Us government's trick to violate civil liberties - Page 9 - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums



Go Back   Fandom Forums > Indepth Interests > Debates Section > Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy Theories Talk about your theories here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-21-2011, 01:26 PM   #121
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your beliefs.
You say potato I say potato
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)


Old 12-21-2011, 01:30 PM   #122
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
You say potato I say potato
And all of academia says you're wrong. Oh shit, that means everything ever is wrong, doesn't it? Oh well, guess I'd better get to worshiping the possible sun god on the off chance he exists and may decide not to come back tomorrow because I don't acknowledge him, even though all evidence suggests the sun itself has absolutely nothing to do with its own "rising" and "setting" it would be pretty foolish to risk dying on a cold dark planet because I reasonably assumed that there was no such thing as a sun god.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
ACt (12-21-2011), ask me anything (12-21-2011), kael03 (12-21-2011), Miburo (12-21-2011), Numinous (12-21-2011)
Old 12-21-2011, 01:34 PM   #123
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
And all of academia says you're wrong. Oh shit, that means everything ever is wrong, doesn't it? Oh well, guess I'd better get to worshiping the possible sun god on the off chance he exists and may decide not to come back tomorrow because I don't acknowledge him, even though all evidence suggests the sun itself has absolutely nothing to do with its own "rising" and "setting" it would be pretty foolish to risk dying on a cold dark planet because I reasonably assumed that there was no such thing as a sun god.

I defy you to find somewhere in academia where it says that a man can freely attack another person's beliefs.

Everything that makes up the mental part of a person can be relegated down to what they believe. Who someone is, and what they believe are one and the same.
If you attack someone's beliefs, you are attacking the person. There is nothing in philosophy, psychiatry, or theology that says differently. Since they are the only branches of academia that deal with what makes up the mental part of a man, you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-21-2011 at 01:38 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)
Old 12-21-2011, 01:58 PM   #124
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
I defy you to find somewhere in academia where it says that a man can freely attack another person's beliefs.
Argumentum ad Hominem. A logical fallacy that clearly differentiates between attacking a person, and attacking their claim. Debate is all about attacking the claim of the opposing person, and usually someone only claims something if they believe it.

Last edited by Mal; 12-21-2011 at 02:00 PM.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
ACt (12-21-2011), almightywood (12-21-2011), ask me anything (12-21-2011), kael03 (12-21-2011), Miburo (12-21-2011), Numinous (12-21-2011)
Old 12-21-2011, 02:04 PM   #125
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
Argumentum ad Hominem. A logical fallacy that clearly differentiates between attacking a person, and attacking their claim. Debate is all about attacking the claim of the opposing person, and usually someone only claims something if they believe it.

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html


Notice it states the attack was the fallacy.

Okay, so yes you would be guilty of argumentum ad hominem for attacking me personally instead of addressing my statements. (thanks for giving me an academic term to back up my stance)

Funnily enough, since what we are talking about is the philosophy I base my life around (my morals), to attack the philosophy at all would be an attack on my character.

character [kar-ik-ter]  
Origin
char·ac·ter   [kar-ik-ter] Show IPA
noun
1.the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.
2.
one such feature or trait; characteristic.
3.
moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character.
4.
qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully.
5.
reputation: a stain on one's character.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/character

trait [treyt; Brit. also trey]  
Origin
trait   [treyt; Brit. also trey] Show IPA
noun
1.
a distinguishing characteristic or quality, especially of one's personal nature: bad traits of character.
2.
a pen or pencil stroke.
3.
a stroke, touch, or strain, as of some quality: a trait of pathos; a trait of ready wit.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trait

Is there anything more distinguishing about a person than their beliefs?


Talk about a huge backfire in proof.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-21-2011 at 02:30 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)
Old 12-21-2011, 02:19 PM   #126
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html


Notice it states the attack was the fallacy.

Okay, so yes you would be guilty of argumentum ad hominem for attacking me personally instead of addressing my statements. (thanks for giving me an academic term to back up my stance)


What was this intended to prove?
Do you instantly forget everything you type as soon as you hit the "Submit Reply" button? You were arguing that attacking a belief and attacking a person were one and the same, that is clearly not the case. Since your beliefs are not "you," when exactly did I attack you?
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
ACt (12-21-2011), ask me anything (12-21-2011), kael03 (12-21-2011), Miburo (12-21-2011), Numinous (12-21-2011)
Old 12-21-2011, 02:28 PM   #127
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
Do you instantly forget everything you type as soon as you hit the "Submit Reply" button? You were arguing that attacking a belief and attacking a person were one and the same, that is clearly not the case. Since your beliefs are not "you," when exactly did I attack you?
My beliefs are my character, my character is me - see above.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)
Old 12-21-2011, 02:47 PM   #128
ACt
Heart Wizard
 
ACt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Halls of Irreverence
Posts: 3,236
Thanks: 5,289
Thanked 18,597 Times in 4,839 Posts
ACt is just really niceACt is just really niceACt is just really niceACt is just really niceACt is just really niceACt is just really niceACt is just really nice
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

I am utterly rapt in fascination at the sheer audacity of this discussion. almightywood has literally defined every disagreement with his personal belief as an affront onto himself. This is must be the catholic defense in the debate world. To illustrate how I am interpreting this, let's go back to the easter bunny.

Person A believes the Easter Bunny exists. Person B does not and states that there is no evidence for the Easter Bunny and asks Person A to provide some. Person A says I cannot rule any idea out because it may be true.

End conclusion: Person B just made a personal attack on Person A and should feel ashamed with himself.

Did I get that one correct? I can just imagine how debates must go using this protocol:

Person A: I believe the current economic situation is sustainable and no change is necessary.
Person B: I disagree, and here's why (lays out counter argument.)
Person A: TAKE THAT BACK, YOU SULLY MY GOOD NAME WITH YOUR ATTACKS ON MY BELIEFS!
__________________
I've become
A simple souvenir of someone's kill
And like the sea
I'm constantly changing from calm to ill
Madness fills my heart and soul as if the great divide could swallow me whole
oh, how I'm breaking down
ACt is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ACt For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-21-2011), kael03 (12-21-2011), Mal (12-21-2011), Miburo (12-21-2011), Numinous (12-21-2011)
Old 12-21-2011, 02:47 PM   #129
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
My beliefs are my character, my character is me - see above.
You're committing another logical fallacy, Equivocation. Just because the same word is used, doesn't mean the same meaning is used.

When you refer to beliefs being a person's character, you are using definition 1: "the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing." However, the character referred to in the definition for ad Hominem can be either of definitions 4: "qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity." Or 5: reputation.

Ad Hominem is used in an attempt to disprove someone's claims by claiming the person is not be be taken seriously. Even assuming attacking someone's beliefs can be taken as an attack on their character, it is not Argumentum ad Hominem.

What was it you were saying about a backfire in proof?

Last edited by Mal; 12-21-2011 at 02:48 PM.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
ACt (12-21-2011), ask me anything (12-21-2011), kael03 (12-21-2011), Miburo (12-21-2011), Numinous (12-21-2011)
Old 12-21-2011, 02:56 PM   #130
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
You're committing another logical fallacy, Equivocation. Just because the same word is used, doesn't mean the same meaning is used.

When you refer to beliefs being a person's character, you are using definition 1: "the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing." However, the character referred to in the definition for ad Hominem can be either of definitions 4: "qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity." Or 5: reputation.

Ad Hominem is used in an attempt to disprove someone's claims by claiming the person is not be be taken seriously. Even assuming attacking someone's beliefs can be taken as an attack on their character, it is not Argumentum ad Hominem.

What was it you were saying about a backfire in proof?
I disagree that #1 doesn't also apply since saying something along the lines of 'that jew bastard' would fall under this as well and only fits under definition #1.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)
Old 12-21-2011, 03:03 PM   #131
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
I disagree that #1 doesn't also apply since saying something along the lines of 'that jew bastard' would fall under this as well and only fits under definition #1.
How is calling someone "that Jew bastard" a good example for what you're arguing? "Jew" in this case is used as a derogatory term independent of and irrelevant to the person's beliefs; it is not an attack on the persons' Jewish beliefs themselves, but implies that having those beliefs makes them a bad person. That is an excellent example of how many people try to disguise their ad Hominems.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-21-2011), kael03 (12-21-2011), Miburo (12-21-2011), Numinous (12-21-2011)
Old 12-21-2011, 03:09 PM   #132
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
How is calling someone "that Jew bastard" a good example for what you're arguing? "Jew" in this case is used as a derogatory term independent of and irrelevant to the person's beliefs; it is not an attack on the persons' Jewish beliefs themselves, but implies that having those beliefs makes them a bad person. That is an excellent example of how many people try to disguise their ad Hominems.
Yes, it is saying someone is bad because of their beliefs.
It is saying exactly that their beliefs are bad, after all, if they weren't bad beliefs, then having them couldn't make them bad.

It is casting aspersion on their character by attacking their beliefs.

In other words it is abusive and circumstantial (let's just say it in english).

Either way I notice how you didn't try and disqualify that #1 applies in this scenario, so even if we disagree on the one point, you have yielded the other, because it either applies or it doesn't.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-21-2011 at 03:11 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)
Old 12-21-2011, 03:31 PM   #133
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

AW, can you link me to some sort of website that deals with explaining how all counter-arguments are ad hominens? A book that illustrates this, perhaps? Anything at all?

Surely you understand the concept of burden of proof. I'm going to have to see actual evidence of this whole counter-arguments are ad hominens thing before entertaining such a notion. After all, if this was really the case then every debate would be decided by whoever spoke first. Yet I've never seen that happen, ever.

Seriously, time to put an end to this made-up rule game. Provide legitimate proof that your claims are true. I don't want to read any of your insane reasoning, I want to see actual proof. Shouldn't be too hard to provide if you're correct, unless you actually believe you're the first person to come up with this shit despite the fact that brilliant men and women have been pursuing knowledge and reason for thousands of years. Such a simple thing rational concept such as this should be very well documented. Just do a quick google search, buddy.

Edit:
Take note that I'm not attacking this stance of yours, because then you'll just say I'm a disrespectful meany and therefore auto-wrong. So no crying about how I didn't address your stance or whatever. I'm merely being reasonable and asking for proof that the stuff you're saying is true.


@Not AW-Hahahaha. Oh, dear Thor. I thought the days of actually being surprised by how stupid people can be were long gone for me. Then bam! This shit. Crazy.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
ACt (12-21-2011), ask me anything (12-21-2011), kael03 (12-21-2011), Mal (12-21-2011), Numinous (12-21-2011)
Old 12-21-2011, 03:37 PM   #134
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
Yes, it is saying someone is bad because of their beliefs.
It is saying exactly that their beliefs are bad, after all, if they weren't bad beliefs, then having them couldn't make them bad.

It is casting aspersion on their character by attacking their beliefs.

In other words it is abusive and circumstantial (let's just say it in english).

Either way I notice how you didn't try and disqualify that #1 applies in this scenario, so even if we disagree on the one point, you have yielded the other, because it either applies or it doesn't.
{I will replace "bad" with "evil" for my response, so that it won't be confused it with "poor" or "incorrect"}

So now a belief left uncountered magically becomes true? There is a difference between implying someone's evil beliefs make them an evil person and simply saying someone's beliefs are evil. Regardless, your example is poor because "evil" and "wrong" cannot be used interchangeably, and the evil belief you use in it arguably does make someone a, evil person.

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy because it ignores the implications of a belief and tries to disprove them by making the person who holds them seem untrustworthy. It is completely independent of definition 1 because it is not attacking those beliefs, it is attacking the person. Do not confuse "attacking beliefs" with "using beliefs to attack a person."

But let's go back to my magic fairy dust example, so we can use "wrong" instead of "evil."
A good counter is to say "There is no evidence that fairies or fair dust exist, but there is evidence to suggest that proper manipulation of air pressure can produce lift sufficient to counter-act gravity. Therefore believing that fairy dust causes flight is illogical."
An ad Hominem counter would be to say "Mal is a con-artist who frequently convinces kind old ladies that he is a long lost relative in desperate need of financial assistance, how can we be sure this isn't just another one of his schemes?"
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
ACt (12-21-2011), ask me anything (12-21-2011), Miburo (12-21-2011), Numinous (12-21-2011)
Old 12-21-2011, 03:40 PM   #135
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
AW, can you link me to some sort of website that deals with explaining how all counter-arguments are ad hominens? A book that illustrates this, perhaps? Anything at all?

Surely you understand the concept of burden of proof. I'm going to have to see actual evidence of this whole counter-arguments are ad hominens thing before entertaining such a notion. After all, if this was really the case then every debate would be decided by whoever spoke first. Yet I've never seen that happen, ever.

Seriously, time to put an end to this made-up rule game. Provide legitimate proof that your claims are true. I don't want to read any of your insane reasoning, I want to see actual proof. Shouldn't be too hard to provide if you're correct, unless you actually believe you're the first person to come up with this shit despite the fact that brilliant men and women have been pursuing knowledge and reason for thousands of years. Such a simple thing rational concept such as this should be very well documented. Just do a quick google search, buddy.


@Not AW-Hahahaha. Oh, dear Thor. I thought the days of actually being surprised by how stupid people can be were long gone for me. Then bam! This shit. Crazy.
Oh whatever, someone provided me decent grounds to vindicate myself, so you decide to jump in and take it off on another tangent, and if I don't instantly produce facts to support this random trick you have come up with to try and disprove my belief, then it is invalidated. If I do manage to come up with something, then you are just going to come up with some other random bullshit I have to prove.

I have already made my point, I decline further play in your game.
I told YOU what I believed simply because YOU asked me to.
You have been nothing but disrespectful towards my beliefs since.
You asked for this, don't go acting like talking about this was my idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
{I will replace "bad" with "evil" for my response, so that it won't be confused it with "poor" or "incorrect"}

So now a belief left uncountered magically becomes true? There is a difference between implying someone's evil beliefs make them an evil person and simply saying someone's beliefs are evil. Regardless, your example is poor because "evil" and "wrong" cannot be used interchangeably, and the evil belief you use in it arguably does make someone a, evil person.

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy because it ignores the implications of a belief and tries to disprove them by making the person who holds them seem untrustworthy. It is completely independent of definition 1 because it is not attacking those beliefs, it is attacking the person. Do not confuse "attacking beliefs" with "using beliefs to attack a person."

But let's go back to my magic fairy dust example, so we can use "wrong" instead of "evil."
A good counter is to say "There is no evidence that fairies or fair dust exist, but there is evidence to suggest that proper manipulation of air pressure can produce lift sufficient to counter-act gravity. Therefore believing that fairy dust causes flight is illogical."
An ad Hominem counter would be to say "Mal is a con-artist who frequently convinces kind old ladies that he is a long lost relative in desperate need of financial assistance, how can we be sure this isn't just another one of his schemes?"
You have provided me with no valid reason to think definition #1 doesn't apply, in either his circumstance or mine. If calling someone a jew bastard doesn't fall under definition # 1, then which definition does it fall under?

Because the way I see it, it's the only one it CAN fit under.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-21-2011 at 03:56 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting 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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.