see originally I thought this was some sort of a clever demonstration trick by them, where they were teaching children that nessie is real specifically for the purpose of stating something like "see you can make up anything and teach it as fact, just like your Darwinism, doesn't make it any more true"
ah but no, it isn't even that, it's just creationists hard at work being creationists
edit: asdf?
quote:"The [Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross ... In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians," the textbook reads, according to the Herald.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the `Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? `Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.
Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."
Indoctrinate much? Gotta get em while they are young!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When I was a teenager, in northern rural Minnesota, my uncle asked me (trying to convince me of the falsehood of evolution) "If evolution is real, why aren't we still evolving?"
I don't know if it's just wishful thinking on the part of my memory, but I remember saying: "Because you don't understand the concept of evolution."
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Hmmm
"Why do you think we aren't?"
"Maybe you just need to do some more evolving before you can notice it."
"Prove to me that you can understand Pythagoras Theorem of right angle triangles first and I will teach you biology."
They clearly become more pithy as I keep going, the ones I am holding back are down right dismissive and snarky.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'if we aren't still evolving, why do I not look exactly like you did at my age?'
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I am always amazed by how many people believe in magical things, even when they're sensible.
"If the Monster doesn't exist, why are there so many photographs of it?"
"If Chinese Medicine doesn't work, why do so many people use it? Why did it get invented?"
"I heard Chinese Medicine only works for Chinese people that's why it doesn't work in tests."
"Homeopathy works because my uncle uses it and he's not sick."
I've genuinely met someone who didn't realise that ghosts not existing was a possibility. He just accepted ghosts as real.
How do you handle that? Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Teshi, that is exactly why once a month I have dinner with a large group of strangers simply because they are all atheists. It is a small luxury to have conversations knowing that no one will be using the "just because" argument.
[ June 30, 2012, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I sort of thank creationists for creating less of a competition for my children in the work place.
It really comes down to, "We don't need evidence" vs. "We have evidence, and we are searching for more."
My new favorite quote, just for fun.
quote: “Nobody that has seen a baby born can believe in god for a second. When you see your child born, and the panic, and the amount of technology that is saving the life of the two people you love most in the world, when you see how much stainless steel and money it takes to fight off the fact that god wants both those people dead, no one, no one can look into the eyes of a newborn baby and say there's a god, because I'll tell ya, if we were squatting in the woods, the two people I love most would be dead. There's just no way around that. If I were in charge, no way. We need technology to fight against nature; nature so wants us dead. Nature is trying to kill us.” ― Penn Jillette
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok look, getting in a good dig at the opposition is a fine thing, but let's try to keep our arguments sorta halfway consistent, ok? See if you can spot the contradiction:
quote:Nobody [...] can believe in god for a second. [...] god wants both those people dead
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Penn Jilette is a comedian...that was not serious commentary.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think Jillete is conflating the "lord god" and the God of Einstein in a single statement: that is, you can't believe in a feeling, thinking, reacting being, when the nature of the universe, the processes of cause and effect, are all working against your survival.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If "nature" wanted us to die (how are we defining nature and how does it want exactly?) how are we alive in the first place? How did humans at all have babies before all the stainless steel and money (those are not part of nature?) was available. Even now, nature is not part of childbirth?
I think Mr. Jillete is confused about nature as well as about God.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Pretty sure stainless steel and money are definitely not a part of nature.
Also, see my above post.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
As I said, "want" and God are often shorthand terms for more secular ideas. The laws of the universe are often described as what nature "wants". Having heard quite a lot of what Jillete has said in the past, while I don't find him to be much of a philosopher, I do think he's quite clear, in general, with his conception of the universe. He's not so concerned with being consistent in the way he expresses those views- he's a comedian.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Pretty sure stainless steel and money are definitely not a part of nature.
Also, see my above post.
Really? Because in a sense, everything humans do and create is "part" of nature. I find the popular interest in this particular delineation to be odd at times.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:nature noun 1.the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities. 2.the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization. 3.the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
quote:natural adjective 1.existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge. 2.based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
We're animals. The things we build are a part of nature in that sense, unless incredibly complicated termite mounds, beaver dams, bee hives, so on and so forth aren't. It's certainly not the common definition of 'nature', but it does fit with one of them-even in your linked definition-without stretching.
Anyway, it doesn't change our resonsibilies in either direction, but for quite some time there's been a common idea among us humans that we're separate from nature. Plants, animals, minerals, and people. But just because we're the best at complicated creations, changing our environment, and intelligence/problem solving doesn't separate us from nature. And in any event, it's not as though somewhere there is a referee watching a finish line and when something crosses it, he marks your time and exclaims, "No longer natural!"
Remembering that we are part of nature is actually a more helpful outlook anyway.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So babies born without "unnatural" assistance are...what? Contrary to nature itself? Childbirth that ends tragically despite "unnatural" assistance is what technology "wants"?
This is silly in a variety of ways.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wow.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure who you're replying to.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots calling a comedy routine silly...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't think Penn Jilette is really a paragon of a well-constructed argument. He's a lot of a sound and fury but not exactly the most thoughtful of people. I doubt he's really all-out joking in this section though. He's frequently serious enough to show that he's a skeptic.
Let us assume that he is arguing that the only reason humans are doing as well as they are is because of artificial technologies such as medicine, sterilised medical stainless steel instruments and a team of people there to deal with any problems that occur (who are required to be there through their jobs).
Living without human-invented/discovered technology and science is a very different story.
I can't decide if this rant overlooks or is supposed to reference the fact that in the Christian tradition, at least, painful (which I think we should read as difficult and dangerous rather than just 'ouch') childbirth is a punishment. Clearly, people have been asking this question for a long time: "If god really cares about people, why is childbirth so freaking dangerous and painful for humans whereas it isn't so much for other animals?"
Answer? It's deliberate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:nature noun 1.the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities. 2.the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization. 3.the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
quote:natural adjective 1.existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge. 2.based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
Yeah, see, an etymological response is not what I was looking for. But nice try.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
I can't decide if this rant overlooks or is supposed to reference the fact that in the Christian tradition, at least, painful (which I think we should read as difficult and dangerous rather than just 'ouch') childbirth is a punishment. Clearly, people have been asking this question for a long time: "If god really cares about people, why is childbirth so freaking dangerous and painful for humans whereas it isn't so much for other animals?"
Answer? It's deliberate.
Well, the Christian tradition gets it more or less right anyway, if only by chance. The painful birthing experience is an evolutionary price payed for the rapid development of the human cranium. Humans are now born much earlier, and with much larger brains, than even a few hundred thousand years ago. All part of aiding humans in early language development. But evolution hasn't had the time to sort out the details. But it's all a circular thing anyway- we're smarter, so we find ways of keeping our young and mothers alive, and we get smarter, and it gts harder, and we find new ways.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ever seen a quadruped give birth?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No. The point is not bipedalism, it's the size of the head at birth in comparison to the size of the birth canal. Humans have an exceptionally large head for their bodies, and so are born less developed than quadrupeds. The pre-industrial infant and mother mortality rate was, if I recall correctly, significantly higher than for most animals.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No. The point is not bipedalism, it's the size of the head at birth in comparison to the size of the birth canal. Humans have an exceptionally large head for their bodies, and so are born less developed than quadrupeds. The pre-industrial infant and mother mortality rate was, if I recall correctly, significantly higher than for most animals.
Which is why I predict caesarean sections are going to lead to even bigger heads.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I sort of thank creationists for creating less of a competition for my children in the work place.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If "nature" wanted us to die (how are we defining nature and how does it want exactly?) how are we alive in the first place? How did humans at all have babies before all the stainless steel and money (those are not part of nature?) was available. Even now, nature is not part of childbirth?
I think Mr. Jillete is confused about nature as well as about God.
We had babies, but nature killed a lot more than medicine stops from happening now.
Obviously he doesn't think that nature consciously wants us to die. I also understand that some faiths believe their god wants us to learn and fend for ourselves. But it is medicine, not a god, that started the population boom over the last couple hundred of years.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No. The point is not bipedalism...
quote:…adaptation to bipedal locomotion decreased the size of the bony birth-canal at the same time that the exigencies of tool use selected for larger brains. This obstetrical dilemma was solved by delivery of the fetus at a much earlier stage of development.
Source Bolding mine.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The pelvis narrowed as a result of evolving into bipedalism, not as a cause. Had we remained upright (ish) primates looking out over tall grass, the narrow pelvis wouldn't be nearly as burdensome. It's the size of the head at the top of the biped, not the two feet below, that is problematic.
Which the link you shared actually mentions, right in the second note. Actually, the first one does too, really.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As does my first statement that Orincoro disagreed with. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Your first statement is actually neutral as far as causes, but it doesn't say that the reason was because of bipedalism, just that it was a part. Your second statement, though, with the misread quotes, does. No need to get huffy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I actually thought he was referring to the fetus shape, not the pelvic shape.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh: I am so fed up with your pathological need to argue. I am really struggling to deal with an overwhelming sense of animosity toward you. Do me a favor, and help me not hate you, kay?
Orincoro: That makes sense...please try and ask for clarification of such miscommunications in future instead of simply telling me I'm wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Did I trick you into saying that, too, Stone_Wolf? Or is this 'assuming the worst' that you so regularly accuse me of doing?
Anyway, do please note that I haven't insulted you or said anything except a mild semi-correction, and the closest thing you could reasonably object to was being called 'huffy' in response to your eye roll. Which as it turns out, you were being quite huffy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm telling you I need your help to not hate you, because my attempts to do so are failing.
Your response is a great way to help me...hate you.
If all you want is one-up-man-ship and to be "right" then by all means, continue.
If you actually want to aid me in my attempt to not despise you, then please, less argumentative, less sarcasm, less dickishness.
If I can't pull it off, and I end up hating your very existence, then...we will work something out. I am trying to avoid that.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm looking forward to a time when we've all evolved into a species that is nice to everybody.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Boots calling a comedy routine silly...
Good comedy is usually somewhat less...muddled.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's hard to do good comedy when it's so message oriented-for any message. Preachy comedy can be good, but it's quite a lot harder to pull off I think.
--------
Let me reiterate: the closest I've come to being as personally insulting toward you in this conversation as you were to me was to say you were being 'huffy'-this in response to an eye roll. The most antagonistic thing I said was to partially disagree with you with regards to s discussion which is interesting to me.
If that makes it easy for you to hate me, there is a problem, but it's not on this side of the computer monitor. You don't need my help to do anything, which is fortunate, because if *this* is an example of my making you hate me, you won't get it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, how do you suggest we deal with the fact that I wish you ill?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well on my end my plan is to basically do nothing, and get on with it. So far it's working out OK. Had I said anything in this conversation that merited or prompted that level of personal attack and malice (which hasn't, by the way, been exactly a secret for quite some time), my plan might be different.
But if I need to create a plan so you won't be 'goaded' into personal attacks and wishing of ill when I call you huffy for rolling your eyes, then yes, my plan is to do nothing. I would think twice about doing more for someone I was on friendly terms with, much less someone who actively wishes me ill.
This isn't my problem, it's yours-if you're actually unhappy with lashing out like that, that is. But then, so far it's either me goading you or me not helping you enough. I'm not sure when and how I incurred this sort of obligation.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Good comedy is usually somewhat less...muddled.
I think Penn Jilette stopped caring about being all that funny a long time ago. Mostly he just rants from what I've seen.
That isn't to say that the gist of what he is arguing is wrong though, just because he's speaking more loosely than he could be to be accurate.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It would help me if you stopped lying...
Personal attacks? Lashing out?
Regardless, since you have never had more then a casual relationship with truth when it comes to me, I won't be holding my breath.
For my part I will try and be civil, and step away from talking to you as needed to maintain civility.
For your part, I ask nothing of you...do as you see fit. At this point there is very little you can do to make me think any less of you, although there is a lot that would improve my opinion of you. But again, I am not holding my breath.
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I'm looking forward to a time when we've all evolved into a species that is nice to everybody.
while this would be nice in some ways, it would make a lot of the clever, yet not so nice things i say about people obsolete, o I hope I am notified.
Also, hey there PSI long time no talk, i still think of you every time i wear my KamaCon shirt
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It would help me if you stopped lying...
Personal attacks? Lashing out?
You labeled me as dickish, and after being called 'huffy' suggested I was working to make you hate me, and that it should be my responsibility to help you stop. This isn't the first time you've become personally insulting and blamed me for it, either.
I don't know if you just forgot the whole calling me dickish thing (yes, you actually said it would help you for me to be 'less dickish', which is of course a paper-thinly veiled insult that fools no one), but that's what happened. It was not a lie when I said you made a personal attack-it was the plain truth, and you're lying about it now.
Oh-"gee, I guess cursing is allowed now."
quote:For my part I will try and be civil, and step away from talking to you as needed to maintain civility.
For your part, I ask nothing of you...do as you see fit. At this point there is very little you can do to make me think any less of you, although there is a lot that would improve my opinion of you. But again, I am not holding my breath.
Heard it before. Didn't turn out to be true then, either. At this point I'm not even sure you mean it or not.
As for not asking for anything...dude. You asked me to help you stop hating me. You put the responsibility for changing your own behavior on my shoulders, and asked that I change. I don't even know at this point if you simply remember what you want, or what. You're not even trying any editing or anything-you asking me for something is still right up there.
Now, that said, I'm going to again do the thing you make sound so difficult, the thing you've failed repeatedly to do-at least until the next time you lie about something you've said (probably here, in this case), or make a personal attack on me, or say something about a topic I'm interested in.
Here it goes. Ready. Watch:
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You have this strange habit of taking your memory of what someone said to anyone in any thread and attributing it as current and relevant.
For instance, if you look up our combined posts back and forth and look up the word "bully" you will have said it at least five times as often then I, and most of mine were refuting that I ever said it to you, a point I directly challenged you about, and you ignored the challenge and kept on attributing to me.
I asked (past tense) for help, you said no, so I moved on with the conversation. And asked you for nothing.
Here is another for instance. I told Orincoro I was "done"...two months ago...in one thread...and then you attributed me saying I was done with you in two separate threads...recently.
As to responsibility...I asked for your help, generally when someone asks for help with something it doesn't change the responsibility. It is an unreasonable assumption that because I requested your aid in a mutually beneficial goal that my behavior is now your responsibility.
Also, you might learn to delineate between labeling a person and their actions. Your actions towards me are argumentative, sarcastic and dickish. But as long as you don't violate the ToS then you're good. Dickishness behavior is not a rule breaker.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:while this would be nice in some ways, it would make a lot of the clever, yet not so nice things i say about people obsolete, o I hope I am notified.
Also, hey there PSI long time no talk, i still think of you every time i wear my KamaCon shirt.
It's strange to think about how much of our cleverness might really be based on sticking it to our fellow primates. A good deal of our humor certainly is, either by poking fun at others or showcasing how good at it we are by doing so to ourselves.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Orincoro: That makes sense...please try and ask for clarification of such miscommunications in future instead of simply telling me I'm wrong.
Relax. It wasn't a mistake on my part, it was a lack of clarity on yours- or rather, it was a an overly laconic response.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Good comedy is usually somewhat less...muddled.
I think Penn Jilette stopped caring about being all that funny a long time ago. Mostly he just rants from what I've seen.
Haha. I just said he was a comedian. Not that he was actually funny. I've never found him funny.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It was a mistake on your part...as bipedalism does have to do with it. And just because you assumed you knew what I was talking about doesn't mean you weren't wrong.
Also, please do not assume my mood nor tell me to change it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, SOMEBODY'S cranky *dotes*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, Orincoro. Remember: you're not one of the people around here who gets to tell people what sort of mood they're in, or to change it. That's someone else's job;)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It was a mistake on your part...as bipedalism does have to do with it. And just because you assumed you knew what I was talking about doesn't mean you weren't wrong.
Also, please do not assume my mood nor tell me to change it.
I'm calmer than you are.
Calmer than you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Prove it!
I'll bet my respiration, heart rate and blood pressure are all lower then yours.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
A church wanted to train the teenagers what to do if they were ever kidnapped, apparently the church does some missionary work so it isn't so farfetched.
So they kidnapped the kids, without notifying anyone. With hands bound and hoods over their heads the teenagers were kept in a basement, eventually shown to the pastor who orchestrated the whole thing who was staged as having been tortured.
One girl suffered some minor injuries in the kidnapping, and while blind she overheard two of the 'captors' talk about making some of the girls their 'wives.'
The pastor is being charged, as well as the church itself.
Link. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well that was a stupid thing to do. Hope everyone's ok.
No better way to dissuade any of those kids from being a missionary.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That's absurd. These aren't adults, these are children. If someone abducted me, simulated torture on someone I knew I would be terrified throughout and absolutely raging furious that they would do something so ridiculous to a fourteen year old minor.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
When I moved to Louisiana, I homeschooled. That's part of the reason why. (The other part was that New Orleans public schools are a massive social experiment right now, and wanted to make sure my children got an actual education.)
As to Penn Jillette, I really liked this video from The Big Think:
It resonated with me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Prove it!
I'll bet my respiration, heart rate and blood pressure are all lower then yours.
good goddamn
quote: Employing the brash style that first brought him to prominence, Sri Dhananjai Bikudasi won the fifth annual International Yogi Competition yesterday with a world-record point total of 873.6.
"I am the serenest!" Bikudasi shouted to the estimated crowd of 20,000 yoga fans, vigorously pumping his fists. "No one is serener than Sri Dhananjai Bikudasi - I am the greatest monk of all time!" Bikudasi averaged 1.89 breaths a minute during the two-hour competition, nearly .3 fewer than his nearest competitor, second-place finisher and two-time champion Sri Salil "The Hammer" Gupta.
The heavily favored Gupta was upset after the loss. "I should be able to beat that guy with one lung tied," Gupta said. "I'm beside myself right now, and I don't mean trans-bodily."
Bikudasi got off to a fast start at the Lhasa meet, which like most major competitions, is a six-event affair. In the first event, he attained total consciousness (TC) in just 2 minutes, 34 seconds, and set the tone for the rest of the meet by repeatedly shouting, "I'm blissful! You blissful?! I'm blissful!" to the other yogis.
Bikudasi, 33, burst onto the international yoga scene with a gold-mandala performance at the 1994 Bhutan Invitational. At that competition he premiered his aggressive style, at one point in the flexibility event sticking his middle toes out at the other yogis. While no prohibition exists against such behavior, according to Yoga League Commissioner Swami Prabhupada, such behavior is generally considered "unBuddhalike." "I don't care what the critics say," Bikudasi said. "Sri Bikudasi is just gonna go out there and do Sri Bikudasi's own yoga thing."
Before the Bhutan meet, Bikudasi had never placed better than fourth. Many said he had forsaken rigorous training for the celebrity status accorded by his Bhutan win, endorsing Nike's new line of prayer mats and supposedly dating the Hindu goddess Shakti. But his performance this week will regain for him the number one computer ranking and earn him new respect, as well as for his coach Mahananda Vasti, the controversial guru some have called Bikudasi's "guru." "My special training diet for Bikudasi of one super-charged, carbo-loaded grain of rice per day was essential to his win," Vasti said.
The defeated Gupta denied that Bikudasi's taunting was a factor in his inability to attain TC. "I just wasn't myself today," Gupta commented. "I wasn't any self today. I was an egoless particle of the universal no-soul." In the second event, flexibility, Bikudasi maintained the lead by supporting himself on his index fingers for the entire 15 minutes while touching the back of his skull to his lower spine. The feat was matched by Gupta, who first used the position at the 1990 Tokyo Zen-Off. "That's my meditative position of spiritual ecstasy, not his," remarked Gupta. "He stole my thunder." Bikudasi denied the charge, saying, "Gupta's been talking like that ever since he was a 3rd century Egyptian slave-owner."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Man, neither of those guys can hold a candle to Tenzin Dakpa in his prime. It's too bad he was reincarnated as a praying mantis in 2011, or he'd have blissed all of their asses out of the arena.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
long time no talk, i still think of you every time i wear my KamaCon shirt