Dear Dr. Laura.... - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-18-2005, 01:30 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:51 AM
looks like "dr" laura thinks Evangelical Christanity is more profitable than Orthodox Judaism.

conversion as a career move?

whatever it is, she's selling something.

she's also a nasty, nasty lady. i used to listen to her show.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:35 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
looks like "dr" laura thinks Evangelical Christanity is more profitable than Orthodox Judaism.

conversion as a career move?
Are the conversions authentic? Only God knows.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
whatever it is, she's selling something.

she's also a nasty, nasty lady. i used to listen to her show.
Negativity sells. Stern, Lykis, etc.

"Tear down" words are more popular than "build up" words.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:36 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

she's also a nasty, nasty lady. i used to listen to her show.
We published her book when I worked in publishing and, well, the stories I could tell...
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:38 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


We published her book when I worked in publishing and, well, the stories I could tell...


please tell.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:42 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


please tell.
Since a picture paints a thousand words let's just say...

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:46 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


Since a picture paints a thousand words let's just say...


my whopping 2 years of experience in media has taught me that the most difficult personalities are always the least talented.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:58 PM   #37
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Just to clarify--I have no idea whether Dr. Laura converted to Christianity or not. The article only mentions that she made verbal overtures in that direction. I can vouch for the author's observation that many Jews found Dr. Laura's rhetorical style inappropriately "evangelical" (though to be fair, there were doubtless a few Lubavitchers etc.--the "mitzvah Mobile" crowd--who enjoyed it). But "evangelical" is a slippery term, and I can certainly think of some evangelical Christians I know who find Dr. Laura abhorrent and would not want her in their church at all.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 02:24 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



my whopping 2 years of experience in media has taught me that the most difficult personalities are always the least talented.
And my 6 years in publishing taught me that the self-help and new age gurus were the most difficult (and least talented with the biggest egos).
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 05:47 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:51 AM
I am definitely not a fan of Dr. Laura's. She's made some of the most horrid Islamophobic statements that have ever been made. I don't remember any particulars but I saw her listed after a quote in a list of Islamophobic statements I saw on some web site. Disgusting.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-19-2005, 01:21 AM   #40
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

she's also a nasty, nasty lady. i used to listen to her show.
I used to listen to her as well, but I quit after a while. I got tired of being pissed off every afternoon...

The woman is a loon who seems to have nothing better to do with her time than condemn everybody in the fucking world. Awful woman.
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 09:02 AM   #41
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Quote:
She used the one piece of scripture to prove HER belief
I don't think Dr. Laura actually ever quoted Leviticus, for one. Whatever.

Here's some good stuff:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Legend: Letter to Dr. Laura highlights fallacy in a particular anti-homosexual argument.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004]


Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.


Origins: We
first ran into this letter in the online world in May 2000, just after the state of Vermont permitted homosexual couples to contract "civil unions," an official recognition that imparted to same-sex partners the legal benefits of marriage, such as the right to be regarded by hospitals as their partners' next of kin, to make medical decisions on behalf of their partners, and to file joint tax returns. This "everything that is marriage but the name" decision pleased some and angered others, resulting in many heated opinions about same-sex unions in specific, and homosexuality in general, to be bruited in countless public forums.

Thanks to her oft-aired opinion that homosexuals are a "mistake of nature," radio's Dr. Laura Schlessinger became one of the targets of those of pro-gay sympathies looking for someone to shake a finger at.

Dr. Schlessinger has attracted both adherents and detractors during her years of public life. Through her radio show, she dispenses advice to callers, usually from a conservative point of view. She was an Orthodox Jew at the time the letter quoted above was written (but she announced her renunciation of that faith on her show in July 2003) and often draws upon the Bible or religious teachings for guidance. She is blunt and forthright in her replies, viewing most situations as inherently black or white, right or wrong.

Laura Schlessinger is neither a medical doctor nor accredited in a discipline one would traditionally look to for the generation of expertise in moral, societal, or spiritual matters (such as divinity, psychology, or sociology). She earned her doctorate in physiology from Columbia University and practiced as a licensed marriage, family, and child counselor for more than a decade (although her California Marriage Family and Child Counseling license has been inactive for several years).

In 1998 nude photos of Laura Schlessinger were displayed on the Internet. During the commotion over those pictures, their source was revealed to be veteran Los Angeles radio broadcaster Bill Ballance, a man who was pivotal in getting Schlessinger her start in radio. Ballance claimed he photographed her in 1978, while the pair of them were having an affair during Schlessinger's first marriage.

Some see Schlessinger's use of "Doctor" as misleading and view her current stance on the sanctity of marriage and the wrongness of adultery as hypocrisy in light of her decades-earlier affair. Others believe the title of "Doctor" should not be restricted only to those in the medical field and hold that people can change over time, even to the point of full repudiation of previous behaviors and beliefs. (Our article about the origin of the hymn Amazing Grace showcases one such spiritual about-face.)

Dr. Laura is as controversial as she is popular, so she attracts both bouquets and brickbats whenever topics she is known to harbor strong opinions about become part of the day's news. Thus, those looking for someone to crow at over Vermont's recognition of same-sex unions would have quickly thought of Dr. Laura.

The "letter" to Dr. Laura may or may not have actually been sent to her, but in any case it is best read as an essay offering a counter to the "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so" argument. Though it purports to be addressed to just one person (Dr. Laura), it is clearly meant for a general audience. The authorship of the letter is still a bit of a mystery, although the name "Kent Ashcraft" (or "J. Kent Ashcraft") keeps coming up.

Confusing the issue further, because the letter has been circulated as widely as it has in e-mail, in some versions the signature blocks of forwarders have come to be part of the mailing, leading those who receive those versions farther down the line to assume those people were the writers of the piece. Then there's the case of Jim Kauffman — his signature was deliberately appended by someone without his knowledge, causing him to receive many a phone call and e-mail from those who have taken him for essay's author.

In August 2003 a journalist for the Halifax Daily News presented the "Dr. Laura letter" as her own writing. For presenting the piece in her column as her own by signing it "Yours truly, Jane," reporter Jane Kansas was fired from that publication. (Her version also changed "Dear Dr. Laura" to "Dear Holy Father" plus added some local references.)

The question of authorship aside, this May 2000 piece struck a note with many people, and by June and July of that year it had made its way into a number of newspapers, including the Knoxville News-Sentinel (7 June), Seattle Weekly (8 June), OC Weekly (9 June), The [Syracuse] Post-Standard (11 June), [Madison] Capital Times (13 July), and the Modesto Bee (22 July). Most often the letter was acknowledged as an interesting item gleaned from the Internet, but in a few cases the readers who sent it to newspapers presented it as their own words, which serves to make the question of who actually wrote it even harder to answer.

The key to this essay is its premise, not the pedantic details of it of how it is defended. Simply put, the letter points out a logical flaw in the "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so" argument: if homosexuality is wrong because it goes against God's law as outlined in the Bible, why aren't any number of activities now viewed as innocuous but once regarded as unacceptable also offenses against God's law? How can one part of Leviticus be deemed as etched in stone when other parts have been discarded as archaic?

The essay completes with the sarcastic rejoinder, "Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging." While this is presented as a rebuke meant for just one, it is a general reminder that many belief systems pick and choose their way through Biblical teachings in determining what is right and what is wrong, with those assessments changing over time even within sects that pride themselves on strict adherence to the Good Book.

In early October 2000, Dr. Schlessinger, ran a full-page ad in Variety offering an apology for what she called "poorly chosen" words about homosexuality. She had previously referred to gays as "biological errors" and "deviants," as exemplified by her remarks of 8 December 1998:

I'm sorry — hear it one more time, perfectly clearly: If you're gay or a lesbian, it's a biological error that inhibits you from relating normally to the opposite sex. The fact that you are intelligent, creative and valuable is all true. The error is in your inability to relate sexually intimately, in a loving way to a member of the opposite sex — it is a biological error.
October 2000 was not Dr. Laura's month. A few weeks after she issued her apology, a version of the "Letter to Dr. Laura" was incorporated into the 18 October episode of the political television drama The West Wing. In "The Midterms," President Bartlet used his own detailed knowledge of the Bible to make a Schlessinger-esque character named Jenna Jacobs look ridiculous.

Just as the Internet piece gave the West Wing writers fodder for a memorable scene, so did the exposure on a popular television show boost the online circulation of the "Letter to Dr. Laura." Similarly, the 2004 brouhaha over gay marriage sparked a renewal of this e-missive, causing it to once again be flung from inbox to inbox.

In the wake of President George W. Bush's election to a second term, in the fall of 2004 the piece was circulated yet again, this time addressed "Dear President Bush" rather than "Dear Dr. Laura." Following the "Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging" close of the Dr. Laura letter, the updated version addressed to the President continued "It must be really great to be on such close terms with God and his son, even better than you and your own Dad, eh?"

Barbara "re-mail" Mikkelson
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 09:07 AM   #42
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 05:51 AM
and even more fun, here is a guy actually answering these questions, which I think you all should read, just for more information from a Christian perspective:

Quote:
Q. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

A. No. You need a Israelite priest to offer the sacrifice for you in the Temple in Jerusalem; you can't just do it yourself in your back garden. You have a problem! The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. But stop believing in the pleasing odour of animal sacrifices anyway, for it is written that the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin (Heb 10:4). You need to believe that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross takes away all your sin, now and forever. As to offering violence against your neighbours, that will have you hauled up in front of the magistrates for a breach of the peace and actual bodily harm at a minimum under any system of law, ancient or modern.

Q. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). How do I tell? I have tried asking but most women take offence.

A. This is to do with purity of worship in the Temple . Not just sexual intercourse (we would all be agreed on that) but even touching a menstruating woman made the one who touched her unclean. It has passed. When the Temple in Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD, as Jesus prophesied, it was already 40 years past its use-by date. The sacrifice of Jesus in AD 30 (+/- a year or two) had rendered the doings of the Temple obsolete. Even the veil of the Temple (which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of Temple ) was torn in two (Matt 27:51) at His death. Believe in His death and you will be forgiven. Believe in His resurrection and you will live. If the matter you raise still troubles you, you should avoid all contact with women other than your own wife. And if you don't know when she is in what you describe as her period of uncleanliness, then heaven help you.

Q. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to the French but not to the Scots. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Scottish people?

A. It doesn't actually say slaves, it says 'bondmen and bondmaids'. People who were poor bonded themselves or their children to someone wealthy. It was a form of social security. It is also written (Exod 21:16) that anyone who steals a man to sell him shall be put to death. So those Muslim slavers who took and sold black slaves to the white man were flat out of order and worthy of death. Don't forget that the man who had slavery outlawed in Britain was William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian. Atheists were quite happy with slavery.

Q. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

A. It actually says 'maidservant' not slave. I should have thought you were doing well enough at Capital not to have to sell your daughter as a bonded servant. What a rotten dad you are, to want to get rid of her even though you can afford to keep her. Daughters are precious. So are sons, come to that. You'ld have to be in pretty dire straights 3,000 years ago to sell your children as servants, but I guess they would at least get fed and housed then. Anyway, back to your daughter. I think you would do better to send her to college and then see if she can't get a job. Mind you, most jobs today are just wage-slavery, aren't they? We spend 45% of our time working for the tax-man. Who can be totally free? Only those who trust in Jesus and know the truth will be free, as it is written, 'The truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)

Q. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged to kill him myself or may I arrange for our vicar to do it?

A. Neither. You need to remember that the ancient principle of 'due process' still persists in our law today, despite a succession of Home Secretaries, including dear David Blunkett, wanting to get rid of it as a bit of an impediment to the Government just locking up whoever they want. So you can't go around putting people to death yourself, that is what we Christians call murder. OK, if someone killed your son or raped your daughter, you might call it vengeance, but you have no personal interest in what your neighbour is doing, it just gets up your nose a bit. Report your neighbour to the police, support your allegation with two witnesses, and see if the police can find a law against what your neighbour is doing. They won't. This country doesn't do a day of rest in any form any more.

Q. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

A. This applies to the High Priest of ancient Israel, who entered into the Holy of holies once a year on the Day of Atonement. I suppose God has a right to say who was going to approach Him in the Holy of holies. But even if you are a cohen, (a) you won't find the Temple still standing today and (b) all that Temple ritual is past. Jesus has been and has offered Himself for the sins of all who will believe in Him. Job done. Finished.

Q. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

A. God did not want His people looking like the pagan priests of the nations round about with dodgy haircuts and peculiar beards. Getting your hair cut as such isn't wrong in the eyes of God. Exekiel the prophet (Ezek 44:20) says that the rule for the priest is to have his hair cut neatly, not shave his head nor grow his hair stupidly long like what the pagans do. Can't see this was a capital offence, though, even then.

Q. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

A. Clean and unclean animals are done away with by Peter's vision in Acts 10:11-15. My advice if this really worries you is to play as a forward or a back, and not as a midfielder, as they do most throwing in and place-kicking, and certainly don't play in goal. And don't handball either, as that is against the laws of the game.

Q. A friend of mine feels that though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10) it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

A. They are different words in Hebrew, so your friend is right. But in any case, the clean and unclean animals distinction has gone with Peter's vision. So the New Testament abolishes the Old Testament food laws. But the New Testament confirms that homosexual activity is an abomination. Shellfish don't agree with me, but that's another matter. You tuck in to that prawn curry.

Q. My friend tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone him as commanded in Leviticus 24:10-16 ?

A. Yes, because it is all a matter of due process. You are a bit for taking the law into your own hands, aren't you? Does your friend actually curse the Name of God like the man in Leviticus did? Anyway, next you must find a judge and jury who will convict him. Unless his blasphemy really is scurrilous, abusive or offensive to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, and tends to vilify the Christian religion, you are unlikely to see a conviction in our land today. Best let your friend know how offended you are and if he persists, get another friend. He sounds a bad sort, anyway.

Q. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).

A. Doesn't sound much of a farmer. How is he going to harvest it? Mind you, he could put a fence down the middle, then he would have two fields, and he could sow one crop on one side and the other on the other side, I suppose. As long as his wife does not wear a mixture of wool and linen, she should be OK to go and take part in ancient Israelite society. Back to the future!

Q. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Leviticus 20:14)?

A. You don't half have a vicious streak. Once again, in God's design for mankind, the State has the responsibility for the judicial death penalty, not the family. God's law does not allow people to put members of their own family to death. You are thinking of Islam and Hinduism. Oh, and Britain today. When our Parliament passed the Homicide Act 1965 and the Abortion Act 1967, they took away the death penalty from the guilty, by the State, where it belongs, and placed it on the innocent, within the family, where it does not. Macabre or what?

P.S. Another silly question was added later:

Q. A reading of 2 Chronicles, 4:2 makes clear that mathematicians have for many years been under a misconception that the number pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter) was a transcendental number which is approximately 3.1415. The true value of pi, as the Bible makes clear in this passage, is actually 3. Am I personally obliged to burn all maths textbooks, put to the sword as blasphemers all who propagate the false value of pi and forbid all false images of the true circle?

A. Do you really think the ancients didn't know the value of pi? What we have here is something us engineers call 'rounding'. You really must deal with your bloodthirsty nature, though. All this taking the law (or what you think it is) into your own hands just will not do. And nit-picking over a couple of Biblical decimal points is not blasphemy. My, isn't there some God-hating ignorance out there!
Click here for an in-depth article on the Value of Pi
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 09:41 AM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:51 AM
I think religion is an irrational joke. Arguing babble with other babble does not create reason. It just creates more crap.

I often find myself sympathizing with the position that Karl Marx was in 150 years ago. Being a Jew in Europe then was a close equivalent of being a homosexual in modern America: a group bombarded with irrational misunderstanding hatred on a daily basis. I can only imagine what my opinion of religion will be when I'm 50 or 60 years old. I'll probably want to abolish it from the globe as much as he did.

Religious folk plain don't get it, but, of course, they never have; and as long as their bellies are fat and they feel popular and loved, they won't give a rat's ass about anyone different from them ever.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-21-2005, 12:44 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 06:51 AM
I'm kind of curious whether her son ever joined the military. I remember how much she touted how gungho he was (think he was fifteen then) after 9/11 and how proud she was that he was willing to fight. Wonder how much push came to shove when he was actually old enough to do it.

Not that I hold anyone accountable for what they said at fifteen, but when a fifteen year old's words are used to shame someone else who does not serve.....

If he did enlist, I will give credit for him putting his money where his mother's mouth is.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 09:26 AM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
and even more fun, here is a guy actually answering these questions, which I think you all should read, just for more information from a Christian perspective:

Boy, reading those responses really supports the arguments made that the author of the question really understood Scripture.....



[/endsarcasm]
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com