetime" including Einstein's theory of relativity. It is my right to do that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 02:36 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Reviewing the experiment would not help.

No, because it's irrelevant.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  What you need to understand is that we measure time by "borrowing" other physical phenomena that are real, like the movement of the Earth around its axis, gravity, particle oscillations and many others.

Your point?

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  That means there is no way to actually measure "absolute" time, because absolute time doesn't exist.

You seem to be missing the fact that we measure things like gravity via other physical things. There is no way to measure "absolute" gravity, either. Does gravity not exist?

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  This is what I'm trying to tell you.

And it's bull.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  This logically proves time is a CONVENTION!

No, it doesn't. Does the fact that we measure distances via a ruler mean that there is no such thing as "absolute" distance? Just because you can't see time doesn't mean that it isn't real.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  We called the rotation of the Earth around the Sun a "year," around its axis a "day," we decided a day should have 24 "hours," one hour 60 "min," and so on. By convention!

Yes.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Then, after we INVENTED the ABSTRACT concept of time, we started finding reliable physical phenomena that could help us measure it more accurately.

No.

This is where your argument falls apart. That we have given amounts of time different names no more proves that time does not exist than the fact that we call different amounts of space different names ("foot", "yard", "mile", "light-year"). Your entire argument is absolute nonsense.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  We simply cannot bypass it because time is, again, an abstract concept we invented.

No, it isn't. It's a dimension, just like space. Just because we gave different amounts of it - or, if you prefer, different distances traveled in it - different names doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist.

Tell me. How would you say that we can measure "absolute space"?

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  And when we perform experiments to "prove" time is affected by gravity, we simply prove that the particular physical phenomenon we are using to measure time is affected by gravity, not time itself! What is so hard to understand?

The fact that you don't grasp that gravity would have an effect on this experiment so small as to be negligible.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Also, you seem to have misunderstood one detail about the two ion clocks used in that experiment. You said that the difference in the gravitational field was too small (only 12 inches in "altitude") to influence the result. The accuracy of those clocks was up to the 18th digit of the second. That's how they were able to detect that extremely small change in the gravitational field. Do you understand now?

Oh yes. Much better than you do. A distance in twelve inches is not enough to make an appreciable difference in the movements of the subatomic particles involved in those ion clocks. Do you understand now?

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I'm not implying that I am smarter than you because I "understood" and you didn't.

Then that's one thing you've gotten right. Because you didn't understand. You still don't. And I don't think you ever will.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I said, and I'm saying again: time doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon.

And you're wrong.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  It's an invented concept that exists as an invented concept. An abstraction. An abstraction doesn't have to be an abstraction of "something." It's just an abstraction. Like music. You would argue that music is simply mechanical waves traveling through air. That's a physical phenomenon. Now, are you going to tell me that Beethoven's fifth symphony is just "mechanical waves traveling through air"? I beg to differ.

And you're wrong again. A "symphony" is just our abstract idea of how those waves of movement in the air sound to us.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  As a conclusion, since time is an abstract concept

Wrong.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  it cannot be "added" to the three dimensions of space.

Wrong.

(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  And yes, I am disclaiming all the new theories of physics that consider time as the fourth dimension of "space time" including Einstein's theory of relativity.

Then you're a presumptuous idiot. I usually try to avoid comments like that, but, in this case, that's all there is to be said on the matter.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 02:43 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
Isn't there a philosophy forum this could go on? I mean it does belong in philosophy from my point of view. This conversation is going no where. Time is obviously another variable in many theories and has been proven so.

Tudlio maybe you should move your topic into the philosophy forum. Just keep in mind that philosophy hasn't contributed to science in an extremely long time. I've been studying up on physics/astrophysics and what you're postulating is giving me a headache.

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 03:45 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2012 04:00 PM by tudorthetutor.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(31-03-2012 02:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You seem to be missing the fact that we measure things like gravity via other physical things. There is no way to measure "absolute" gravity, either. Does gravity not exist?

This is the stupidest things I've ever heard. It proves your level of intelligence, and explains why you can only reply to my arguments by denying them rather than coming up with actual information. I get from this that you don't really like to think much.
To answer your question about gravity, I suggest an experiment for you: Go to the top of a tall building, jump and see what happens. Since you say that "we can only measure gravity via other physical things," you will probably figure those things out by the time you get to the ground. I'm going to ask you a stupid question now: Can you feel your body being pulled down by the gravitational field of the Earth? If you can't, stand up and jump once. Be careful not to jump too hard, though. You don't want to smash your head through the ceiling like they do it in cartoons! You don't know if gravity really exist, because "we can only measure gravity via other physical things." Duh!
So, by jumping (not necessarily from the top of a building, although you are welcome to try that too if you don't believe me), we can feel the real physical phenomenon called gravity. With time it's not the same. Go to an EMPTY, WINDOWLESS room and lock yourself in there. Stay there for... you don't know know how long because you don't have a watch or a clock. And then, tell me if you can still perceive "time." Are you going to start counting in your head? Okay. That's not "time", though. It's counting! You are borrowing a physical phenomenon (the electrical impulses in your brain as you are counting) to measure the abstract concept of time. And if you stay there for too long you literally lose the concept of time. You wouldn't even be able to say whether you've been there for hours or for days. And then, as you are standing in that room, jump once. Will you be able to still feel gravity? Well, that's a real physical phenomenon, not time.
(31-03-2012 02:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is where your argument falls apart. That we have given amounts of time different names no more proves that time does not exist than the fact that we call different amounts of space different names ("foot", "yard", "mile", "light-year"). Your entire argument is absolute nonsense.

I am going to prove to you that space, unlike time, is another one of the real physical concepts. Stand up from your computer, turn around and start walking. Unless your desk is somewhere in the desert, you're going to run into a wall sooner or later. Try walking in more direction, even jump to the ceiling, and you will be able to physically perceive the space in which you are located. You can even see it with your eyes or feel it with your forehead if you're in a dark room. But how do you see or perceive time? Go back to that empty, windowless room and meditate about it.

(31-03-2012 02:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Tell me. How would you say that we can measure "absolute space"?

We measure it with a tape measure, multiply the length, the width and the height, and then we add the word "absolute" before the result, how else? If it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic. It's a stupid question to ask, so I'm not going to answer it.


(31-03-2012 02:43 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  Isn't there a philosophy forum this could go on? I mean it does belong in philosophy from my point of view. This conversation is going no where. Time is obviously another variable in many theories and has been proven so.

Tudlio maybe you should move your topic into the philosophy forum. Just keep in mind that philosophy hasn't contributed to science in an extremely long time. I've been studying up on physics/astrophysics and what you're postulating is giving me a headache.

My friend, if you think talking about time does not belong on a forum called "The Thinking Atheist" then I have a simple question for you: How do you explain your own existence in this universe? Don't tell me that 13,7 billion years ago something went Boooom! and here we are, because you're not supposed to talk about time. That belongs on a forum about philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 04:21 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(31-03-2012 03:45 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  This is the stupidest things I've ever heard.

So you don't listen to yourself, then?

(31-03-2012 03:45 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  It proves your level of intelligence, and explains why you can only reply to my arguments by denying them rather than coming up with actual information.

Oh, you're so right. All that actual information I came up with in response to your posts doesn't actually count. The fact that I've done my research, whereas you have just spouted off a series of nonsense posts, is absolutely nothing in the face of your insurmountable intellect.

(31-03-2012 03:45 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  To answer your question about gravity, I suggest an experiment for you: Go to the top of a tall building, jump and see what happens.

To answer your question about time, I suggest an experiment for you: Go to the top of a tall building, jump, and see what happens.

And the fact that you won't understand the fact that I'm not joking there only shows how little you understand what you claim to be an expert on.

(31-03-2012 03:45 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I'm going to ask you a stupid question now: Can you feel your body being pulled down by the gravitational field of the Earth?

I'm going to ask you an even stupider question now: can you feel your heart beating?

(31-03-2012 03:45 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I am going to prove to you that space, unlike time, is another one of the real physical concepts. Stand up from your computer, turn around and start walking. Unless your desk is somewhere in the desert, you're going to run into a wall sooner or later. Try walking in more direction, even jump to the ceiling, and you will be able to physically perceive the space in which you are located. You can even see it with your eyes or feel it with your forehead if you're in a dark room. But how do you see or perceive time? Go back to that empty, windowless room and meditate about it.

Tell me: was there any point when you realized how this applies to time as well?

(31-03-2012 03:45 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  We measure it with a tape measure

Clock.

(31-03-2012 03:45 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  If it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic. It's a stupid question to ask, so I'm not going to answer it.

In other words, you don't have an answer, so you're going to pretend that you do and hope that no one calls you out on it.

You're done here, tudor. What little "credibility" you might have had was destroyed as soon as you started posting this nonsense, and then you had to go and beat what little pieces of it remained into a fine paste on the ground by saying that you reject the entirety of physics because it includes time as a dimension.

You know nothing about anything that you have posted about here. You do not understand the theory of evolution. You do not understand what natural selection and genetic mutation actually do or how they do it. You do not understand physics. You do not understand time. You don't even know what echolocation is. You thought bats were actually blind.

Go back to your blog and keep posting your nonsense there, if you like. If you keep posting it here, it's just going to keep getting torn apart. This isn't even a challenge. This is just pathetic. It's like being condescended to by an elementary school student. I try to be polite and courteous, if straightforward, in my posts, but I'm done acting respectful to someone whose every word drips unearned arrogance.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 07:24 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(31-03-2012 02:15 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  But no matter how much technology has advanced, it still has to use a real physical phenomenon to measure time.

Oh my. This week's creationist do-do bird is still flappin' around.
Somebody tell the idiot about the Cesium clock. Please put him out of his misery.
That statement is 110 % false.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock3.htm
It would be really nice if he took a science class before he started talking about shit. Please get that zoomer fixed.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2012, 01:56 AM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2012 02:08 AM by tudorthetutor.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(31-03-2012 04:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-03-2012 03:45 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  This is the stupidest things I've ever heard.

So you don't listen to yourself, then?

Okay, so I made a mistake. I probably thought "this is one of the stupidest THINGS I've ever heard" and I ended up writing "this is the stupidest THINGS I've ever heard". I do that sometimes (think something and write something else). And not just because English is my second language, but because I think with my brain and the human brain is susceptible to such mistakes dew (knot due! - Sea? Eye maid a mistake again!) to the many connections it takes to formulate a single thought.
You'll probably say, "No. You do that because you're stupid."
A few days ago one of my American friends started his e-mail like this: "I have been gone for a while and just returned to the Romania." What was I supposed to think? "My friend is stupid!" No. I know he's not. "My friend doesn't know English." Again no. He probably thought "just returned to the country" and decided in a split second to replace "country" with the actual name. Human brain does that a lot.

If you say I am stupid just because I made that mistake, then you are a very superficial judge of human intelligence.

(31-03-2012 04:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The fact that I've done my research, whereas you have just spouted off a series of nonsense posts, is absolutely nothing in the face of your insurmountable intellect.

My friend, you show me that you have done your research on science with the four types of forces in nature. Congratulations. This, sadly, tells me that you read (red, not reed!) the "UNIVERSAL SENTENCE" (or part of it), you understood the WORDS, but you completely missed the MEANING. I'm not joking here either! And I'm not trying to offend you by claiming that I understood "more" from the universal sentence than you did. This universal sentence I'm talking about can only be understood or misunderstood. Period. I understood it, you didn't. You don't even know what I'm talking about, let alone figure out if my claim is right or wrong. But you'll probably deny it just for the hell of it, as you've been doing with most of my arguments.

(31-03-2012 04:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And the fact that you won't understand the fact that I'm not joking there only shows how little you understand what you claim to be an expert on.

Again, I am not joking either, and I don't claim to be an expert in (not on!) anything. I simply rely on logic and common sense. You, on the other hand, seem to cast those two aside in order to accommodate the theory of evolution into your thought system. I'm going to explain to you what I mean by that.

The Big Bang theory claims that the universe was "born" 13.7 billion years ago from an infinitely tiny "ball" of matter called "singularity." You claim to be an intelligent human being who relies on logic and common sense (even does his research!), and yet you voluntarily subscribe to that? Oh, my god! Do you know the mass of the entire universe? Of course not. Nobody knows it. But scientists approximated the number of stars in the universe and with an average mass for one star, we can calculate the approximate mass of all the stars. That would account for 99.9% of the mass of all the matter in the universe, and since it's an approximation, it doesn't matter whether it's 99.9% or 99.8%. This is before we introduce the new concept of "dark matter", of course. Let's just leave that out for now. So, a simple calculation tells me the mass of the known universe is approximately 1.5x10 to the power of 54 kg. The order there is actually not that important. 54 or 53 or even 50 is a huge number of zeros. And you're telling me that, according to the theory of the Big Bang, all that mass was "condensed" in an infinitely small primordial ball of what now? What the hell do you call that in physics? Hocus-pocus?
And that's how your whole "proven" theory begins. Very nice! Also reliable and hard to disprove. For any decent person who is presented with this abomination, the theory should actually disprove itself. It is too stupid to even suggest. Yet, somehow, there are people who not only believe it, but call me stupid for not believing such a thing could have happened.

Do you even know how they got to the theory of the Big Bang? They couldn't explain why there is so much Helium inside the Sun. According to your beloved physicists, who are much smarter than I am and must be therefore trusted, the nuclear fusion reaction going on inside the sun cannot account for all the helium they measured there. They say the Sun is simply not hot enough (15 million degrees, as opposed to the billions of degrees that would've been needed!). So to justify the presence of that excess helium, they (actually the refugee Ukrainian George Gamow, a physics professor at George Washington University) came up with the idea of an initial explosion. If you to your homework again, and research how they ended up accepting this theory, you will be surprised at the stupidity/absurdity of the claims and suppositions and extrapolations they made in order to finally proclaim the Big Bang as being the "truth" about how we got here. Or maybe you won't.

I believe there is a God not because I expect something in return (I'm not even a Christian per se, and I am actually against religion! - How the hell does that work? A believer in God who is against religion!) but because I can make an intelligent choice. I see infinitely great COMPLEXITY in the universe (in the macro cosmos, in the animal world, in the world of the atom or the micro cosmos, in the laws of physics, basically in everything), which is something you guys can also see. I don't think there is a person stubborn enough to contradict me there. Yet, along with this amazing complexity I see something else, something you either can't see or simply misinterpret: ORDER! You probably only see CHAOS, because if you saw order too, you would put one (COMPLEXITY) and one (ORDER) together and draw the right conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: