Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 226

Thread: Proof That God Exists

  1. #76 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,846
    Thanks
    13,245
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Other than that, there is no way for two fused cells to independently reproduce another cell, and NOT be a living organism, it defies science.
    but the problem is that he equates a zygote, the union of a sperm and egg into a totally different organism with some mythical "fusion of two cells" that he pretends are reproducing another cell.....one is science, the other is something he made up for the argument.....unless he has something in mind that he's failed to identify so far.....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  2. #77 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    That's the part you seem to be having trouble understanding. The female produced the egg, the male produced the sperm, but it is the fused cells which reproduce another cell, they do not need the female and the female adds nothing to make conception happen... in fact, this can occur completely outside the woman's body.
    Yea, sure it can. Just drop an egg in a pile of sperm and “Bingo” you’ll have a fertilized cell. Do you think all the excitement that occurred when scientists first fertilized a cell outside a woman’s body was just a bunch of hype or did it take time to discover EXACTLY what was required in the way of a life-sustaining culture?

    The woman’s body supplies all the necessary life support for the fertilized cell to reproduce. The culture/environment in which it will grow, the temperature, etc.

    Again., skin cells do not reproduce themselves without the assistance of some other organism, skin cells are not organisms. Sorry.
    And a fertilized cell does not reproduce without the assistance of the woman or a technician and a zygote and embryo do not continue growing without the constant assistance of the woman. If they did one could remove the zygote/embryo. Can it be any more obvious? If the participation of the woman/her body is not necessary, fine. Remove it and let it continue on its own.

    The answers are just as valid this time as last, and they will be just as valid next time! You have some kind of fucked up mental problem which makes you crave argument or something! I've never seen anything like it, do you honestly not recall having this very same argument with these very same ill-fated points? Why do we have to type it all out, all over again? I don't understand that, it seems to be a complete waste of time and energy. You didn't refute the facts last time, and you can't refute them now, you just keep running in circles, not understanding what an [edit] you sound like... How the fuck can something DIE if it wasn't ALIVE?
    I explained that. It is alive as much as a liver is alive or a kidney is alive. It is living human material. If it is an organism, a self-contained “unit” capable of carrying on the processes of life then it can be removed and placed in another suitable environment. Maybe something like this http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...94_468x359.jpg with proper medical equipment attached.

    If or when it becomes viable for a fetus to be removed and continue living then we can talk about abortion and organisms and a woman’s obligations/responsibilities. As it stands now it is, for all intents and purposes, part of her body and she has the right to her body. To say it is separate when it depends upon the woman’s bodily functions, her liver and lungs and kidneys and heart and pancreas and assorted glands and even her blood, is blatantly absurd.

    The nutrients provided to an organism are not what makes it an organism or doesn't make it an organism! If skin cells stop growing, they die... they were never organisms, because they couldn't carry on the process of reproduction by themselves. A human embryo IS an organism, completely independent of the host. If and when it dies, it is no longer a "living" organism. When it becomes no longer a living organism, it doesn't change the fact that it WAS a living organism.
    It’s not independent of the host. Grasp that fact. They can’t breathe properly. They require the woman’s lungs to obtain oxygen so it can enter her blood and be transported to the placenta and fetus. In other words the fetus is not capable of carrying on the processes of life. It can’t breathe. It doesn’t have developed lungs. It is not a complete “unit”. What is it about that simple fact you can’t understand?

    I did answer your question. IF (it's impossible for this to happen, but IF it could)... the fused sperm and egg cells produced ANYTHING, they qualify as a living organism. PERIOD! Now, is any "living human organism" automatically a "human being?" That is a valid question, but you aren't asking it. I personally think it is, because it is a living human organism, and it is in the state of "being." Although, it is a human being at the earliest possible stage of development. AGAIN, I have stated all of this before in another thread.
    That is just more absurdity. Not knowing if a fertilized cell contains all the necessary ingredients but if it produces a cell, any cell, whether complete or severely lacking the necessary ingredients to become a human being, it’s considered an organism. I suppose one can classify anything any way they want but it sure as hell is not a human being.

    What’s disgusting about this whole thing is some folks consider the ability of something to produce a cell, any cell, qualifies it as a human being with a value on par with the life of a woman. I wonder how a woman an even look upon anyone holding such beliefs.
    Last edited by BRUTALITOPS; 06-20-2012 at 08:02 PM. Reason: edited a quote
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  3. #78 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    Yea, sure it can. Just drop an egg in a pile of sperm and “Bingo” you’ll have a fertilized cell. Do you think all the excitement that occurred when scientists first fertilized a cell outside a woman’s body was just a bunch of hype or did it take time to discover EXACTLY what was required in the way of a life-sustaining culture?
    Do women produce sperm cells? Does the egg cell produce the sperm cell? Does the woman or egg have to add anything to the sperm? When scientists first performed this outside the woman's womb, they already knew what would happen, they already knew what constituted a living organism, it was not a surprise. When you use the term "life-sustaining culture" does it just not occur to your simpleton brain that you are using the word "LIFE" in your description? Is that failing to compute in your retarded mind as something LIVING? If it is alive, how can it not be living yet? If it's not inorganic, and it's not reproducing as the result of the female organism it resides in, what hell do you define it as? Because it simply can't be matter producing matter, that doesn't happen in science. It's not a bacterial life form, it's not a virus, it's not a fungus, it can only be one thing, by process of elimination.

    The woman’s body supplies all the necessary life support for the fertilized cell to reproduce. The culture/environment in which it will grow, the temperature, etc.
    I'm not arguing that a woman's womb is a suitable place for the living organism to grow, but that has nothing to do with it being a living organism. If you grow tomatoes in a greenhouse, does that make them NOT REALLY tomatoes? What if it's extremely cold and inhospitable to tomato plants outside? Does that change what a tomato plant is? Since it can't continue to live if we take it outside, does that mean it was never alive? Do you simply not see the utter stupidity of your argument here? The "fertilized egg" or fused egg/sperm cell, do not need anything from the host, if they reproduce anything, they become a living human organism, independent of the host. That means, they don't rely on the host to reproduce.



    And a fertilized cell does not reproduce without the assistance of the woman or a technician and a zygote and embryo do not continue growing without the constant assistance of the woman. If they did one could remove the zygote/embryo. Can it be any more obvious? If the participation of the woman/her body is not necessary, fine. Remove it and let it continue on its own.
    The sperm penetrates the egg cell, and the fused cells begin to reproduce more cells. This is not dependent on anything the woman does, or any additional part the woman adds, and there is nothing else added to make them reproduce, they either do or don't, that's it. If they DO, they become a living human organism, if they don't, the "fertilization" was unsuccessful and conception did not happen.

    I explained that. It is alive as much as a liver is alive or a kidney is alive. It is living human material. If it is an organism, a self-contained “unit” capable of carrying on the processes of life then it can be removed and placed in another suitable environment.
    Again, you are just plain wrong about this. A liver or kidney cell is incapable of reproduction. The human body (organism) can reproduce cells for the kidney or liver, but the human body reproduces billions of various cells everyday, that is not in question. Organisms can produce cells, non-organisms can't. With a sperm/egg cell fusion, they either create another cell or they don't. If they don't, they were never a living organism, if they DO, they become at that precise moment, a living human organism. If you want to claim they are not yet "enough" of an organism, that's fine... I have no problem with you making that argument, I disagree with it, but at least it's honestly accepting the facts. You can't make an embryo be anything other than what it is, because you must defy all scientific knowledge and understanding to do so.

    What’s disgusting about this whole thing is some folks consider the ability of something to produce a cell, any cell, qualifies it as a human being with a value on par with the life of a woman. I wonder how a woman an even look upon anyone holding such beliefs.
    No, what's disgusting is ignorant people such as yourself, who can't bother to educate themselves to the point of understanding, regardless of how many times they are schooled on the subject up one side and down the other. I have not made the argument that a zygote has right on par with a woman, just that a zygote is a living human organism, and can be nothing else. You are simply refusing to acknowledge it is a living human organism, even though you stupidly continue to admit it's living and then dies, in virtually every explanation you give us. You've phrased it every way you can think of, and every single time, you admit that the process of life was being carried on before it stopped. Well, something can not stop living if it wasn't alive to begin with, and something that is living and dies, had to be alive before it could die.

  4. #79 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Nothing in biology says that an organism must continue to function for an indeterminate amount of time, or be able to do anything other than reproduce. You continue to be confused by "carry on the process" as if you think it means in order to be a human being, it must be immortal! Are you planning on living forever, apple? If not, then you will one day stop carrying on the process of life, and die... does that mean you were never a human being, because you couldn't?

    It has nothing to do with immortality. The link I posted shows a baby without an anus. While inside the woman, as part of her body using all her organs, it survived. It was not able to carry on the processes of life on it's own. No organism can carry on the processes of life if it is unable to eliminate waste and that baby was unable to eliminate waste. The ONLY reason it lived as a fetus is because it used the body parts of the mother.

    Science Dictionary

    organism (ôr'gə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key

    An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organism?s=t

    Note it says usually reproducing so that means your statement, "Nothing in biology says that an organism must continue to function for an indeterminate amount of time, or be able to do anything other than reproduce" is false. It does not have to reproduce but it does have to grow and metabolize nutrients and it can't do that if it is unable to remove waste.

    What surprises me about this whole discussion is your refusal to accept the importance of an anus when that's from where you obtain all your post material.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  5. #80 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    This whole entire issue is whether or not the woman has the right to terminate the life of another human being. You are ignorantly denying the fetus is a human being, or even a human organism! I guess, it is easier for you to accept abortion, if you think of it this way, but it has little to do with biological facts.

    I'm no genius when it comes to biology, but because my chosen field was psychology, in order to get into college, I needed so many science credits in high school, and I hated chemistry... therefore, I took a lot of advanced biology classes. So I suppose I might be a little better educated in biology than some, and I am light years ahead of you. You need to really go study the term "organism" and discover what makes something an "organism" and what doesn't, because you completely lack that knowledge, and you're looking like a complete boob on this topic.
    Post #79 clearly shows who's the boob. Obviously you didn't fair very well with biology.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  6. #81 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Again, it is the art of reproduction that matters. If the fused cells reproduced something, even though it was incomplete or inadequate, they met the criteria of a living organism. They may have only barely met the criteria, they may expire and stop being a living organism almost immediately, but there is no other point in time at which you can define when an organism begins, other than it's ability to reproduce something. It defies science, it defies biological fact, and it defies common sense.
    Eh, check post #79. I hope this is your last post showing your lack of knowledge.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  7. #82 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    /shrugs.....since he hasn't said that, I doubt you really "understand" him to say that.......what he has said is correct, that when a sperm and egg combine to form a zygote, that zygote is capable of producing more cells as needed for the zygote to survive as a human being.....
    In 50% of cases it is not capable.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  8. #83 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    of course a baby qualifies as an organism....
    Looks like you require a bit of schooling, as well. Read post #79.

    An organism has to be able to grow and metabolize nutrients and it can't do that if it can't eliminate waste.

    I didn't come up with the definition. I'm only applying it.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  9. #84 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    because all of your assumptions are false.....
    To what assumptions are you referring? Try to be specific.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  10. #85 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    This goes to the nucleus of thought. We must establish the criteria for "organisms" in science, and we have. There is no doubt or question as to what the criteria are, it is well understood and defined by science. Whenever any group (or couple) of cells reproduce other cells, or even one cell, without outside stimulation, it has met the criteria for a "living organism." By sheer process of elimination, it can't be anything else, according to science. It's certainly not inorganic, because inorganic material can't "produce" anything. A virus can reproduce, but it requires a host, so it doesn't meet the criteria for an organism and an embryo doesn't meet the criteria of a virus. Other than that, there is no way for two fused cells to independently reproduce another cell, and NOT be a living organism, it defies science.

    Apple continues to ignorantly refute his own point, he contends that since it was alive and then died, it was never alive to begin with, and this is just FALSE.
    I guess I spoke too soon in post #81. Re-read #79.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  11. #86 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Let me add this, hopefully, not to confuse apple too much, but rather for clarity, before some anal-retentive pinhead chortles in on it... There are also single-cell organisms, some bacteria fit this category, but again, since we are discussing the fused egg and sperm cell, the organism in question is obviously not "single cell" and also doesn't meet the criteria for a bacterial organism. Inorganic material can't reproduce itself, and all other reproductions require the assistance of some organism. A fused sperm and egg cell do not require anything else, including the host, we have been making babies in test tubes for years. We don't add anything to the fused cells, they reproduce and function as an organism from point of conception, therefore, they are a living human organism.
    And how many don't reproduce? And how many reproductions are failures?

    Why do you have difficulty understanding that a failed reproduction is not a reproduction? If it was a reproduction it would survive barring any outside interference. A failed reproduction means it didn't reproduce. In case you may be confused I'll offer an analogy.

    One can say a person has to write an exam in order to become a doctor. If an individual writes an exam and fails they do not receive their licence. They have to write an exam AND pass. If, as you claim, a viable organism has to have the ability to reproduce it has to have the ability to reproduce a viable cell, not just any cell. Otherwise, how do we know if it has the ability to reproduce?

    If a woman continually has miscarriages and is unable to bring a child to term it is considered she is unable to reproduce. If a woman has conceived five times and each time the pregnancy ended in spontaneous abortion do we say she has five children?
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  12. #87 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    but the problem is that he equates a zygote, the union of a sperm and egg into a totally different organism with some mythical "fusion of two cells" that he pretends are reproducing another cell.....one is science, the other is something he made up for the argument.....unless he has something in mind that he's failed to identify so far.....
    My point is when it's stated an organism has to be able to reproduce it means the organism has to be able to reproduce something that will ultimately become similar to itself.

    Reproduce: to make a copy, representation, duplicate, or close imitation of

    When one considers 50% of the reproductions are not viable surely it's reasonable to conclude SOME of the reproductions are not reproductions. That means not all fertilized cells or fused cells are organisms and certainly are not human beings and that's the point.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  13. #88 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Organisms can produce cells, non-organisms can't.
    Until you recognize that error there's little point in addressing the rest of your post.

    Doctors can take a piece of human flesh and grow new skin for patients in a dish with certain medium. The skin is not an organism but it produces new cells.

    If you won't do any research it's useless having a debate.

    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Do women produce sperm cells? Does the egg cell produce the sperm cell? Does the woman or egg have to add anything to the sperm? When scientists first performed this outside the woman's womb, they already knew what would happen, they already knew what constituted a living organism, it was not a surprise. When you use the term "life-sustaining culture" does it just not occur to your simpleton brain that you are using the word "LIFE" in your description? Is that failing to compute in your retarded mind as something LIVING? If it is alive, how can it not be living yet? If it's not inorganic, and it's not reproducing as the result of the female organism it resides in, what hell do you define it as? Because it simply can't be matter producing matter, that doesn't happen in science. It's not a bacterial life form, it's not a virus, it's not a fungus, it can only be one thing, by process of elimination.



    I'm not arguing that a woman's womb is a suitable place for the living organism to grow, but that has nothing to do with it being a living organism. If you grow tomatoes in a greenhouse, does that make them NOT REALLY tomatoes? What if it's extremely cold and inhospitable to tomato plants outside? Does that change what a tomato plant is? Since it can't continue to live if we take it outside, does that mean it was never alive? Do you simply not see the utter stupidity of your argument here? The "fertilized egg" or fused egg/sperm cell, do not need anything from the host, if they reproduce anything, they become a living human organism, independent of the host. That means, they don't rely on the host to reproduce.





    The sperm penetrates the egg cell, and the fused cells begin to reproduce more cells. This is not dependent on anything the woman does, or any additional part the woman adds, and there is nothing else added to make them reproduce, they either do or don't, that's it. If they DO, they become a living human organism, if they don't, the "fertilization" was unsuccessful and conception did not happen.



    Again, you are just plain wrong about this. A liver or kidney cell is incapable of reproduction. The human body (organism) can reproduce cells for the kidney or liver, but the human body reproduces billions of various cells everyday, that is not in question. Organisms can produce cells, non-organisms can't. With a sperm/egg cell fusion, they either create another cell or they don't. If they don't, they were never a living organism, if they DO, they become at that precise moment, a living human organism. If you want to claim they are not yet "enough" of an organism, that's fine... I have no problem with you making that argument, I disagree with it, but at least it's honestly accepting the facts. You can't make an embryo be anything other than what it is, because you must defy all scientific knowledge and understanding to do so.



    No, what's disgusting is ignorant people such as yourself, who can't bother to educate themselves to the point of understanding, regardless of how many times they are schooled on the subject up one side and down the other. I have not made the argument that a zygote has right on par with a woman, just that a zygote is a living human organism, and can be nothing else. You are simply refusing to acknowledge it is a living human organism, even though you stupidly continue to admit it's living and then dies, in virtually every explanation you give us. You've phrased it every way you can think of, and every single time, you admit that the process of life was being carried on before it stopped. Well, something can not stop living if it wasn't alive to begin with, and something that is living and dies, had to be alive before it could die.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  14. #89 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    It has nothing to do with immortality. The link I posted shows a baby without an anus. While inside the woman, as part of her body using all her organs, it survived. It was not able to carry on the processes of life on it's own. No organism can carry on the processes of life if it is unable to eliminate waste and that baby was unable to eliminate waste. The ONLY reason it lived as a fetus is because it used the body parts of the mother.

    Science Dictionary

    organism (ôr'gə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key

    An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organism?s=t

    Note it says usually reproducing so that means your statement, "Nothing in biology says that an organism must continue to function for an indeterminate amount of time, or be able to do anything other than reproduce" is false. It does not have to reproduce but it does have to grow and metabolize nutrients and it can't do that if it is unable to remove waste.

    What surprises me about this whole discussion is your refusal to accept the importance of an anus when that's from where you obtain all your post material.
    *sigh* You remember a couple of posts back, when I posted the disclaimer about 'single-cell organisms?' Obviously, something that is a single-cell organism, can't and doesn't reproduce, else it would be multi-cellular. I should have more accurately stated, one of the things that distinguishes a multi-cell organism, is the ability to reproduce cells. It may not reproduce cells, or it may only reproduce some cells some of the time, but if it reproduces cells, it is a living organism, it can't be anything else.

    What you continue to try and do, is muddy the water with your own inept ignorance, and it has long-ago gotten old. A baby born without an anus is most certainly some fucking kind of living organism, it can't be anything else. It may not be able to discard waste, and it may cease to be a living organism as a result, but that does not change what it was before it died. You are trying desperately to place some arbitrary and false criteria on living organisms, and I would avoid saying anything about someone's knowledge of science and biology until you understand that.

  15. #90 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    Eh, check post #79. I hope this is your last post showing your lack of knowledge.
    Post #79 is just more of you misinterpreting things you apparently and obviously can't understand.

Similar Threads

  1. Has more gold been sold than exists?
    By uscitizen in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-27-2009, 11:12 AM
  2. My house still exists
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 10:26 PM
  3. Prove God Exists and Win $10,000.00!
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 06-02-2008, 03:22 PM
  4. This site exists because of ME
    By Brent in forum Introductions, User Announcements, Suggestions and General Board Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-27-2006, 02:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •