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 > Winner of the Unintelligent Design Contest

Winner of the Unintelligent Design Contest
Thread Tools
Dark Helmet
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: President Skroob's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2006, 11:54 PM
 
"If you look closely, the flounder fish has a rather remarkable head. There's something amiss with the placement of its right eye and the way its mouth opens. Its as if it was a normal fish like, say the discus fish, that lived a normal life and one day some crazy demented person came along and said, "So you are a normal fish, eh? Let's see. I'll drop you on the sea floor and make you move about on your sides flat on the floor"

http://scienceblogs.com/thescian/200...lligent_de.php

It is funny and true.

"She's gone from suck to blow!"
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2006, 11:57 PM
 
EDIT: See my post below
( Last edited by Railroader; Sep 19, 2006 at 12:07 AM. )
     
Dark Helmet  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: President Skroob's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2006, 11:59 PM
 
Ladies and gentleman.. I give you the runner up.

"She's gone from suck to blow!"
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:01 AM
 
EDIT: Never mind, I am wasting my time.
( Last edited by Railroader; Sep 19, 2006 at 12:08 AM. )
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
Methinks you doth protesteth too much.
Methinks your point would be a lot more credible and less ironic if you'd just left his thread alone, no?

(btw, it's "you doth protest" or "you protesteth", but not "you doth protesteth")
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
Methinks your point would be a lot more credible and less ironic if you'd just left his thread alone, no?

(btw, it's "you doth protest" or "you protesteth", but not "you doth protesteth")
EDIT: nm
( Last edited by Railroader; Sep 19, 2006 at 12:53 AM. )
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:17 AM
 
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:51 AM
 
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 08:43 AM
 
I said "take notice" in that link...

I also see that you've edited out your sheepish post above...
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 09:06 AM
 
What's going on here???
This thread is about a flounder (a fish) - why is it in the P/L???






edit: wait, I just read the blog....Oh NOOOO, this is not because it might offend.......
***
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
I also see that you've edited out your sheepish post above...
I can't get anything past you can I. Mind like a steel trap on that one.

I am trying to be the bigger man.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 10:12 AM
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No matter on what side of the head the eyes are.

This fish is nothing compared to some of the strangest living creatures inhabiting this planet. To stupid humans this looks funny.

I don't even see the point that blog is making.. though I am trying. I am no proponent of intelligient design and think that it is a very stupid hypothesis.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Landos Mustache
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No matter on what side of the head the eyes are.

This fish is nothing compared to some of the strangest living creatures inhabiting this planet. To stupid humans this looks funny.

I don't even see the point that blog is making.. though I am trying. I am no proponent of intelligient design and think that it is a very stupid hypothesis.

V

The point is nobody cares what the fish LOOKS like in terms of beauty because yes... they is way uglier out there (some members here qualify .

The point is this fish clearly shows that it has "evolved" over time from a side swimming normal fish to one that morphed to this half assed bottom dweller.

Normal bottom dwelling fish don't have shrunk fins at the bottom half, nor eyes that moved over time to the upper half.

Other creatures such as snakes still have traces of when they had legs.

Any rational person can see that this is not something that was designed by a higher intelligence but adapted over time to its current form.

Kinda like how humans have an appendix.

"Hello, what have we here?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo
I don't even see the point that blog is making.. though I am trying. I am no proponent of intelligient design and think that it is a very stupid hypothesis.

V
Coming from the other side of the debate I agree with you. There are good arguments against ID. This is NOT one of them.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Landos Mustache
The point is nobody cares what the fish LOOKS like in terms of beauty because yes... they is way uglier out there (some members here qualify .

The point is this fish clearly shows that it has "evolved" over time from a side swimming normal fish to one that morphed to this half assed bottom dweller.

Normal bottom dwelling fish don't have shrunk fins at the bottom half, nor eyes that moved over time to the upper half.
Yeah, but it's still a fish. Creationists do not dispute that microevolution occurs. Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
yakkiebah
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dar al-Harb
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Yeah, but it's still a fish. Creationists do not dispute that microevolution occurs. Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?
Why not? They seem to do a pretty good job at surviving. If something doesn't evolve in order to survive then it dies. It doesn't change if there is no need to.

A bit like how the economy works.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?
You have no clue what evolution is, don't you?
***
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by yakkiebah
Why not?
The evolution didn't create anything "new". It still has it's old parts. Actually, isn't it born as a non-bottom dweller looking perfectly normal and then migrates to the bottom and mutuates through adolesence?
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Yeah, but it's still a fish. Creationists do not dispute that microevolution occurs. Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?
How does it not speak well for evolution? The flounder is a successful species, is it not?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by badidea
You have no clue what evolution is, don't you?
You mean mutation don't you?
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
You mean mutation don't you?
Me? Ask BigMac!
***
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by badidea
Me? Ask BigMac!
ahem...

oops?
     
yakkiebah
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dar al-Harb
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:31 AM
 
Without mutation there wouldn't be any evolution. Duh!
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by badidea
You have no clue what evolution is, don't you?
Precisely what in my post do you take issue with? Why not say something specific, instead of offering only vague ad-hominems?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Saetre
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lost in Thought
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:15 PM
 
Your statement doesn't make sense. Answer nonhuman's question and one of us will be able to explain this all to you.
Little children are savages. They are paleolithic creatures.
- E. O. Wilson
     
Landos Mustache
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Yeah, but it's still a fish. Creationists do not dispute that microevolution occurs. Moreover, if this fish did indeed evolve, that doesn't speak well for evolution, does it?
What in the world does that mean?

What proof do you have of Creationism other than a book and some 2000 year old stories? Just looking at the creature on its own does not show any trace of creationism and strong towards evolution.

If "God" did create this creature why did he include all of this evidence to disprove him? To test your faith with a bottom feeder?

"Hello, what have we here?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:19 PM
 
Damn you are dense. I just told you that most creationists do not deny microevolution. It's macroevolution that we reject. I'm sorry you cannot grasp the point I'm making. But as far as this fish is concerned, if you want to ascribe its existence to evolution, I'm fine with that. If you want to believe evolution creates crappy organisms, that's great. It's still a fish, though, and its offspring will continue to be fish no matter how many generations pass.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Saetre
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lost in Thought
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
crappy organisms
You are so objective and scientific.
Little children are savages. They are paleolithic creatures.
- E. O. Wilson
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:27 PM
 
That's essentially what it's being called.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Landos Mustache
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Damn you are dense. I just told you that most creationists do not deny microevolution. It's macroevolution that we reject. I'm sorry you cannot grasp the point I'm making. B
Ya I am not on the same higher intelligence level that you are on... I guess you are more "evolved" no wait... "gifted by God" than anyone else here as nobody knows what the hell you are trying to say as it sounds like total bullshit and evading the obvious.

Be happy with the fact that you know the truth though. Your evidence is overwhelming

"Hello, what have we here?
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 12:42 PM
 
Fascinating, but I'm kind of surprised that the article didn't leave out some of the stranger aspects of the flounder, such as the fact that it's actually born with one eye on each side, just like other fish. One of the eyes actually migrates from one side to the other as the fish matures.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Saetre
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lost in Thought
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
That's essentially what it's being called.
I can't find anyone saying that the fish is "crappy", although some consider it ugly. We do, afterall, share the same basic design as the flounder. ;-)
Little children are savages. They are paleolithic creatures.
- E. O. Wilson
     
G Barnett
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 01:05 PM
 
Thing is, Big Mac, the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are a false distinction and are not separate ideas. There is only evolution -- the gradual change of living things in response to their environment over time. You either accept that, or reject it all -- none of this splitting hairs and trying to define terms and conditions in such a way that you can pick and choose the outcome you want.
     
Landos Mustache
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by G Barnett
Thing is, Big Mac, the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are a false distinction and are not separate ideas. There is only evolution -- the gradual change of living things in response to their environment over time. You either accept that, or reject it all -- none of this splitting hairs and trying to define terms and conditions in such a way that you can pick and choose the outcome you want.

Well the goal of making someone believe religious facts is all about splitting hairs, playing around with terms, evidence, definition etc. When you flat out present evidence to support something other than what they believe in they throw back some vague bible passage or "we as people can't understand the lords great methods" jive.

There is no convincing a highly religious person otherwise so there is no real point in trying. If they want to believe god made that fish out of clay 5000 years ago at the same time as he made the earth... so be it. But they can't blame us for not wanting our kids to learn that as if it was fact in schools as no religious stories should be taken as a "Fact".

"Hello, what have we here?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 01:21 PM
 
The whole "microevolution"/"macroevolution" thing just bugs me. It's such a cop-out. If you accept that creatures' forms and genes can change in arbitrary ways, then what's the point of saying "Well, it's not a new species"? At what point does a fish stop being a fish (and if it does stop being a fish, will you just say, "Well, it's still a vertebrate"?), and why — if we accept that creatures can change arbitrarily — would a fish not be able to do that?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by G Barnett
Thing is, Big Mac, the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are a false distinction and are not separate ideas. There is only evolution -- the gradual change of living things in response to their environment over time. You either accept that, or reject it all -- none of this splitting hairs and trying to define terms and conditions in such a way that you can pick and choose the outcome you want.
That's not really true though. This is science, not religion. There's always room to learn more and to understand better. The theories will change over time as our experience changes and we're able to observe new things. That's what distinguishes science from religion: flexibility and change.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 04:39 PM
 
The problem with satire is that it requires considerable mental effort - both to decode, and, judging from the rather lame original article, to create.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
The problem with satire is that it requires considerable mental effort - both to decode, and, judging from the rather lame original article, to create.
I dunno, I think one of the best things about satire is laughing at the people who don't get it.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
The problem with satire is that it requires considerable mental effort - both to decode, and, judging from the rather lame original article, to create.


V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Landos Mustache
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 05:57 PM
 
Funny thing is all these people who "know better" still haven't offered a better explanation as to why it isn't evolution.

It is better to try to make personal attacks or cause distractions as it avoids having to think.

Typical.

"Hello, what have we here?
     
idjeff
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Torrance by day, Pasadena by night
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 08:19 PM
 
I just wish that evolution hadn't taken my tail away...I'd have some sweet balance....and the chicks would be like "OMG!"

You gotta tame the beast before you let it out of its cage.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Landos Mustache
Funny thing is all these people who "know better" still haven't offered a better explanation as to why it isn't evolution.

It is better to try to make personal attacks or cause distractions as it avoids having to think.

Typical.
You amaze me.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2006, 11:16 PM
 
To SWG and G Barnett, I use the terms micro and macroevolution as they were used in the physical anthropology and biology courses I took in college. I doubt either of you have a better grasp on the subject than my professors did - and I earned As in those classes, FWIW. So until you find me an authoritative source backing your assertions to the contrary, I'll continue to dismiss your condescending rhetoric.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Dark Helmet  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: President Skroob's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2006, 12:41 AM
 
Funny, still not sold even with your higher intellect and understanding of things.

"She's gone from suck to blow!"
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2006, 02:13 AM
 
Fine argument, SWG. I'm not expecting you to believe in a higher power, let alone my God. So just give it a rest.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2006, 08:38 AM
 
My favorite part of that linked thread;

Some other examples are how humans grow tails as embryos and then re-absorb them, vestige appendages on all sort of animals such as the appendix in humans, and nipples on males.
Must be those darned Creationists teaching biology again!

looks like this particular fish feeds along the bottom with eyes eventually pointed downwards and a mouth that opens horizontally for bottom-feeding. i.e. looks like it does exactly what it looks like it does.
ebuddy
     
Landos Mustache
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2006, 10:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Fine argument, SWG. I'm not expecting you to believe in a higher power, let alone my God. So just give it a rest.

Who said I don't believe in a higher power? I am not Atheist, I am Agnostic 100%. I don't believe any religions on the earth as I think they are all a form of control and a "with us or against us" mentality.

I don't think religions should be taught in public schools. Religions should never influence our governments as it currently does.

Most importantly I don't care what anybody does IN church or at home. You can condemn each other to hell or dance around in purple underwear if you like. The only time there is a problem is when you walk out of your church/home and start pointing the finger at me telling me I am a bad person or don't deserve the same rights as anyone else because I don't follow YOUR beliefs. Is that so unreasonable?

In terms of evolution, if you want to believe that God made that stupid looking fish and it "micro-evoled" that's fine. Just don't get all huffy if other people look at it from a scientific angle and laugh at the "evidence" that God designed it. I would never want my kids tough "creationism" in school as if it was fact but I wouldn't care less if they learnt that it is just a view that certain religions have. Again, is that so unreasonable?

"Hello, what have we here?
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2006, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
My favorite part of that linked thread;

Some other examples are how humans grow tails as embryos and then re-absorb them, vestige appendages on all sort of animals such as the appendix in humans, and nipples on males.
Must be those darned Creationists teaching biology again!
Um, I must admit that I have no clue as to what your point could possibly be.

All human embryos DO grow a tail at one point during development, which is then re-absorbed. (Sometimes, when ontogeny goes slightly awry, it isn't re-absorbed, and the baby is actually born with a tail.) I won't go into the "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" bit here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
looks like this particular fish feeds along the bottom with eyes eventually pointed downwards and a mouth that opens horizontally for bottom-feeding. i.e. looks like it does exactly what it looks like it does.
Except that this fish's eyes DON'T point downward, and its mouth DOESN'T open horizontally.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2006, 07:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
Um, I must admit that I have no clue as to what your point could possibly be.
... and then go on to address it.

All human embryos DO grow a tail at one point during development, which is then re-absorbed. (Sometimes, when ontogeny goes slightly awry, it isn't re-absorbed, and the baby is actually born with a tail.) I won't go into the "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" bit here.
re-absorbed? So, it was absorbed once already, then re-absorbed or just absorbed once? Sometimes when ontology goes slightly awry, the baby is actually born with the tail??? You mean, like how sometimes twins are born with their heads fused together? We must have all had siamese twins for common ancestors. Sometimes babies are born with almost no face at all. Watched a documentary on it. This must mean that we descended from a line of faceless people. You're going to tell me how this bone (although sometimes just fatty and skin, confused by many as the coccyx) is vestigal. Then you'll go on to tell me about gill slits and yolk sacs.

Don't bother with the whole "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny bit" here. Dr. Seuss has more merit.

Except that this fish's eyes DON'T point downward, and its mouth DOESN'T open horizontally.
which direction are they pointing and which way does its mouth open?
ebuddy
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2006, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
You mean, like how sometimes twins are born with their heads fused together? We must have all had siamese twins for common ancestors. Sometimes babies are born with almost no face at all. Watched a documentary on it. This must mean that we descended from a line of faceless people. You're going to tell me how this bone (although sometimes just fatty and skin, confused by many as the coccyx) is vestigal. Then you'll go on to tell me about gill slits and yolk sacs.
You just presented a bunch of irrelevant information and creationist talking points.

Him: "The body specifically produces a tail at one point during development, showing that humans have retained coding for tails."

You: "Some people have an abnormal condition where they don't develop a face. So there."
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:55 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,