GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-08-2013, 17:21   #161
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's OK to accept a little bit of mystery, even with such a profound question. We simply do not know. To believe strongly one way or the other is a matter of faith.
Can you absolutely prove that the FSM, an invisible pink unicorn, mermaids, an invisible deity duck, etc are all "just a joke" and that absolutely none of them happen to coincidentally be correct and true despite being man-made examples?

If not, then how do you justify your statement that they are all "just a joke" without invoking a matter of faith on your part?

If not, how do you reconcile your associated failure to accept a little bit of mystery with regard to those potentially universe-creating entities by dismissing them as "just a joke"?

If so, please submit your absolute proof that those potential deities do not exist and are in fact "just a joke"
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 07-08-2013 at 17:28..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 18:02   #162
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 14,729


CavDoc will never admit that. He'll rightly employ inductive logic to conclude that things like the FSM are so improbable as to not be worth any serious consideration and then immediately turn around and deny that the same approach is valid when assessing the validity of other more mainstream myths.

Likewise, he will never admit that there is a difference between accepting a scientific explanation as likely correct based on empirical evidence and believing in a myth based solely on faith in the absence of any supporting evidence whatsoever (and often a great deal of evidence to the contrary).

This goes to the root of CavDoc's intellectual dishonesty and is the core reason that I don't believe him when he claims agnosticism. Rather, I believe it is a ruse to stir up trouble in RI and derail meaningful conversation. Which is why it is best to not respond to him at all. He only offers the same tautology paraphrased in a multitude of ways which does nothing to advance the discussion either for or against the existence of a supreme deity.

Now that I've said all that, I will likely have an ad hom accusation thrown against me (again). Perhaps some old post brought up out of context with a spurious charge of atheistic evangelicalism (whatever that is).
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 18:24   #163
Silas.soule
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The South East
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentak View Post
If one faith-based monument/display can stay, they all should. Or, they all should be removed.
Already, the percentage of Americans that are Christian has declined by 5 percent, from 78% in 2007 to 73% in 2012.

Americans saying they have no religious affiliation grew from 15.3% to 19.6%. Again, from 2007 to 2012, according to The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

We'd better get all those monuments down and have the "total separation of the church from the state" that James Madison said was good for religion. Before 5 million Hindus in California put Kali on a hill, at taxpayer expense; and 10 million Catholics in Louisiana use taxpayer money for their kids parochial tuition; and 20 million Muslims in Michigan make the chaplain of the State House of Representatives a mullah, at taxpayer expense.

Yup, conservative Christians will rue the day they opposed separation of church and state. The US Bureau of the Census predicts 100 million new Ameircans by 2050, mostly from immigration. Christians, you're already down by 5 percent, from 2007 to 2012.
Silas.soule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 19:14   #164
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas.soule View Post
Already, the percentage of Americans that are Christian has declined by 5 percent, from 78% in 2007 to 73% in 2012.

Americans saying they have no religious affiliation grew from 15.3% to 19.6%. Again, from 2007 to 2012, according to The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

We'd better get all those monuments down and have the "total separation of the church from the state" that James Madison said was good for religion. Before 5 million Hindus in California put Kali on a hill, at taxpayer expense; and 10 million Catholics in Louisiana use taxpayer money for their kids parochial tuition; and 20 million Muslims in Michigan make the chaplain of the State House of Representatives a mullah, at taxpayer expense.

Yup, conservative Christians will rue the day they opposed separation of church and state. The US Bureau of the Census predicts 100 million new Ameircans by 2050, mostly from immigration. Christians, you're already down by 5 percent, from 2007 to 2012.
Excellent post.
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 09:27   #165
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
CavDoc will never admit that. He'll rightly employ inductive logic to conclude that things like the FSM are so improbable as to not be worth any serious consideration and then immediately turn around and deny that the same approach is valid when assessing the validity of other more mainstream myths.

Likewise, he will never admit that there is a difference between accepting a scientific explanation as likely correct based on empirical evidence and believing in a myth based solely on faith in the absence of any supporting evidence whatsoever (and often a great deal of evidence to the contrary).

This goes to the root of CavDoc's intellectual dishonesty and is the core reason that I don't believe him when he claims agnosticism. Rather, I believe it is a ruse to stir up trouble in RI and derail meaningful conversation. Which is why it is best to not respond to him at all. He only offers the same tautology paraphrased in a multitude of ways which does nothing to advance the discussion either for or against the existence of a supreme deity.

Now that I've said all that, I will likely have an ad hom accusation thrown against me (again). Perhaps some old post brought up out of context with a spurious charge of atheistic evangelicalism (whatever that is).

Amen!
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 10:53   #166
lomfs24
Senior Member
 
lomfs24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,822
Send a message via AIM to lomfs24 Send a message via Yahoo to lomfs24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Amen!
I think I have figured out Cav Doc. He has a deep seated need to believe something, so he projects that need on to others. So he assumes that if you don't believe in God you must believe in something else, aka science. And since he has a blind faith in God and/or a blind faith in science he also assumes that everyone else must have a blind faith in science. Therefore he assumes that being an atheist means having faith.

What he misses is that atheism simply addresses what you don't believe in, not what you do believe in, nor does it require that you believe in anything. It's like saying that if you don't believe in Santa you then must believe in St. Nick.
__________________
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. ~Proverbs 14:15
lomfs24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 11:28   #167
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,950
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Maybe it's because many of the ones that describe themselves as only having a passive lack of belief, tend to act as if they had a fervent belief. It can be hard to separate the claims from the actions.

Sure, I can name some. G36S and Geko would be at the top of the list. Some others probably qualify. But I don't have the time to search back for them at the moment.

Believing that other religious beliefs must be eliminated if we are ever to be free, and giving instructions on how to turn a believer in a deity into an atheist, surely would qualify.
Though certainly active, I don't recall that glock36shooter asserts that there is no god. So maybe 1 or 2 of the regulars here fit your definition of atheist, and I guess that would leave me, Animal Mother, English, ksg0245, muscogee, Smacktard, steveksux, Syclone538 among others as agnostic. Whether we are evangelical agnostics or not is another matter.
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 16:13   #168
Silas.soule
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The South East
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by lomfs24 View Post
I think I have figured out Cav Doc. He has a deep seated need to believe something, so he projects that need on to others. So he assumes that if you don't believe in God you must believe in something else, aka science. And since he has a blind faith in God and/or a blind faith in science he also assumes that everyone else must have a blind faith in science. Therefore he assumes that being an atheist means having faith.

What he misses is that atheism simply addresses what you don't believe in, not what you do believe in, nor does it require that you believe in anything. It's like saying that if you don't believe in Santa you then must believe in St. Nick.
I think it was biologist Edward O. Wilson who said most humans would rather believe than know.

Again, they'd rather believe, than know.

I have at times hung around hippies and other kinds of alternative folk. You know, the Rainbow Gathering, drum circle, types. I'm amazed at how few of those freedom loving people are imaginative. Many would be right at home in a suburban church. If you have what's known as the analytic-type personality, they see you as an argumentative heretic. So, yes, the preference for believing rather than knowing is bred-in-the-bone, somewhat. The trait dominates even in counter-culture.

But, I don't want to generalize TOO much. Some hippies are OK. I know one who works in a health food store and carries a .357 in his fanny pack.

Last edited by Silas.soule; 07-09-2013 at 16:14..
Silas.soule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 16:27   #169
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 14,729


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
So maybe 1 or 2 of the regulars here fit your definition of atheist
As one of those that he specifically called out, not even I discount all possibility of a deity. I only discount it to the extent that the likelihood of it is so infinitesimally small as to not be worth serious consideration in day to day life. An analogy that has been beat to death here, I place it on the same order of probability as unicorns and leprechauns. Unless someone can show me some hard evidence to the contrary, I'm simply not going to treat stories of magical creatures (or gods) as if they were real (or even as equally likely as natural explanations). It seems foolhardy to set out on any other course given what is actually known.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 07-09-2013 at 17:40..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 12:23   #170
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,471


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Can you absolutely prove that the FSM, an invisible pink unicorn, mermaids, an invisible deity duck, etc are all "just a joke" and that absolutely none of them happen to coincidentally be correct and true despite being man-made examples?


If not, then how do you justify your statement that they are all "just a joke" without invoking a matter of faith on your part?

If not, how do you reconcile your associated failure to accept a little bit of mystery with regard to those potentially universe-creating entities by dismissing them as "just a joke"?

If so, please submit your absolute proof that those potential deities do not exist and are in fact "just a joke"


Maybe because, unlike you, I can recognize humor when I see it?


If it is not humor and satire, go ahead and state so. I'll treat it more seriously then. After I stop laughing.

The use of other possible creatures does nothing to answer the question of whether we just happened, or were made. Do you have a belief about whether mankind was created or just happened?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 07-13-2013 at 12:23..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 12:26   #171
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,471


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
CavDoc will never admit that. He'll rightly employ inductive logic to conclude that things like the FSM are so improbable as to not be worth any serious consideration and then immediately turn around and deny that the same approach is valid when assessing the validity of other more mainstream myths.

Likewise, he will never admit that there is a difference between accepting a scientific explanation as likely correct based on empirical evidence and believing in a myth based solely on faith in the absence of any supporting evidence whatsoever (and often a great deal of evidence to the contrary).

This goes to the root of CavDoc's intellectual dishonesty and is the core reason that I don't believe him when he claims agnosticism. Rather, I believe it is a ruse to stir up trouble in RI and derail meaningful conversation. Which is why it is best to not respond to him at all. He only offers the same tautology paraphrased in a multitude of ways which does nothing to advance the discussion either for or against the existence of a supreme deity.

Now that I've said all that, I will likely have an ad hom accusation thrown against me (again). Perhaps some old post brought up out of context with a spurious charge of atheistic evangelicalism (whatever that is).
Actually, I can look up the origins of the FSM. It's not like it's a mystery of where that particular story came from, and why.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-fl...ghetti-monster
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 12:35   #172
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,471


Quote:
Originally Posted by lomfs24 View Post
I think I have figured out Cav Doc. He has a deep seated need to believe something, so he projects that need on to others. So he assumes that if you don't believe in God you must believe in something else, aka science. And since he has a blind faith in God and/or a blind faith in science he also assumes that everyone else must have a blind faith in science. Therefore he assumes that being an atheist means having faith.

What he misses is that atheism simply addresses what you don't believe in, not what you do believe in, nor does it require that you believe in anything. It's like saying that if you don't believe in Santa you then must believe in St. Nick.
If you think you have me figured out, you have a ways to go yet.

I'm not sure how science and religion (including atheism) are exclusive. Science is a process of discovery, and much of what has been discovered has been recorded. Nothing that science has discovered answers the question of whether or not the universe, the planet or mankind just happened or was created. That is a scientific mystery so far.

I am very comfortable not knowing how we got here. When I am next at a restaurant, it will make little or no difference what I choose from the menu. As I see it, those day to day decisions are more pressing than deciding whether or not I should believe one way or the other in how we got here. We are here. We have no knowledge of the absolute origins of our kind, so I just go on living. It's really rather easy to do. I don't begrudge anyone else what they believe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with atheism. It's just as valid an assumption as any other.

It is interesting to meet people that are sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no deity has ever existed, and yet fail to see how that requires faith.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 12:51   #173
lomfs24
Senior Member
 
lomfs24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,822
Send a message via AIM to lomfs24 Send a message via Yahoo to lomfs24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It is interesting to meet people that are sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no deity has ever existed, and yet fail to see how that requires faith.
Perhaps, this is where you are missing it. Very few atheist claim to know for an absolute fact that God didn't exist. Most will tell you that the possibility, with evidence at hand, is so far removed as to not be a valid talking point. Just like whether or not unicorns created the universe. It could have happened but the evidence of unicorns is small that it is silly to consider them as possible creators.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Ohub Campfire mobile app
__________________
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. ~Proverbs 14:15
lomfs24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 13:02   #174
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
If you think you have me figured out, you have a ways to go yet.

I'm not sure how science and religion (including atheism) are exclusive. Science is a process of discovery, and much of what has been discovered has been recorded. Nothing that science has discovered answers the question of whether or not the universe, the planet or mankind just happened or was created. That is a scientific mystery so far.

I am very comfortable not knowing how we got here. When I am next at a restaurant, it will make little or no difference what I choose from the menu. As I see it, those day to day decisions are more pressing than deciding whether or not I should believe one way or the other in how we got here. We are here. We have no knowledge of the absolute origins of our kind, so I just go on living. It's really rather easy to do. I don't begrudge anyone else what they believe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with atheism. It's just as valid an assumption as any other.

It is interesting to meet people that are sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no deity has ever existed, and yet fail to see how that requires faith.
From the guy that absolutely dismisses a whole bunch of possible theories as just a joke. That's a lot of definitely nevers.

Looks like he has simply been projecting all this time. He its apparently the example he's been looking for or referring to all thus time but was unwilling our unable to see it.

Randy

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Ohub Campfire mobile app

Last edited by steveksux; 07-13-2013 at 13:19..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 13:49   #175
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,471


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
From the guy that absolutely dismisses a whole bunch of possible theories as just a joke. That's a lot of definitely nevers.

Looks like he has simply been projecting all this time. He its apparently the example he's been looking for or referring to all thus time but was unwilling our unable to see it.

Randy

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Ohub Campfire mobile app
Oh I get it. I don't get caught up arguing about the red herrings you are trying to sell, and it's somehow my fault for not playing the game you want it played.

I simply don't overly concern myself whether or not unicorns exist, or if they have existed, because it's honestly not pertinent to the classification of atheists, theists, and agnostics. If tomorrow, a well preserved unicorn carcass was found and authenticated, it really would not be all that important to most people after about a week or so. Same for leprechauns, fairies etc.

Now, whether we were made, designed, or just happened as a course of chance and natural processes, that is pertinent. It's what you keep running away from with the red herrings stacking up all over the place, it's getting to be obvious.

Some people believe that we were made, some people believe that we just happened. All you need is faith one way or the other.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 13:51   #176
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,950
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It is interesting to meet people that are sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no deity has ever existed, and yet fail to see how that requires faith.
So, what claims of theists have you determined to be "reasonable"?

Scientists, without invoking the supernatural/miraculous:
  • Created the technology that allows this exchange on the internet
  • Have sent men to space and returned them safely
  • Have impacted moving comets with projectiles
  • Can accelerate particles at speeds approaching the speed of light (nearly 3 million meters per second)
So clearly science has provided some understanding of our world. What, from theists, do you accept as explanations of our world? You assign 50/50 odds between a Creator involved with our world, and no Creator involved.

Based on what track record do you give religious claims an equal footing?
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 14:06   #177
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,471


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
So, what claims of theists have you determined to be "reasonable"?

Scientists, without invoking the supernatural/miraculous:
  • Created the technology that allows this exchange on the internet
  • Have sent men to space and returned them safely
  • Have impacted moving comets with projectiles
  • Can accelerate particles at speeds approaching the speed of light (nearly 3 million meters per second)
So clearly science has provided some understanding of our world. What, from theists, do you accept as explanations of our world? You assign 50/50 odds between a Creator involved with our world, and no Creator involved.

Based on what track record do you give religious claims an equal footing?
I think it's reasonable to accept that we might have been made/designed. Considering the multitude of conflicting stories about how that might have happened, or which deity it was, any particular story is OK for people to believe in, but they cannot all be right. maybe none of them are right, and the story about there not being a deity ever is the correct one.

We may never know for sure. But some people have faith that they know.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 14:30   #178
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,950
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I think it's reasonable to accept that we might have been made/designed. Considering the multitude of conflicting stories about how that might have happened, or which deity it was, any particular story is OK for people to believe in, but they cannot all be right. maybe none of them are right, and the story about there not being a deity ever is the correct one.

We may never know for sure. But some people have faith that they know.
The question remains, why is that reasonable?

Let's start with Christian claims. Would the Bible be a credible witness explaining the world with live in?

Leaving humans out of the picture, do you believe that all life forms appeared in, basically, their current modern form at approximately the same time?

Do you believe that the entire earth was covered in water in the past 4500 years, and that a man and his family saved all the species on a boat that he built?

What in the Bible do you find as a reasonable explanation of the world that we live in?

Or is it a matter that you can dismiss Christian claims easily enough, but that you're not ruling out other possible deity scenarios?
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 15:12   #179
nmk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
If you really understand the difference between knowledge and belief, you know that none of us know one way or the other.

There is no proof one way or the other, therefore, there is no knowledge.

It is simply a gradient of belief between two opposing beliefs.

Theist > Theistic Agnostic > Agnostic < Atheistic Agnostic < Atheist.


There is no knowledge, only strength of belief.

nmk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 15:22   #180
GLWyandotte
Señor Member
 
GLWyandotte's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 4,407
Want an atheist monument? Go ahead, pay for it... And then have fun placing it in a location relevant to what an atheist has done there to make it signicant.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Ohub Campfire mobile app
__________________
Leather boots are still in style for manly footwear; beads and Roman sandals won't be seen.

Formerly Glockerel, 2003
GLWyandotte is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

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 On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:28.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 946
256 Members
690 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31