idea that "everything is valid" is nonsense

Postby Luna_Northcat on Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:55 am

sun tzu wrote:<snip>.... If the current situation, with the quasi-totality of researchers in the field supporting evolution (despite well-funded foundations attempting to find evidence to the contrary - and failing) doesn't convince you the theory is correct, then what would?


Nothing. And nothing will convince him. I mistakenly thought, at one point, that he was genuinely interested in the evidence, and started to have a discussion with him about it. He refused to read any of it, and made plain that his worldview and security about God depend quite firmly on belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and accused me of trying to kill him. My advice? As with Ralph, don't bother banging your head off this wall.
<i>Forte est vinu. Fortier est rex. Fortiores sunt mulieres: sup om vincit veritas.</i>
User avatar
Luna_Northcat
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:23 am
Location: up in the soggy North

Postby Luna_Northcat on Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:12 am

Speaking personally, even though I believe in God, I don't have a problem with people who don't. It's a choice that a lot of people make based on reason and rationality, and even though I made my choice my way, I don't demand everyone choose the same thing. (The thing about "choice in teaching" in schools does not fall under this umbrella. The whole thing about "allowing kids a choice" generally means "wanting to teach an ideology rather than sticking to basics". In order to make a choice, people should have access to accurate facts to the extent that they exist, imho. Basics come first. Choice comes after. And having accurate facts does not necessarily lead people away from God, either.)

As for the situation which sparked this thread, RH's "Hard Onions" -- I have to admit, I'm a bit disappointed as well with the placement. I love ToTQ and read it for itself, and it seems to be disappearing a bit under the weight of the distractions, the commissions and now this. I could see, as some people have suggested, putting the Hard Onion strips under the comic rather than above it, so that people don't get hit with it first thing, or on a separate page. But I know perfectly well that Ralph doesn't care diddly about my opinion, so I don't expect my opinion to have any influence.

And, that said, it IS Ralph's site. His playground, his rules. I'm pretty certain he will lose a few readers by what he's doing, but as others have pointed out, it's his choice what is most important to him.
<i>Forte est vinu. Fortier est rex. Fortiores sunt mulieres: sup om vincit veritas.</i>
User avatar
Luna_Northcat
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:23 am
Location: up in the soggy North

Postby Detrius on Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:05 am

Luna_Northcat wrote:a lot


*takes his hat off for Luna and wanders away from the forum, contemplating the Hubble Ultra Deep Field for a while, counting galaxies*
Secularism: keeping politics out of religion.
User avatar
Detrius
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:19 am
Location: land of the beer gardens

Postby Tom Mazanec on Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:20 am

For the evolutionist side:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Forum Mongoose
User avatar
Tom Mazanec
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby WhiteFox on Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:47 am

The concept of evolution and the idea that we were created by god are not exclusive. I think many people have the misconception that God just snapped his fingers, threw a bolt of lightning and bang, there was man in all his modern glory. I think of evolution as the tools God used to create man. Sure it took several million years. All good works take time, and He's got all the time in existance. I think He's still working on us now, as we speak.

As for the "site clutter," Northcat, I agree that this is RH's rules and playground. I'm just saying that if he want's people to play with him, he should keep it clean. RH isn't doing anything he "shouldn't" be doing, I'm just saying that he could make the experience MUCH better for the viewer.

When other artists makes mention of non-comic artwork I usually check it out anyway. MacHall and Schlock Mercenary has a good layout for this, with the original comic presented up front and comments (including links to additional material) below the comic. Supermegatopia has a better site layout for people who have more artwork than comics, or multiple comics.
http://www.supermegatopia.com/
http://www.machall.com/
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/

I'm getting into design principals here, and basicly put the viewer shouldn't have to do any work to get what they came to the site for and wait a minimum ammount of time for it to load. If I'm looking for a comic to read, and I see advertisements and commision art, I'm not going to do much investing. Once I like the comic, though, I go look at the galleries, consider comissioning art, look at books to buy, etc.
Last edited by WhiteFox on Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WhiteFox
Newbie
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:13 pm

Postby Wanderwolf on Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:52 am

Well, for what it's worth:

StrangeWulf, evolution is the best fit to the facts as we now have them.

Fact: Fossils show that before there were dogs, there were wolves. Before there were wolves, there were dire wolves. Before there were dire wolves, there were bearlike canine creatures.

Fact: Today there are no dire wolves or bearlike canines. Today there are only dogs and wolves.

Fact: The skeletal evidence of the dire wolves and bearlike canines shows a progression, over time, of characteristics common to the skeletal conformation. According to the physical evidence, it is therefore likely that the bearlike canines begat the dire wolves, and the dire wolves begat the wolves.

Finally, consider this:

Fact: Nowhere in the Bible does it state any position which would deny evolution's theory. Genesis even follows the same pattern of development of species as evolution proposes. (Yes, I know about the "birds" problem. It should be "winged things", according to the original Hebrew.)

In short: God has no problem with evolution, so I fail to see why you do.

Yours truly,

The Christian,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby WhiteFox on Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:25 pm

I think the issue about evolution is that if things change over gennerations because of the survival of the fittest, than basicly God made mistakes because the things he originaly made were not as fit as successive gennerations. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been replaced.

It can be argued, however, that God made things so that they would change, and that change is part of his plan.
WhiteFox
Newbie
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:13 pm

Postby WhiteFox on Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:48 pm

Reread things, and thought of something else...

RH refers to the marketplace of Ideas, and that it's rubbish to think that mutually exclusive ideas can have equal value. That some ideas are of quality, and others are "made in taiwan junk."

I dont' think of ideologies (Creationism vs evolution, athiesim vs god, etc,) so simply. Sure, some are of lesser "quality" than othes. The KKK, the Nazi party, et all. Look up Scientology on Wikipedia, that's a joke. But most ideas are more a matter of personal choice. A belief system brings you to personal fulfillment, spiritual contentment, and answers the questions that science cannot. For example, where we go when we die.

I believe the next life is a reality that is shaped by our spiritual growth on this world. An apt metaphor is that if a baby in the womb has improperly developed eyes, he may be blind when the baby is born. Without spiritual growth in this lifetime, our next lifetime will be stunted or lessened somehow. (I don't know how, just as a baby doesn't have a clue what eyes are for when it's in the womb) Comepare this to the Christian belief that good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell. If I needed spiritual motivation to be a good person, or needed to feel that there was an absolute justice in the cosmos, I'd be a Christian. I don't need any motivation to be a good person, and I allready think there's an absolute justice. I want to know why we have a soul, though, so I follow the Baha'i teachings.

Likewise, a given faith usually has guidelines for how to live well in this world. Some people feel better following eastern schools of zen or buddism rather than a european/middle eastern philosophy of following a higher purpose. And that works just fine for them, I'm sure. Following the Athiest Wager, I think God is a pretty reasonable guy. He gave us free choice, we're exercising it.

RH says that some ideas are of better quality. I say some are red, some are blue, some are puke green. Although no one in their right mind would pick the puke green, I've got a choice between the red and blue. Even if they're differnt, they're both good choices.
WhiteFox
Newbie
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:13 pm

Postby Sun tzu on Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:56 pm

But, WhiteFox...In the end, there's only one truth.
User avatar
Sun tzu
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 3:20 pm

Postby The JAM on Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:01 pm

[hugs Luna]
Ah yes, the Evolution debate. [sigh] All I'll say is that this guy is giving a LOT of quotes from evolutionist scientists and is asking a LOT of questions. Can someone please answer them?
User avatar
The JAM
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Somewhere in Mexico...

Postby Kerry Skydancer on Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:08 pm

The JAM wrote:[hugs Luna]
Ah yes, the Evolution debate. [sigh] All I'll say is that this guy is giving a LOT of quotes from evolutionist scientists and is asking a LOT of questions. Can someone please answer them?


Yes, people can answer them. I can't play the sound recording, but judging from the blurbs on the site links, the 'quotes' are either out of context or completely fictional. Gimme the supposed quotes and I can probably point to the real ones. Forex:

One famous misquote is the beginning of one of Darwin's explanatory paragraphs, something along the lines of 'how could something as amazing as an eye develop?' but which Creationists cut off at that point - the rest of the quote is several paragraphs of explanation of exactly how it -is- possible for something like that to develop, using examples of intermediate stages still found in living organisms. At best, the practice is a display of ignorance - in some cases, where the whole quotes have been pointed out to the guilty party (Hovind, Archer, etc.) the practice is downright fraudulent, since they've been told the quotes are inaccurate, sometimes by the actual person quoted.
Skydancer

Ignorance is not a point of view.
User avatar
Kerry Skydancer
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Bethlehem PA

Postby StrangeWulf13 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:11 pm

Luna_Northcat wrote:
StrangeWulf13 wrote:I admit, my love of learning has diminished over the years. Blame government school if you want, or natural laziness. The result is the same. But perhaps I could take a look at the site Ralph found and read a little... should be interesting...

As for the "safety" of evolution... heh. Let's wait until all the old professors are dead, shall we love? Let the fresh young minds decide for themselves if the old fogeys are full of it or not...


Wulf, dear, you aren't after learning at all. I think that was made clear. What you are looking for is reassurance, because you need the world to be a certain way. You said so yourself.

AiG should pander nicely to what you want to hear. Just be aware that they get the bulk of what they write wrong, when compared to objective reality, and no-one in the sciences will respect you for quoting them. The credibility of their arguments depends absolutely on the ignorance of their audience about the detailed operation of the subject matter. But I'm sure you will like them, they will tell you what you need to hear.

You can wait for the old researchers and scientists to die if you like. I have a feeling you will be disappointed about the new ones, too.


Frankly, my dear... you can go F yourself.
I'm lost. I've gone to find myself. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait. Thanks.
User avatar
StrangeWulf13
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 9:03 pm
Location: Frozen plains of North Dakota...

Postby TMLutas on Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:05 pm

WhiteFox wrote:I can't take the modern bible as factually true. The incarnation of the bible as we commonly understand it has been translated through several languages, edited many times over, and even though it may have divine inspiration, was written by mortal hand. It contradicts itself in places.


Two things:
1. Almost every modern Bible uses various texts to get their translations. All are from the oldest copies we have in the original languages. The few who do not do so are generally treated as a joke within the Bible translation fraternity.

2. The Bible's been around for several thousand years. Don't imagine that you're the first to notice things like the contradictory genealogies. People have devoted significant chunks of their lives for centuries sorting this stuff out. The people who created the Bible fully acknowledged that it was not written directly by the hand of God. The miracle of the Bible was in using people to inerrently determine what should be in the canon.
TMLutas
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:19 pm

Postby TMLutas on Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:55 pm

Luna_Northcat wrote:That's also not what actually happened.

The research paper I was referring to was by Axe (2000), although it is actually fairly weak support. The lit review I referred to was Lönnig and Saedler (2002). The paper you're referring to -- which supposedly got the editor fired -- was Meyer (2004), and I'm not even counting that.

As to why I'm not counting that -- it goes with exactly what happened. The editor who published it, in the perfectly respectable journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was Richard Sternberg, managing editor at the time. Sternberg made a big thing out of claiming he was "fired" over it. Do a bit of checking up; Sternberg had resigned some months ago, but was standing in as managing editor until a new editor had been brought in, and the issue in which Meyer's paper appeared was, by previous arrangement, the last issue that Sternberg would edit.

The paper was indeed retracted by the journal and an apology issued by the new editor, for two reasons:
1. It was not a subject area covered by the journal.
2. It really wasn't very good.

1. by itself is enough for retraction and apology. Seriously, managing editors are not supposed to sneak articles in on irrelevant topics to a professional journal. But the thing about 2. -- Sternberg claimed that he had sent the paper to three "qualified biologists" for peer review, before it was published, but he won't tell anybody who they are. Sorry, but that's just crap. And having had a look at the paper, I can see why it wasn't held in very high regard quality-wise, either.

Later Sternberg claimed that he was "hounded out of his position at the Smithsonian" because of his support for ID and for this paper. Originally, he did bring a case against them. The case was dropped for lack of merit; first, he was never a paid employee of the Smithsonian, they merely gave him office space as a visiting "research associate". They couldn't fire him because they didn't pay him. That was the real reason why the Office of Special Counsel did not have jurisdiction. --The other reason the case was dropped, though, was that Sternberg couldn't actually prove that anything he said had happened (by way of persecution) had happened.


I read the "we can't help you" note from OSC to Sternberg. It was not dropped for lack of merit but lack of jurisdiction for the very reasons that you cite. I think you can find a fair minded review here.

The actual letter is available here both in html and pdf form and it is just factually false that there is no proof. The proof is included in the letter.

Let me be clear, irrespective of whether ID is correct, the peer review process was actually followed, etc. it is simply out of bounds to spread bald faced lies about an scientists academic credentials in an effort to make him unemployable.

Science, if it is to remain science and not degenerate into some sort of pseudo-science club cannot tolerate this sort of behavior.

Read the letter and tell me that there was nothing new for you there. How much were you *personally* fooled by an organized attempt to smear the man?
TMLutas
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:19 pm

Postby The JAM on Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:26 pm

Um, StrangeWolf, arguments and debates aside...I just welcomed Luna back to these very active forums. It's clear that we're not going to agree or perhaps convince one another of several topics at hand, so can we all take a few moments and calm down just a bit?
User avatar
The JAM
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Somewhere in Mexico...

Postby Tom Mazanec on Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:45 am

JAM:
Thank you for this request for calm. People usually believe what they believe for good reasons, and hold those beliefs dearly. Arguing about them is interesting debate, but StrangeWolf went over the line.
Forum Mongoose
User avatar
Tom Mazanec
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Aurrin on Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:50 am

StrangeWulf13 wrote:Frankly, my dear... you can go F yourself.


While I agree that she was being a touch condescending, that was rather uncalled for. It certainly doesn't showcase Christian character, either.
Conquering the Universe, one class at a time...
User avatar
Aurrin
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 855
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 3:05 am

Postby Luna_Northcat on Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:21 am

TMLutas wrote:I read the "we can't help you" note from OSC to Sternberg. It was not dropped for lack of merit but lack of jurisdiction for the very reasons that you cite. I think you can find a fair minded review here.

The actual letter is available here both in html and pdf form and it is just factually false that there is no proof. The proof is included in the letter.

Let me be clear, irrespective of whether ID is correct, the peer review process was actually followed, etc. it is simply out of bounds to spread bald faced lies about an scientists academic credentials in an effort to make him unemployable.

Science, if it is to remain science and not degenerate into some sort of pseudo-science club cannot tolerate this sort of behavior.

Read the letter and tell me that there was nothing new for you there. How much were you *personally* fooled by an organized attempt to smear the man?


*sigh* The WSJ Opinion piece isn't "fair minded" from a science OR investigative point of view. It actually repeats a lot of ID talking points about how it isn't religion -specific, and it repeats the abominable old canard about Darwinism being religious. Sorry, but Darwin's theory of evolution is no more religious than Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, and secularism is an explicit rejection of religion as guiding principle, not actually a religion itself. That's squarely out of a viewpoint where the only possible way to see things is as one religion or another, but seriously, not everybody thinks that way. They also repeat many of Sternberg's allegations uncritically -- despite the fact that, believe it or not, many of them were never substantiated. (See, for more discussion of this, the comments at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/200 ... vs_sm.html.)

The OSC letter is a poor guide on two counts: first, it is a preliminary finding which has as its main evidence emails, but it is quite obviously biased in Sternberg's favor from the get-go (read it!). Really, I think that investigation of abuse against an academic should be by a non-partisan and unbiased investigator. The second reason why the OSC is not a good guide is that they are neither unbiased or non-partisan in general; the investigation was undertaken at the direction of James McVey, who is pro-creationist and has come under a lot of fire from scientists. And heck, if you look at the emails quoted, a lot of them say things along the lines of "He has office space, because we have office space to give him, even though other departments have a lack of office space; his key acccess ought to be in line with policy; if you put any restrictions on him, they have to be the same restrictions as on other RAs, you can't single him out." Yes, in many the tone was hostile, but none of them actually advocated anything actionable, and several made the point of not singling him out.

But seriously....there is a lot more to the story. Read here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/200 ... imens.html

You say, "... it is simply out of bounds to spread bald faced lies about an scientists academic credentials in an effort to make him unemployable." You are absolutely correct about this. I support this statement entirely and wholeheartedly. The problem in this particular situtation is that I didn't actually see anyone spreading bald-faced lies about Sternberg. Sternberg, on the other hand, may have come up with a few whoppers about Coddington. Of interest, from Coddington's own pen (document accessible from the link above):
1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
...

3. I am, and continue to be, his only "supervisor," although we use the term "sponsor" for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever "assigned to" or under the "oversight of" anyone else.

4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.

5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.


For interest, though, I think you should note the final comment on the part of the writer at Panda's Thumb:
"For my part, if Klinghoffer's account were correct (which is as yet disputed), it would be a large breach of ethics and a justified complaint."

Academic freedom from persecution is actually a big issue for everyone, and people do recognise that.

However --my apologies, I should have made quite clear, you are entirely correct on one point. The OSC dropped the case for lack of jurisdiction and for no other reason. They would have pursued it if they could have. However I believe (and this found its way into my response in an incomplete form) that Sternberg himself wanted to pursue the matter further, but couldn't find anyone who would support him in tribunal due to the difficulty of supporting his case.

And all of that aside, though, one of the biologists who was actually involved in that mess made a pertinent comment about it in his blog:

http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives ... 02980.html
...
Critically, even the PBSW's instructions for contributors explicitly states: ‘Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees.’ The first paragraph clearly indicates that Meyer’s was not a properly peer-reviewed paper. Klinghoffer is guilty of artful fabrication, in line with what we usually expect from defenders of ID.

As biologists, as well as ordinary citizens of a democracy who are presumably ready to defend freedom of speech, what should our position be? The first point to emphasize is that, by short-circuiting the normal review process as Editor of a journal, Sternberg is guilty of professional misconduct. Second, this professional misconduct is of a type that calls into question the integrity of the scientific process on which we rely every day when we trust each other’s work published in peer-reviewed journals. Third, it is therefore entirely reasonable to have doubts about the scientific integrity of Sternberg’s own work. Consequently, not only is it reasonable to “ostracize” him in the rather weak sense of refusing to collaborate with him (one of Klinghoffer’s complaints). In fact, if we care about the veracity of our own results, it would be unwise to collaborate with or rely on Sternberg. It is thus entirely to be expected if Sternberg finds himself isolated at the Smithsonian (as Klinghoffer alleges).

And none of this has anything to do with what motivated Sternberg, whether it be his religious or his political beliefs. This episode is more important than mere ID. It is emphatically not about free speech, tolerance of diversity, let alone innovation of science, no matter how shrill the claims of ID proponents and their apologists become. It is about the integrity of the scientific process.


Yeah, his co-workers didn't like him any more after he pulled this stunt. That just never happens in an academic environment. :roll:

As for the academic merit of the paper itself...one of the reasons it provoked such a firestorm of criticism, was that it repeated a whole bunch of ideas which had already been dealt with and refuted. The whole "appearance of too many taxa in the Cambrian" is one of them. Seriously, it's been done to death.

This is a frustration to a lot of scientists; see, the whole idea behind the progression of science is that you propose something, you test it to the extent possible, you examine evidence, people comment on your tests and your results, your results are examined and either accepted or discarded, and then you move on, and tackle the next question. With ID, as with creationism, no matter how often the results are examined and discarded, people keep coming back with the same proposals over and over and over and over again; no matter how flawed an idea is shown to be, by evidence and logic, it keeps getting proposed. If engineering progressed at such a rate, we would only now have invented the horse-drawn plough. There were no ideas to answer in Meyer's lit review which had not already been dealt with, several hundred times over. ID was discussed and debated, when it was first proposed; that was back in about 1988, for pete's sake! A lot of biologists do get very fed up with it now because although it was debated and discarded by practicing scientists as being without merit, a fringe handful with considerable non-science support has kept it going, an unkillable zombie process hogging CPU time. That in itself accounts for the attitude "we stand by the NCSE position."

I was actually aware of this issue and following it closely from the very start. However, just to let you know -- at the beginning, I was absolutely shocked and horrified at the treatment of Sternberg, and firmly on his side. (Even though, from the beginning, I was disgusted that he had published such a paper.) What happened was that as more and more people stepped forward and pointed out the problems with his story, my outrage on his behalf started to crumble rapidly, and I was left with a certain feeling of having been used....by Sternberg.
Last edited by Luna_Northcat on Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
<i>Forte est vinu. Fortier est rex. Fortiores sunt mulieres: sup om vincit veritas.</i>
User avatar
Luna_Northcat
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:23 am
Location: up in the soggy North

Postby Luna_Northcat on Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:25 am

detrius wrote:
Luna_Northcat wrote:a lot



LOL!!! Who, me, wordy???? Naaaaaaaah, surely not me... XD :shucks:


Incidentally, that was a fantastic link. Thanks.
Last edited by Luna_Northcat on Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
<i>Forte est vinu. Fortier est rex. Fortiores sunt mulieres: sup om vincit veritas.</i>
User avatar
Luna_Northcat
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:23 am
Location: up in the soggy North

Postby The JAM on Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:58 am

You know, while searching for info on the crow fossils found in a layer underneath Archeopteryx's, I found these guys: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ac901dd3b0b.htm and was wondering if maybe we should watch those guys argue it out while we take a break here :D
User avatar
The JAM
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Somewhere in Mexico...

PreviousNext

 

Return to NPC



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron