 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor."
-Adam Smith
You got bills. |
Well, both government and wealth predated ol' Adam. Wealth in it's earliest form was simply physical control of useful stuff. And if I was handier with spear or club or other lethal tool of choice than you were, what was mine remained mine, and what was yours became mine, and you became remains, no government needed. 
If you study a little history of labor law in the US, it's pretty clear that government has evolved to more commonly protect the interests of the non-rich. i.e. we have things like child labor laws, minimum wage laws, the right to organize labor, securities laws, banking and insurance regulation, etc.
Oh, and note that little bit about "so far as it is instituted for the security of property" - that has been for a long time a relatively minor function of government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
Ok, I admit I didnīt read the whole thread, but I donīt understand this....
quote:
That has nothing to do with it. My argument is that human beings are physical creatures. It has nothing to do with determinism per se, and everything to do with physicalism. There may be indeterminacy in the physical world but that doesn't matter a jot because indeterminacy isn't sufficient to ground free will. If it was, then my actions would be just as surprising to me as they would to anyone else. As it stands they aren't - they are in accordance with my beliefs and desires. |
Well, as I understand it it, you say thereīs no free will, because we humans exist within a world of physical law, and those brain states are a kind of a physical process we could describe exactly if we only knew more about the brain?
But why are then my actions always in accordance with my beliefs and desires? How can I learn something then, adopt new beliefs, or change previous beliefs?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
Actually, those are everyone's laws. I'm a fairly hardcore rightwinger on tax and economic policy, but much closer to left-center on regulatory policies.
"More laws" - like what, though? Most labor laws are fairly balanced as is, because you have to weigh the "benefit" with the alternative of the employer going out of business or relocating, either physically or virtually. You also have to balance increased costs of regulation being passed on to consumers across the board and/or reducing profit (and taxation) levels.
Personally, I think Enron, Andersen, WorldCom, etc. execs should swing from the nearest oak tree, and support much tighter regulation and stricter penalties for market manipulation, fraud, etc.
General labor and consumer law? Not much I can see there, although real* tort reform in consumer products liability etc. would be nice.
* not to be confused with the Republican brand, which is mostly just limiting damages no matter how unreasonable a defendant's action might be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
The philosophers pilloried in that book are from the Continental tradition which has little or nothing to do with the Analytic tradition, which is the main thread of philosophy in English speaking countries. Eliminative materialism is largely detested by the Continentals. |
Or just not known. What is "Eliminative materialism" ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Sssshhhhh!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
So at what point was the minimum wage raised that you became a conservative? BS MtG. The left has fought hard for these laws and you are not on the left. Don't take credit for them. |
God, get off your high horse before you get dizzy and fall off from too little oxygen.  Did I say I passed the ****ing laws, nimrod? In case you didn't bother reading the thread, I put in my ****ing time in no-benefit, minimum wage jobs. No, I'm not on the left, because once I actually looked at the way the world works, I got some brains, unlike the Barbara Boxer crowd, about how economics work, about how regulatory policies work, about how capital markets work, etc. The left has pretty much gotten itself repudiated nationwide, because of a combination of whiny rhetoric of entitlement and an utter failure to deliver the goods.
quote:
More Laws? Well that depends on what would be fair isn't it. I have convinced you that raw capitalism is a benefit to the rich and a cost to the poor. So, you tell me why you think the poor should have to pay any taxes at all. |
You haven't convinced me of anything. "Raw capitalism" hasn't been practiced in the US in at least 70 years. You're the one who insisted on this monolithic "the poor" and "the rich" without definition, and with nothing in between. Sales taxes are local policy, and frankly, it would be ridiculous to have to wait around at every friggin' cash register you go to, while a bunch of people dicker around over whether they've got a tax exemption this month or not. You buy stuff that's subject to sales tax, you pay it, period. According to you, FICA is the lowest cost, best benefit insurance possible, so if somebody wants their government funded pension fund, they can pay for it. It's not a tax, it's social insurance.  State and Federal income taxes have fairly substantial basic exemptions and dependent exemptions, and are heavily progressive, so depending on your definition of "the poorTM" they may pay little or no income taxes. They do consume the majority of direct benefit government services, so as long as they're receiving more than they're paying for, their net cost is zero on average.
Back to minimum wage - do you think there would be a benefit, or not, to raising the minimum wage to, say, $15.00 an hour?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In other words, the typical philosophobabble of "my school of thought is right, yours is bunk." Nice job if you can get it, but other being a professor of philosophy, what use is the entire field?
And I think Sokal has equal contempt for most philosophy as self-indulgent pseudo-intellectual posturing. |
And here again you show your ignorance of the book. From Sokal's book (p.5.):
"We are not attacking philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general, on the contrary we feel these fields are of utmost importance"
Poor showing Michael. I'm afraid your head is bigger than your brain. There are other quotations I could have used, but that's enough to expose your fraudulent comments.
quote:
Weather is an inanimate set of physical processes, although it is subject in some degree to complex systems behavior. As such, it is entirely incomparable to human thought processes. |
I might as well show up this crap for what it is. Even if human thought processes can't be captured in a deterministic framework, it still doesn't prove that determinism is false, nor does it prove that we have free will. The reason is simple, either these processes supervene on brain states or they are just brain states under a different descriptive framework (like propositional attitudes). Since brain states are physical states and are covered by physical laws, so are the states that supervene on them (albeit indirectly) or states that are identical with them.
That's about as far as your sort of argument gets. I've heard it many times before. Again, this just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
quote:
I understand philosophy enough to know that it's essentially pretentious bunk. |
No, you have shown in this thread that you don't understand philosophy at all. You brought up Sokal's book as a club to beat all philosophy with, in complete ignorance of the fact that the material he is criticising is for the most part from a tradition that has little credibility among English speaking philosophers - and indeed more credibility among literature majors. The fact that Sokal himself alludes to this escapes you as well.
Either learn some proper philosophy or stop making insubstantial criticisms things of which you are ignorant.
quote:
All sorts of things - cumulative perception of life experience, received information or learning, emotional states, impulsive drives of various kinds, all occuring more or less constantly, and being responded to in varying degrees at different times. |
As if that is supposed to be profound. Everyone knows this. It still doesn't count as a proof of Free Will. And it suffers from the defect of being based on first person authority and we know that this is unreliable.
quote:
Oh, like the entire range of interactions between all influences - i.e. social norms and personal views of those norms, emotional state at the moment and long term, core differences in personality (try signing up Mohandas Gandhi to Amway for example ), mental disorders (sociopathy, OCD etc.), accumulated experience, all interacting in dynamic and complex ways. Not "natural law" and not "random." |
Either it's determined or it isn't.
quote:
Let's see if I can dumb it down enough for you. Your concept of "consistency" will be filtered through your belief system. If you have some trivial, non-emotional issue like sorting currency from lowest denomination to highest and all facing the same way, there won't be any real disparity in any two people's view of what is or isn't consistent. If you're talking about appropriate sentencing for a murder, with a complex set of circumstances, and you're trying to be "consistent" in applying punishment, then you may well get into all sorts of arguments about whether the sentence in a particular case is consistent with treatment of other cases. Everybody will nitpick factual or legal differences, or invent rationales for the killer's action, all to create a rationale to support their views. |
Of course they will, because people are logically inconsistent (they make mistakes in reasoning and hold inconsistent beliefs). Look, I'll save you further embarrassment.
Logical consistency is fundamentally related to meaning since logic is truth functional and truth is bound up with meaning (or content as it is sometimes called). For example, the proposition "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white. The reason that that particular proposition corresponds to that particular fact is because it has a determinate content. The reason that "p and not-p" is necessarily false (a contradiction) is because of the content of "p". "p" wouldn't mean anything if that wasn't a contradiction.
Now it is also true that meaning is not subjective. Your thinking a word means X doesn't mean that it does. The correct meaning of X is its use in your speech community (of course you can invent your own private words - but doing so invariably invokes a public language from which you translate into your own idiolect. The fact that people lie and wilfully misunderstand others is actually based on their having a shared language which is responsible to public rules.
That's the truth. It's not very exciting or profound, but that's what we do.
quote:
Tax policy is even stickier, because nearly every financial situation is different. Again, people will propagandize "consistency" "fairness" and other subjective concepts. Nobody admits to inconsistency or unfairness, and everybody can't be right. Some of you have to be left, but it isn't your fault. |
Again - people lie and commit fraud. So what?
quote:
The whole "field" of philosophy is a bunch of people who haven't done anything else of note sitting around in a pseudointellectual mental circle-jerk inventing names and labels. Three schools of "free will" with three nonsensical names, arguing arcane points around in circles? |
Imagine the outrage if we said the same about scientific jargon. All this shows me is that you don't understand what goes on in contemporary analytical philosophy and have had to resort to name calling because you're getting whipped.
quote:
The "moral principle" is meaningless until applied to something. Then everyone (having done something different) claims they have done whatever the "moral principle" in question directs them to do. |
You can extend this point to mathematics or the use of names like "Caesium" - read the later Wittgenstein (those who've read this book will be laughing now). If you do this you end up with a thoroughgoing scepticism. All this shows to sensible people is that this view of the way language works is false.
And, of course, this is just the sort of view that is driving Sokal nuts. Here you are, a scientist, saying exactly the sort of thing he can't stand and wrote his book to condemn, and then using him to back up your points.
quote:
And there's a difference. I'm not talking "conceptual relativism." I'm talking the way people will (by free will ) spin what they observe and how they act to claim that it is good, consistent, or what have you. To use a basic analogy, "reality" is a used car, and what I'm talking about is techniques of selling used cars, which is the essence of politics, business, getting the girl, and a good portion of human endeavor. If you want to deal with "reality" and "consistency," go to Vulcan and talk to Spock. |
So you are a sophist. If you just want to get people to do what you want irrespective of morality or the truth then fine. So what if people are inconsistent for selfish reasons. It doesn't matter - they are inconsistent. And you've overstated it - people are usually quite reasonable most of the time - especially if you treat their opinions with respect and argue fairly with them.
quote:
Look at jury psychology, marketing techniques, or similar fields, where the goal is to find people's preconceptions and prejudices, and make things appear to fit in with those preconceptions, so people will do what you want them to do. I'm not saying "conceptual relativism" has any validity, I'm saying people play the game to sell themselves, or to sell others on what they want. |
Sometimes they do. So what? This is just sophistry. One could say this of a scientist trying to bull his way to a grant.
I'm surprised to see you opting for this. Old Jesus was pretty hung up on the truth (bearing false witness and all that) - I think you better pray for forgiveness. 
quote:
Take your good buddy George W. Bush and the war on Iraq, for example. Do you think he really knows, understands, and believes (and has from the get-go) that all his hardon for Saddam Hussein is simply cynical, contrived, falsehood? Or is it perhaps more likely that everything he has seen and heard has been filtered in accordance with his and his administration's ideology, to match "reality" as they want to believe it to be, with what they really wanted to do anyway, which was get Hussein's ass? Which do you think is more likely? |
The most likely scenario is that he told lies to get what he wanted.
quote:
The "reality" of Hussein's actions is objective, but what parts of that reality are used, reinforced and presented, and what parts of that reality are discarded as inconvenient, is a totally subjective process that varies from individual to individual. |
I prefer Ockham's razor. The simplest explanation is that they lied.
quote:
What else are you going to use to make a transition piece when you need to put a square peg in a round hole? |
Missed the point entirely.
quote:
Nice strawman. Let's go from economic policy to rape. indeed. |
If you'd understood the example you would have understood that it's an example of the way that endorsing relativism leads to a collapse in meaning and rationality (as helpfully described above).
quote:
In a policy discussion, it's claimed and perceived "consistency" "fairness" or what have you count for more than the underlying reality. Read Macchiavelli. |
I've read him - he's a sophist.
quote:
What it has to do with logical consistency is that the world we deal with is more the world of filtered information and sales pitches than the "real" world of objective information. |
This is exactly the sort of bad philosophy that Sokal detests. You even have a bad metaphor (filtering) to hide the fact that you don't really know what you mean.
quote:
And every side who bends the rules, says that they're the ones that are being "fair" and "consistent" and those other SOB's are the ones bending the rules. The racist believes his worldview is consistent, as does the communist, as does the entrepreneur. Therefore, most discussions of "reality" are as futile as this one, except for entertainment purposes. |
Yet people manage to have reasonable discussions every day. They manage to do this because there are shared rules, which are inescapable if one is to say anything at all. We spend the majority of our time following shared rules - imagine what life would be like if we didn't.
quote:
 Three competing schools of thought with fancy names debating the nature of free will, which you say is nothing but scientifically unsound religious bunk, and I say is simply nothing more than the ability to choose behavior, and these three schools of thought and their fancy names and their questions are essential to what? |
Well, if you'd bothered to look them up, you would see that they are three different attempts to give an account of free will. Of course, only one of them can be right.
quote:
Well, you apparently don't know what I'm talking about, how's that? |
I do - I've heard it all before.
quote:
If they're bored or curious, it's a great read. However, you're the one with the misunderstanding of my position as "relativist." Hence my analogy above about used cars vs. used car sales techniques. |
Nope. I don't think so. If you think that consistency just boils down to whatever an individual thinks is consistent then you end up with relativism (consistency is relative to each individual). Since logical consistency is the core of rationality, this amounts to saying that reason is relative.
Of course you could admit that consistency is not what each individual thinks it is in which case I win this point.
Anyway, that's enough from me. I've wasted a large amount of time giving accounts of things any good first year student learns. I've got better things to do.
Never mind - you can go back to giving Kidicious a hard time (although he is to be commended for his persistence).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
And here again you show your ignorance of the book. From Sokal's book (p.5.):
"We are not attacking philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general, on the contrary we feel these fields are of utmost importance"
Poor showing Michael. I'm afraid your head is bigger than your brain. There are other quotations I could have used, but that's enough to expose your fraudulent comments.
|
(a) Sokal has written more than one piece.
(b) What part of "most philosophy" don't you understand?
(c) It's not particularly prudent of academics to openly criticize entire fields, but Sokal's playing with the postmodernist's is pretty indicative. A given field of study also has (or fails to have) value independent of it's current lot of practitioners. A lot of good intellectual talent was probably wasted in Alchemy, as one example of a case in which the relative value of the field itself, and it's practitioners, is not the same.
(d) Of course, I, like the rest of the troglodytes who actually do things and make things work, are ignorant wretches who need the enlightment that only all those great philosophy types can provide us unworthy souls. 
quote:
I might as well show up this crap for what it is. Even if human thought processes can't be captured in a deterministic framework, it still doesn't prove that determinism is false, nor does it prove that we have free will. The reason is simple, either these processes supervene on brain states or they are just brain states under a different descriptive framework (like propositional attitudes). Since brain states are physical states and are covered by physical laws, so are the states that supervene on them (albeit indirectly) or states that are identical with them.
That's about as far as your sort of argument gets. I've heard it many times before. Again, this just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
|
You may as well show your ignorance of the argument. The philospher babbles on with no concept of real science about whether something is determinate or indeterminate, and ignores concepts he doesn't understand, or which are inconvenient to his framework.
The scientist, OTOH, really doesn't care if heterotic superstring theory IS reality, or if "brain states" are determinate, indeterminate, or banana. What the scientist cares about is if heterotic superstring theory allows him to make testable predictions more easily or more accurately than existing theories, or if some theory of "brain states" gives a higher degree of being able to predict behavior or to testably identify root causes for specific behaviors. It doesn't matter if it's determinate or indeterminate. It doesn't matter if "free will" really exists. It only matters if one model or another is superior in making predictions of the behavior of whatever it is you're modeling.
quote:
No, you have shown in this thread that you don't understand philosophy at all.
|
In 2500 years, what exactly of any real use has philosophy produced? Some entertaining reading material if you like to watch pseudointellectuals obfuscate something with twenty big words that can be explained in five small words? I guess it provides jobs in academia for "intellectuals" who can't or don't want to cut it in productive fields.
quote:
As if that is supposed to be profound. Everyone knows this. It still doesn't count as a proof of Free Will. And it suffers from the defect of being based on first person authority and we know that this is unreliable.
|
You're the one hung up on proving the reality or non-reality of free will. The only useful question is whether there's a better predictive model. So far, there isn't.
quote:
Either it's determined or it isn't.
|
Who cares? The operative question is whether it can be testably better described by one theory or another. Problems as simple as the distribution of billiard balls on a pool table after the break have been proven to be mathematically intractible, even if all variables are known to an arbitrary degree of precision. With that problem, you're dealing with the individually predictable interaction in very limited ways of less than a hundred elements. Brain function involves individually unpredictable and inconsistent interaction of billions of elements. Determinisim or indeterminism is utterly irrelevant to modeling the behavior of the brain, and by extension, human behavior. Free will is the simplest model, until the philosophobabblers who can't stand the concept load it up with meaningless baggage.
quote:
Imagine the outrage if we said the same about scientific jargon.
|
"Hamiltonian matrix" or "isospin" are precisely describable. "Fair" and "just" are not.
quote:
So you are a sophist. If you just want to get people to do what you want irrespective of morality or the truth then fine.
|
Ah, in your worldview, "morality" and "truth" regarding a particular situation have exact meanings that can be conveyed to others in a precise way?
quote:
And you've overstated it - people are usually quite reasonable most of the time - especially if you treat their opinions with respect and argue fairly with them.
|
So that's why the general repudiation of Marxist-Leninist doctrine always has to be described in terms of counterrevolutionary activity and external subversion by reactionaries? Because most people are "reasonable" and thus adopt your (or my, or whoever, e.g. the speaker's) worldview?
quote:
I'm surprised to see you opting for this. Old Jesus was pretty hung up on the truth (bearing false witness and all that) - I think you better pray for forgiveness.
|
Since when is describing as a common phenomenon "opting" for it? I'm not praising it, I'm simply pointing out it exists, and is an extremely common issue in human behavior.
quote:
The most likely scenario is that he told lies to get what he wanted.
|
Which you say, without any direct knowledge, on the basis of your ideology and your view of the man. A Bush fanboy would come up with a different explanation and believe it to be "the most likely scenario."
quote:
I prefer Ockham's razor. The simplest explanation is that they lied.
|
Not a simple explanation at all, but one that fits your ideology. Clinton went through a world of **** for lying about a blowjob. Nixon and Agnew left office in lieu of being removed for less than lying to "justify" invasion of a foreign country.
quote:
Missed the point entirely.
|
Mockery and missed aren't synonymous.
quote:
If you'd understood the example you would have understood that it's an example of the way that endorsing relativism leads to a collapse in meaning and rationality (as helpfully described above).
|
I understood the example as a strawman to equate something unequivocably "bad" (i.e. rape, i.e. forcible or coercive sexual assault) with something (different views of appropriate tax policy) that is not necessarily good or bad, but which is subject to a wide range of genuinely held (and only partly testable) beliefs as to what is most "fair" "just" "effective" or whatever is the desired outcome(s) of the policy.
quote:
I've read him - he's a sophist.
|
And his descriptions of human motivations and human behavior are quite valid.
quote:
This is exactly the sort of bad philosophy that Sokal detests. You even have a bad metaphor (filtering) to hide the fact that you don't really know what you mean.
|
Filtering isn't a metaphor, it's a very real process although you can feel free to give it whatever name you like - the brain simply does not have the capability of processing all sensory input it receives, nor does it have the capability of remembering all input it processes, even important input. Some of the filtering is instinctive and autonymous (most sensory input), some of it is prejudicial (studies with faked crimes and testing witness memory have shown this again and again), some of it is simple overload - not many people read a 400 page book and recall every piece of information in it. The inefficiency of "cramming" as a study method is an example.
quote:
Yet people manage to have reasonable discussions every day. They manage to do this because there are shared rules, which are inescapable if one is to say anything at all. We spend the majority of our time following shared rules - imagine what life would be like if we didn't.
|
Of course - most of our day to day discussions don't involve complex concepts, they don't involve great risk or cost to us, and they don't involve great levels of emotional attachment.
When you get to someone trying to talk you into an investment, someone figuring out whether a guy or girl likes them, discussions of the value of philosophy , public policy, whether "the rich" (whoever they are) are a bunch of slackers who've done nothing to earn what they have, shafting "the poor" (whoever they are) and stealing the fruit of the efforts of "the poor", THEN you get problems.
I.e., as soon as the discussion has some definite impact, risk, or emotional content, disagreement and misunderstanding become much more common.
quote:
Well, if you'd bothered to look them up, you would see that they are three different attempts to give an account of free will. Of course, only one of them can be right.
|
Whoosh, there goes that point sailing over your head. Endless arguments and mental circle-jerks over ways to describe the "reality" of free will are meaningless, because the "reality" of free will is itself meaningless. What matters is if the model, theory, assumption, whatever you want to call it, of free will, (i.e. individually chosen behavior) is a better working model for how and why humans do things than some other model. If you come up with some better model for predicting behavior, then great for you, and the world will start using it. The underlying reality of it doesn't matter, only the predictive ability.
quote:
Nope. I don't think so. If you think that consistency just boils down to whatever an individual thinks is consistent then you end up with relativism (consistency is relative to each individual). Since logical consistency is the core of rationality, this amounts to saying that reason is relative.
Of course you could admit that consistency is not what each individual thinks it is in which case I win this point.
|
This again gets to the underlying reality vs. predictive model issue. You still have to deal with human behavior. If someone (say, Bush, Wolfowitz, et al) have a sincere belief that their behavior is consistent, and they act on that belief, what is more important: Whether or not they actually are consistent (according to your biases, objectively, whatever), or whether you can use their historic behavior, knowledge or their world view, and their concept of what is consistent to predict their future behavior?
I don't care about "reality," or whether it's objective, subjective, or banana. I care about being able to predict outcomes with a reasonable and quantifiable degree of accuracy and make choices based on those predicted outcomes.
quote:
Anyway, that's enough from me. I've wasted a large amount of time giving accounts of things any good first year student learns. I've got better things to do.
Never mind - you can go back to giving Kidicious a hard time (although he is to be commended for his persistence). |
I think it was David Halberstam who suggested a good strategy for Johnson in the Vietnam war was to basically go in, fight one big fight somewhere, say "we won," regardless of the result, hold a parade in downtown Saigon, and then get the hell out of Dodge, all the while proclaiming your great victory.
At least someone seems to believe in that strategy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't know about $15/hr right off the bat, but yes. It has to do with the elasticity of demand for labor. Higher wages can actually stimulate more employment. |
Now that we're done abusing you, here's my point to the question.
You picked one factor (which you liked), while exluding others - i.e. the cost advantage to offshore competition, or to moving operations offshore, increased costs of production reducing profits (and thus capital available for investment), decline in sales due to higher costs passed on to consumers, the inflationary effect of increased dollars chasing the same quantity of services, etc.
Decreasing the minimum wage wouldn't have a clear benefit either, because the same factors come into play from the opposite side - labor cost savings and improved marginal costs compared to foreign competitors would be offset by increased defaults on debt, declining consumer demand, etc.
There's no simple "this is good" or "this is bad" answer to economic policy choices. Believing that there are such simple good or bad answers is a shared fallacy of both the hard right and the hard left, only the details are different.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-06-2003 09:21
|
|