Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Dome of the Rock: Not the site of the Jewish temple?

Dome of the Rock: Not the site of the Jewish temple?
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2007, 03:19 AM
 
I saw this theory today on the history channel. It seems to be pretty solid, I'm looking for links on the web, and will post links if I can find them.

(Found a link from the guy who came up with the theory, see here: )
The Location of the First and Second Temples

Basically the theory is this:

When the Romans destroyed the second temple, they built a temple to Jupiter over the ruins. The plans to this temple are lost to history. However, the same architect went on to build a second temple to Jupiter elsewhere. The plans for this second temple are available, and when compared to the site as it stands today, perfectly match the layout of the Muslim Mosques (Dome of the Rock and an adjoining Mosque). It would seem that the Arabs simply took the Roman temple to Jupiter, and redressed it as their own temple. The Roman's built two buildings (now the Dome of the Rock and an adjoining mosque), and in between a large courtyard (which is still there). In the courtyard was built a large roman statue of a general on a horse.

Now, this still doesn't say anything about where the temple stood. But, the temple required an aqueduct for the priests to wash away blood from the sacrifices. The aqueduct has been found. The problem is the physics don't add up for this aqueduct. There simply is no way it could bring water to the site of the Dome of the Rock. However, it could bring water to the courtyard where the statue would have been. It would seem that the Romans didn't build their temple on top of the Jewish Holy of Holies. They build their temple around the site of the Jewish temple, and then built a statue on top of the site of the Jewish temple.

This all would mean that the Muslims holy site is not actually on top of the Jewish holy site. The Jews could rebuild the temple where the courtyard currently is, leaving the Muslim holy sites intact. Everyone wins. Interesting theory if it is true. It would mean the end of the fight over Jerusalem, if the two sides were willing to compromise.
( Last edited by goMac; May 22, 2007 at 04:07 AM. )
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2007, 03:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
It would mean the end of the fight over Jerusalem, if the two sides were willing to compromise.
COMEDY GOLD right there! You had me up until the punchline.



Interesting theory.
     
goMac  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2007, 04:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
COMEDY GOLD right there! You had me up until the punchline.
Well, that is the giant catch. I think both sides are pretty bloodthirsty, and they'd have to put up with having their holy sites literally next door to each other. Still, it puts a giant hole on the theory that the Muslims intentionally built their Mosque on top of the site of the temple. The dome of the rock may not have been built on top of the temple, and the Muslims may not have even built it to begin with.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2007, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
COMEDY GOLD right there! You had me up until the punchline.



Interesting theory.
LOL. You beat me to it, man. That's exactly what I thought when I read that.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 05:01 AM
 
I think it should be returned to the worship of Jupiter.

Jupiter's way cooler than both their Gods. I think 'coolness' is the most important factor when choosing a deity, which is why I think the official deity of MacNN should be Thor!
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 01:22 PM
 
There are a couple of flaws in this theory.

You're telling me that it's possible to bring water to the courtyard, but not possible to bring it to the Temple, which you conjecture was built in the courtyard and could be rebuilt there as well?

You're also asking me to believe that the Romans, the same Romans who made up the name Palestine to take away the name Israel at the same time as they took away ownership of the land, were respectful enough to not build on top of the Jewish site, but instead respectfully built next to it?

It just doesn't add up.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
The Jews could rebuild the temple where the courtyard currently is, leaving the Muslim holy sites intact. Everyone wins. Interesting theory if it is true. It would mean the end of the fight over Jerusalem, if the two sides were willing to compromise.
From the site you linked to:

Unfortunately, the Temple Mount presently remains under the supervision of the Waqf, the Supreme Moslem Council, and they have prevented any systematic archeological studies. In fact, the Waqf has gotten increasingly resistive to investigations of any kind on the Platform - which they consider to be a huge outdoor mosque sacred to Islam.


So, you can be pretty sure that they won't allow any Non-Muslim construction on the platform at all. They're actually pretty particular about non-Muslims setting foot on the platform in the past few years.
     
goMac  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
You're telling me that it's possible to bring water to the courtyard, but not possible to bring it to the Temple, which you conjecture was built in the courtyard and could be rebuilt there as well?
The water couldn't be brought to the current location of the dome of the rock, but it could have been brought to the courtyard, implying that the temple was actually on the site where the courtyard currently was.

Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
You're also asking me to believe that the Romans, the same Romans who made up the name Palestine to take away the name Israel at the same time as they took away ownership of the land, were respectful enough to not build on top of the Jewish site, but instead respectfully built next to it?
They did build on top of the temple. They put a large statue on top of the site of the temple (of their emperor or a general or someone), and built a courtyard where everyone could walk on top of the site where the temple was.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
goMac  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Unfortunately, the Temple Mount presently remains under the supervision of the Waqf, the Supreme Moslem Council, and they have prevented any systematic archeological studies. In fact, the Waqf has gotten increasingly resistive to investigations of any kind on the Platform - which they consider to be a huge outdoor mosque sacred to Islam.
Yeah, it would be tough to get both sides to agree. But it seems a better than the alternative, where there would have to be a winner or a looser.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
COMEDY GOLD right there! You had me up until the punchline.



Interesting theory.
Nobody thinks I'm serious when I say the whole area should be nuked.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atheist View Post
Nobody thinks I'm serious when I say the whole area should be nuked.
Tom Tancredo takes you seriously.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/U.S._Rep._Tom_Tancredo_clarifies_'nuke_Mecca'_comm ents
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 11:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Yeah, it would be tough to get both sides to agree. But it seems a better than the alternative, where there would have to be a winner or a looser.
You've already shown that you believe in a moral equivalence, where you say 'they're both bloodthirsty' - I tell you that this is false, and the equivalence behind it is false.

There are such things as right and wrong. Putting a temple where it wasn't isn't right, and the Islamic Waqf trying to get rid of artifacts that show the history of the temple on that site is also wrong. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...362223,00.html
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
This all would mean that the Muslims holy site is not actually on top of the Jewish holy site. The Jews could rebuild the temple where the courtyard currently is, leaving the Muslim holy sites intact. Everyone wins. Interesting theory if it is true. It would mean the end of the fight over Jerusalem, if the two sides were willing to compromise.
The problem is, there are those on both sides who don't want everyone to win. Even if there was conclusive evidence proving this theory true, they still wouldn't accept it as it would eliminate a major excuse for the bloodshed.
     
goMac  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 11:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
There are such things as right and wrong. Putting a temple where it wasn't isn't right, and the Islamic Waqf trying to get rid of artifacts that show the history of the temple on that site is also wrong. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...362223,00.html
But, if the theory is kosher (ha) the temple couldn't have been on the site of the Dome of the Rock. Aside from the conjecture about the temple of Jupiter, the aqueduct simply couldn't have brought water to the site where the Temple supposedly was (the current site of the Dome of the Rock). Yes, the Muslims are being difficult about things. But I have a feeling that if the theory is correct, the Jewish people wouldn't be content with having to share the platform, and even though they could have the temple re-established, they'd still want the Muslims gone.

I'm not being anti-semetic here either. I think both sides equally feel the same way about each other. It's not simply a Jewish problem or a Muslim problem.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
goMac  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2007, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
The problem is, there are those on both sides who don't want everyone to win. Even if there was conclusive evidence proving this theory true, they still wouldn't accept it as it would eliminate a major excuse for the bloodshed.
Exactly. The show actually approached this. The architect who came up with this theory (who is Jewish), approached both sides about the issue and both sides said they'd rather fight it out than compromise.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
I'm not being anti-semetic here either. I think both sides equally feel the same way about each other. It's not simply a Jewish problem or a Muslim problem.
You would be wrong. You don't know very much about the Jewish people or the Jewish religion. I hold Orthodox Jewish views and philosophy and I am an unapologetic Zionist. I do not want the Arabs in the land of Israel harmed. Nor do I want the religion of Islam to be destroyed. I do believe they (the Arabs in the land of Israel) should go home to their Arab brethren in the 22 countries they currently control (or if they wish, the other 30 countries under Muslim control), and that those who do not wish to leave and do not pledge loyalty to Israel should be repatriated. Those views make me, perhaps, the most extreme Zionist around here. But I am far from bloodthirsty. I believe too much blood has been shed on both sides due to the continual rejection of the Jewish state.

For the last 60 years Israel has demonstrated patience and tolerance toward the Arabs. Yes, it has gone to war many times, and many Arabs have died, but Israel has not enjoyed defending itself. Israel doesn't want war - to the contrary, it has been begging for peace ever since 1948. But if you ask the radicalized Arabs (which, unfortunately, amounts to a majority of the population there), they'll tell you of their hatred for the Jew, how they equate the Jew with demons, how Jews suck their blood. They'll tell you about how they want to send their children to blow themselves up. They genuinely want to see the destruction of Israel. If you cannot see the difference between the two sides or you find a moral equivalence between them, there's little anyone can do to help you see the truth.

As for the Temple Mount, I am highly skeptical of the theory. If, however, there were a chance it could be established as the truth, the Jewish people would accept that finding and have absolutely no qualm about building on the site while disregarding the status of the mosque. As vmarks points out, it could never come to pass unless Israel were to reclaim sovereign authority over the area because the Arab authority would never permit it otherwise.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
goMac  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 01:03 AM
 
I don't doubt that a lot of Jewish people hope for peace. I even think a majority probably do. I even think a majority of the Arabs hope for peace. That said, there are enough people who do not want peace that I think it is keeping the peace process from working, on both sides.

When I was in high school I sat next to a Jewish kid who's life goal as he told us one day (and this is no exaggeration) was to move to Israel, get a gun, and kill as many Arabs as he could. Now whether he had mental issues or someone gave him this idea, I don't know, but I think there are a politically significant amount of Jews who do not want the Arabs in Israel at all.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 01:17 AM
 
Personally I believe it is absolutely rediculous that people are killing each other over this piece of land. In my opinion, no God would ever want anyone to kill or risk being killed in the name of a building.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 01:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
When I was in high school I sat next to a Jewish kid who's life goal as he told us one day (and this is no exaggeration) was to move to Israel, get a gun, and kill as many Arabs as he could. Now whether he had mental issues or someone gave him this idea, I don't know,
So, you found one crazy boy, and that made you jump to the conclusion that a percentage of Jews want to kill the Arabs in Israel? As I told you, I am probably the most extreme Zionist you'll find around here. I believe in the ideology of Rabbi Meir Kahane, HY"D. That's the farthest right wing of Jewish thought. But never did my rabbi advocate murder.

I think there are a politically significant amount of Jews who do not want the Arabs in Israel at all.
That's different from your murder example. A percentage of Jews believe as I believe that Israel will not enjoy peace so long as a significant population of Arabs exists in Israel. They must go or be repatriated to any of those 52 countries where Muslims rule. Israel has tried coexistence for the last 60 years to no avail. Its attempts to make peace with those committed to its destruction - its legitimization of an inveterate terrorist and his evil cause - have simply brought unprecedented bloodshed. The Arabs in the land of Israel do not want peace, they want Palestine, which means the destruction of Israel. Those who believe as I do believe that policy must be based on realism and the reality of the conflict, not idealized notions of peace and brotherhood with a population pledged entirely to murder and destruction, to such an extent that it makes smart bombs out of its children.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 01:52 AM
 
Who cares! I mean for God's sake (no pun...wait, yes, pun intended) it was 2,000 years ago.

Can we just deal with the reality of today and forget all this my-temple, your-wall bullshit?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 02:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Who cares! I mean for God's sake (no pun...wait, yes, pun intended) it was 2,000 years ago.

Can we just deal with the reality of today and forget all this my-temple, your-wall bullshit?
I agree with you.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Who cares! I mean for God's sake (no pun...wait, yes, pun intended) it was 2,000 years ago.

Can we just deal with the reality of today and forget all this my-temple, your-wall bullshit?
*ding ding ding*

We have a winner. You sir, deserve the Nobel peace prize.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:02 AM
 
Oh, witness the folly of the smug secular humanists who assert there is no higher force above them.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Oh, witness the folly of the smug secular humanists who assert there is no higher force above them.


Non-sequitur of the day?

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Oh, witness the folly of the smug secular humanists who assert there is no higher force above them.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
The issue of Dome of the Rock has nothing to do with "smug secular humanists assert[ing] there is no higher force above them". It has to do with two groups of smug spiritualist asserting that their higher force is higher than the other's and fighting over a spit of land to prove it.

And now, there's some evidence to suggest that spit of land may actually be the wrong spit of land for one of the groups and that they both have a spit of land side-by-side.

If I were a person of faith, I'd take this as a clear message from the god both groups share that they are intended to coexist.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:14 AM
 
Non-sequitur of the day?
No, it's not. The thing is, the secular humanist lacks the capacity to understand religion and religious motivations. I cannot debate religious topics with you because there is no common ground on which to converse.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:19 AM
 
Nevermind
( Last edited by Graviton; May 24, 2007 at 09:26 AM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
The issue of Dome of the Rock has nothing to do with "smug secular humanists assert[ing] there is no higher force above them".
I was responding to the secular humanists posting to this thread.

It has to do with two groups of smug spiritualist asserting that their higher force is higher than the other's and fighting over a spit of land to prove it.
I'm sure it doesn't matter to you that you're improperly describing the conflict, so I won't waste my keystrokes.

And now, there's some evidence to suggest that spit of land may actually be the wrong spit of land for one of the groups and that they both have a spit of land side-by-side. If I were a person of faith, I'd take this as a clear message from the god both groups share that they are intended to coexist.
Read my post above. If there were a chance that the location of the Temple is not directly on the site of the Dome of the Rock but rather somewhere else, the Dome of the Rock would no longer be a source of agitation for the Jewish people. If it were proven to be the case, the Jewish people would not have a problem with that finding and would begin plans to build if they could. (The Waqf, however, would not allow it, so there would still be conflict.) And Israel has tried desperately to coexist for the last ~60 years.

You don't understand the conflict. You don't understand the religious components involved. Yet, you as a smug secular humanist, presume to dictate on a subject you're completely ignorant about. That's what my people call chutzpah.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Graviton View Post
Oh, witness the folly of the smug believer who forgets Jesus' humble warning:

"Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" Matthew 5:22

Feeling warm?
Not my deity, not my bible.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:27 AM
 
Got it, snipped it out of the thread but you replied to quickly

Still, my Thor pwns you all.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:34 AM
 
Isn't the Torah version 1.0, the Christian Bible version 1.0.1 and the Quar'an version 1.1 ...or something.

I think the secular enlightenment era was probably like OSX.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Graviton View Post
Isn't the Torah version 1.0, the Christian Bible version 1.0.1 and the Quar'an version 1.1 ...or something.
That was so funny I forgot to laugh. Or, were you serious?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:49 AM
 
Never forget to laugh. It's good for you.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You don't understand the conflict. You don't understand the religious components involved. Yet, you as a smug secular humanist, presume to dictate on a subject you're completely ignorant about. That's what my people call chutzpah.
Perhaps, but name-calling isn't necessary. It seems to me that you are too close to the issue to see that it really boils down to a centuries old "my god is bigger than your god" argument.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Perhaps, but name-calling isn't necessary. It seems to me that you are too close to the issue to see that it really boils down to a centuries old "my god is bigger than your god" argument.
No, you're wrong. Again, you don't understand the conflict. Perhaps the only way for you to deal with a complex issue is to oversimplify and mislabel it. I don't think the basic concepts should be above your head, but you keep making the same ignorant statements so perhaps I'm wrong in that regard.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is primarily based on the Arab rejection of the sovereign existence of Jews in their homeland, a tiny strip of land which happens to be in the Middle East. There are many reasons for that rejection, some of which are rooted in Islamic theology. But it boils down to a general rejection of the Jews (or, the "Zionists") and a continual desire to drive them to the sea. And there is no corresponding rejection of Muslims or Islam by the Jews. Your arrogant misapprehension of the facts does nothing to further your arguments, such as they are.
( Last edited by Big Mac; May 24, 2007 at 10:22 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2007, 10:29 AM
 
There is of course an easy solution to this problem, but these are deeply historical religious divides so it would take some concessions on both sides to make it work.

I say, Jews should have it Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, Muslims could have it Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays and on Sundays it can be rented out to the Scientologists.

Hows that?
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:56 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2