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 01-17-2013, 07:25   #126
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Missed this, sorry.


Not exactly. A loose analogy about low percentages was all I was implying. I've bought one lottery ticket in the last several years, odds are almost certain I won't be buying one next week.

The possibility of the elements and pieces coming together to create a viable cell is remote enough, one capable of reproduction with internally distant dependent structures would be very rare. Then you add in other organisms, predatory and symbiotic relationships, adaptation, evolution, and in the end I think it's possible both ways. Just happened, or designed. And I just simply don't know which it is.
The lottery analogy made it look to me like you were saying that there was a 99.9999% chance life did not occur on it's own vs a .0001% chance it did.
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.
Do lot Do so sinh Ban buon quan ao Chup anh cho be
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 07:32   #127
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
When was stem cell research banned? It's always been legal at the federal level. It's an often repeated misconception though.

If life were so easy to happen, it would be found everywhere we look. It would be different and adapted to its own environment, but it should be everywhere if it was simply inevitable. The odds are still such that either spontaneous generation or intelligent design could be responsible. Ultimately, that's a question that remains unanswered.
Stem cell research was not made illegal but it was denied government funding though such funding was available for far less promising research.

I don't know what you mean by everywhere we look! Life can exist in a wide range of environments but those environments are still limited relative to the totality of the universe. Do you mean that we would see it throughout the universe or across the world. If the latter, we see it as stains on arctic ice that survived the "snowball earth" era. We see it in subterranean thermal springs at temperatures we would once have thought made life impossible. We see it round ocean vents. We see it n deserts where we might naively think the environment would support no life.

In terms of the development of life, once it occurs it is able to gobble up most the food in its environment. It then evolves rapidly to gain a competitive advantage over other organisms in the competition for food. Within a short time, relative to the frequency with which life is created spontaneously, the adaptation of existing life forms becomes so good that any spontaneous new life is likely to be eaten by established life forms before it can spread. This fits entirely with the biological evidence.

The biological evidence gives innumerable examples of adaptation which support evolution and none which deny it. In contrast, the biological evidence provides numerous examples which deny creationism unless the creator is incredibly incompetent. If you are to believe that there is an approximate parity between the likelihood of a god or no god, then that god has to be quite ungodlike. No god that could make such a botch of biological design would have the power to be omnipotent or even to have the ability to listen to the prayers of billions.

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 07:32   #128
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
When was stem cell research banned? It's always been legal at the federal level. It's an often repeated misconception though.
...
It think there might be confusion on banned, and banned federal funding. There clearly are some statist authoritarians here that want fed gov to pay for stuff that's not in the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
...
If life were so easy to happen, it would be found everywhere we look. It would be different and adapted to its own environment, but it should be everywhere if it was simply inevitable. The odds are still such that either spontaneous generation or intelligent design could be responsible. Ultimately, that's a question that remains unanswered.
The universe is big and old. Something that is unlikely at a given place and time can happen somewhere eventually.
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.
Do lot Do so sinh Ban buon quan ao Chup anh cho be
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 07:44   #129
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
In the last 6 months? Same number as theist. Zero. There was a guy about a year ago that PM'd saying he hoped that I would find god. He was polite about it. As best as I can recall at this moment, that's been it for a couple if years...
Nope, not in the last 6 months. Ever. How many people have EVER proselytized to you about unicorns, that you can recall?

How about folks that wanted to pass legislation based in the majority on the teachings of their unicorn gods?

It was an apples to oranges comparison from the get go, other than the lack of physical proof for both.

Make no mistake, I'm all for people having whatever faith pleases them, so long as they don't impose it on me. I will happily return that favor. If you ask me, I'll point out why I think belief in gods is silly, but I won't begrudge anyone their faith or try to "convert" them. Can the world's religions say the same thing?
hooligan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 07:45   #130
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Although mildly annoying, I don't have a problem with any of the above. As long as (in the last case) they don't return to my home when politely asked not to. That is all constitutionally protected free speech. They should be allowed to be publicly foolish if they want to be, they just shouldn't be allowed to enact foolish (sometimes dangerous and unjust) laws based on their religion.
Bingo!
hooligan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 07:47   #131
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syclone538 View Post
The lottery analogy made it look to me like you were saying that there was a 99.9999% chance life did not occur on it's own vs a .0001% chance it did.
Yeah, that was his point and now he's just redirecting again because he got asked to expound. Go back and look at his comment and tell me it wasn't just another Hoyle's fallacy.

He's a PA and doesn't even understand enough about biology to know that evolution isn't a random chance sort of thing. It's basically a mathematical certainty.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 07:52   #132
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
...Gay Marriage: Has not existed before, is a relatively new concept, likely a hail mary (pun intended) that would be best accomplished by going for "Civil Unions" with all the benefits now, then add "marriage" in 10 years when no one gives a crap...
Nope, not a new concept at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Unless you were speaking specifically to legal "marriage" in the US, then it is rather new.

With respect to Civil Unions, separate but equal isn't equal.

Where do the religious get the idea that they own the word marriage and get to dictate its definition?

Oh, and Appeal to Tradition is an obvious logical fallacy.

Last edited by hooligan74; 01-17-2013 at 07:53..
hooligan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 07:56   #133
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Didn't you say you clear about $61,000 a year? Trust me when I say math is not my problem.

Non Sequitur arguments are falling rather flat for me lately...

Pot, meet kettle. C'mon, Doc, you're better than the first bit above.
hooligan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 08:03   #134
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Unless you were speaking specifically to legal "marriage" in the US, then it is rather new.

With respect to Civil Unions, separate but equal isn't equal.
Strange position for a self-described agnostic to take, is it not?
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 08:18   #135
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Bingo!
Doc claims he hasn't been proselytized to by a theist in at least two years. I find that doubtful as we both live and work in the same area of the country. I personally experience organized calls to prayer during work hours at official functions in one of the larger school districts in Texas at least several times a year. I don't complain, I just remain silent while they finish, but this is a huge red flag of legal liability that shocks me every time it occurs. To me, this is evidence that theists (specifically evangelical christians) will break the rules regarding separation of church and state in any and every instance where they think they can get away with it.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 01-17-2013 at 08:45..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 08:30   #136
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The odds that cellular life would spontaneously occur, has to be less than the probability that I will win the lottery next week, If I bothered to buy a ticket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
Good find. 17 billion earth sized planets in the Milky Way alone. Combine that with the 80-100 billion other galaxies that are within the observable universe (probably many more beyond the luminal horizon) and life arising somewhere becomes a statistical certainty. Those that throw out weak analogies to lotteries and junkyard tornadoes are simply unable or unwilling to grasp the vast size and age of the universe.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 01-17-2013 at 08:31..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 08:38   #137
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Strange position for a self-described agnostic to take, is it not?
On its face, it would certainly seem to be. Perhaps I'm missing something, though.
hooligan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 08:40   #138
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Good find. 17 billion earth sized planets in the Milky Way alone. Combine that with the 80-100 billion other galaxies that are within the observable universe (probably many more beyond the luminal horizon) and life arising somewhere becomes a statistical certainty. Those that throw out weak analogies to lotteries and junkyard tornadoes are simply unable or unwilling to grasp the vast size and age of the universe.

Yep. The "watchmaker" argument has been debunked over and over and over. For some reason, people still try to use it, though.
hooligan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 08:47   #139
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,119


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Nope, not in the last 6 months. Ever. How many people have EVER proselytized to you about unicorns, that you can recall?

How about folks that wanted to pass legislation based in the majority on the teachings of their unicorn gods?

It was an apples to oranges comparison from the get go, other than the lack of physical proof for both.

Make no mistake, I'm all for people having whatever faith pleases them, so long as they don't impose it on me. I will happily return that favor. If you ask me, I'll point out why I think belief in gods is silly, but I won't begrudge anyone their faith or try to "convert" them. Can the world's religions say the same thing?

Maybe it's a location thing, but best I can tell, is the only blue law still on the books in Texas, is you can't buy alcohol before noon on Sunday. That's been an inconvenience twice in 20 years.

I just don't feel a lot of pressure IRL. GTRI? Well a lot of people actually demand that you must have the same opinion as them or you are a [insert ad hom here]. A lot of them are demanding to be left alone by theists at the same time, it's interesting to watch.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 01-17-2013 at 09:05..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 08:54   #140
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Looking back, I should have mentioned that accosted was not the right word, but other then that I was trying.

"It is very rare that they are pushy. Pressured is not the word I would use. "

"I'm not at all claiming to be an oppressed victim. "

"Yeah I absolutely believe all of them were trying to help. "




Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
OK. I assumed that theists proselytizing to you would be offensive. It wasn't intentional. I should have asked though. My bad. I should have gone about asking that question in a much different way.


In the experiences you described, how did that affect your feelings toward them?
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but, why did you assume it would be offensive?

I try very hard not to be offended, and think everyone else should too. Generally if someone is being honest, they would have a very hard time offending me.

Anyway, I think some atheists get offended when a theists tell them they are going to hell or that they can't be moral without religion. I don't get offended by this, but understand being offended by it. This has never happened to me though, except at church where it wasn't directed at me because everyone there assumed I was Christian too.
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.
Do lot Do so sinh Ban buon quan ao Chup anh cho be
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 09:03   #141
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,119


Quote:
Originally Posted by Syclone538 View Post
Looking back, I should have mentioned that accosted was not the right word, but other then that I was trying.

"It is very rare that they are pushy. Pressured is not the word I would use. "

"I'm not at all claiming to be an oppressed victim. "

"Yeah I absolutely believe all of them were trying to help. "






I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but, why did you assume it would be offensive?

I try very hard not to be offended, and think everyone else should too. Generally if someone is being honest, they would have a very hard time offending me.

Anyway, I think some atheists get offended when a theists tell them they are going to hell or that they can't be moral without religion. I don't get offended by this, but understand being offended by it. This has never happened to me though, except at church where it wasn't directed at me because everyone there assumed I was Christian too.

There are a wide variety of reactions I've seen described here. Some of it resembles a "B" movie vampires reaction at the sight of a cross. Some just dismissal. I don't believe I've ever had anyone tell me was going to hell in a religious context. And if one was really sure hell didn't exist, why worry about it?

I don't go out of my way to avoid religious conversations, but they are very very rare IRL. Most people seem to be minding their own business.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 09:03   #142
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Oh, and Appeal to Tradition is an obvious logical fallacy.
IMHO "Tradition" is just another way of saying "I fear change".
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 09:09   #143
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Maybe it's a location thing, but best I can tell, is the only blue law still on the books in Texas, is you can't buy alcohol before noon on Sunday. That's been an inconvenience twice in 20 years.
Agreed, it's not a huge inconvenience for me, either. However, the very existence of these types of laws proves my point. Religious morality has been and still is legislated in this country. We need to do everything we can to combat that, IMO.

This is very easily related to 2A rights. We have pretty expansive freedom to own firearms of all shapes, sizes and types in this country. Does that mean we should not worry about or fight against further restriction or reducing current restriction? I think the vast majority on this site would answer "hell no".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I just don't feel a lot of pressure IRL. GTRI? Well a lot of people actually demand that you must have the same opinion as them or you are a [insert ad hom here]. A lot of them are demanding to be left alone by theists at the same time, it's interesting to watch.
Yep, as we've already established, there are bad apples in every bunch. This country is overwhelmingly Christian, that doesn't stop many Christians from playing the "opressed victim" card in many, many situations. It happens on both sides.
hooligan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 09:19   #144
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
There is no way to pretend that religious principles are not imposed on the people as a whole by the religious. This is greatly to the detriment of good government and the majority of the people.

English
Very well said.
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 09:20   #145
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,119


Most controversial issues have their radicals on both sides. Gun rights, gay rights, abortion, war, crime, welfare, illegal aliens, etc.

Other than the gay marriage thing, the rest seems to have been moderated by both sides. There are plenty of places where that's not the case around the world in both directions.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 09:23   #146
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogee View Post
I'm not Gecko, but I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you give an example of the laws you're talking about?
Well, we can look at the AWB in the 90's - the data clearly showed (and still shows) that other categories of implements are responsible for a larger share of intentional or accidental deaths. The current debate lacks scientific evidence just as much now as it did then, yet we're seeing a renewed call for bans despite evidence that they don't work.

See http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html for some examples of what appears to be scientific consensus that "life begins with the formation of the one-celled zygote", yet abortion which terminates that life is legal in all 50 states.
Of course, I could cite a number of articles that state a number of differing theories as to when life begins, so it's probably safe to say that there is no scientific consensus.

DDT was banned in the 70's based on a book (silent spring), not science. A quick google search will illustrate the refutations of that work by actual scientists. The unintended consequence of the ban are the millions of deaths from malaria, which would have been prevented.

I'm old enough to remember the call for action to halt the imminent man-caused Ice Age. Seems we did too well back then and caused Global Warming. Seems we also did too well there, and perhaps we're on the cusp of another Ice Age. Climate change clearly occurs, but there is a lack of consensus as to why, but that doesn't prevent governments from implementing regulations to control it.

I did some time as a counselor when the best practice for treating depression was certain anti-depressants based on the research. While not codified as a law, a practioner who does not follow best practices opens themselves up to malpractice lawsuits. Then, in the course of further research, it was discovered that anti-depressant use in adolescents can actually increase the risk of suicide. Oops.

One personal example is from when I was doing my internship associated with gaining a Masters Degree in counseling psychology. One of my duties was that of an on-call crisis counselor. If in the course of my assessment, I came to the conclusion that a person was a potential threat to self or others, I could call a Psychiatrist who under state law (Title 51 in Illinois) could involuntarily commit that person based on my recommendations, not empirical data. The hardest part of the process was finding a facility that would take the person, not the act of legally depriving them of liberty based on what amounts to opinion.

My point is that ideology plays a larger role in legislating us than science. To single out the Theist in general and the Christian in particular as trying to legislate morality ignores the fact that the vast majority of laws reflect the morality of a particular worldview, which is forced on others that may not share that viewpoint. The misuse or cherry-picking of scientific data often leads to legislation.

As an adjunct to that, research that indicates what is beneficial now at times is discovered to be harmful later. Of course, that's not to say that scientific advancements should be ignored, just taken with a grain of salt.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 09:34   #147
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 164
Not sure why paragraph breaks didn't appear in my post. They were there when I was typing. Sorry 'bout that.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 09:37   #148
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,329


Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
Not sure why paragraph breaks didn't appear in my post. They were there when I was typing. Sorry 'bout that.
We see them, you're just on a mobile app.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 01-17-2013 at 10:01..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 09:47   #149
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,119


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Nope, not a new concept at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Unless you were speaking specifically to legal "marriage" in the US, then it is rather new.

With respect to Civil Unions, separate but equal isn't equal.

Where do the religious get the idea that they own the word marriage and get to dictate its definition?

Oh, and Appeal to Tradition is an obvious logical fallacy.
I've often said the worst reason to do something is that is the way it's always been done.

I was speaking about the USA. When you want go somewhere in a Republic, you have to know where you are and know how to get where you want to be. Incrementalism has been very effective way to get things done. The system is imperfect, so the outcome is likely to be less than perfect, especially on the first try.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 09:48   #150
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 164
Great, thanks. GT is blocked from my network, so I have to use my phone. That's one of the reasons I post infrequently.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 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 13:06.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,092
340 Members
752 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42