Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Page 5 - 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 04-21-2008, 10:22 AM   #81
Acrobat
 
popsadie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hsinchu, Tawain
Posts: 461
Local Time: 09:06 PM
No, it is just that the tone of many of the evolutionists' posts here has been smug and not exactly conducive to dialogue. Although I do understand why 'intelligent design' has been questioned by the scientific community, I do not see the problem with discussing theistic evolution in comparison to natural selection, because, as I earlier maintained, scientific theories like natural selection DO have philosophical implications.
__________________

popsadie is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 10:38 AM   #82
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by popsadie
No, it is just that the tone of many of the evolutionists' posts here has been smug and not exactly conducive to dialogue. Although I do understand why 'intelligent design' has been questioned by the scientific community, I do not see the problem with discussing theistic evolution in comparison to natural selection, because, as I earlier maintained, scientific theories like natural selection DO have philosophical implications.



and you can do that in a philosophy class. by all means, go right ahead. i think it would be a great discussion.

but ID is not science. and it's hard not to get a little bit smug when people run around in circles trying to defend what is a fundamentally indefensible position. and ID, in particular, is an explicitly evangelical Christian movement dressed up in the veneer of science and intended to pretend to be science so that it might evangelize from the classroom itself. please take a look at things like The Discovery Institute and what their anti-science, anti-intellectual message really is.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 10:56 AM   #83
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by popsadie
No, it is just that the tone of many of the evolutionists' posts here has been smug and not exactly conducive to dialogue.
This is part of the problem right here. You automatically assume that anyone who wants 'intelligent design' out of the science class is purely an evolutionist. You've made the gray part of this discussion black and white.

Quote:
Originally posted by popsadie

Although I do understand why 'intelligent design' has been questioned by the scientific community, I do not see the problem with discussing theistic evolution in comparison to natural selection, because, as I earlier maintained, scientific theories like natural selection DO have philosophical implications.
No one, not one person has said this can't be done in a philosophy class. I haven't seen this smugness that you speak of, but maybe part of it is the frustration that many feel due to the constant ignoring of such points.

It would actually be kind of funny if it weren't so frustrating, but everytime we have this discussion, many clear headed conversations are had making the points that these theories belong in a science class and ID belongs in a philosophy class. Spelled out very clear, but it never fails the ID folks cover their ears and scream "you don't want it in the schools". It's just like Irvine said, so many in here "act like spoiled children trying to push for one more inch because it just isn't fair that other people aren't taught their beliefs and that their own belief system isn't reinforced by the state."
BVS is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 11:39 AM   #84
Acrobat
 
popsadie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hsinchu, Tawain
Posts: 461
Local Time: 09:06 PM
No, actually I don't assume this. I am not a proponent of intelligent design myself. What I do believe is that several of the evolutionists who have posted on here have posted in an inflammatory manner.
As far as my opinion goes on the issue, I believe that evolution proponents that say this Only belongs in a philosophy class have disregarded the philosophical impact that this Scientific idea carries. For this reason, I believe that a certain amount of care should be given to teachings that could affect religious and philosophical ideas.
popsadie is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 11:49 AM   #85
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 04:06 PM
But science class is not the place to discuss the philosophical implications of evolution, either. Any philosophical implications should be taken to a philosophy class.

I'm all in favor of creating a "Philosophy of Evolution" class. In fact I think it would be a fascinating class to take. But that is not what these IDers are asking for. They're asking to place their philosophy, one that has no scientific evidence to back it up, one that indeed cannot even be tested using the scientific method, into a science classroom and have it taught as if it were science. And that is where I and many other "evolutionists" draw the line.
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 11:51 AM   #86
Acrobat
 
popsadie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hsinchu, Tawain
Posts: 461
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Very few high schools have philosophy classes. Small schools can not afford to offer this curriculum, but Are required to offer Biology. This is why I believe that it should be addressed in science classes...at least one discussion anyway...
popsadie is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 12:00 PM   #87
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by popsadie
Very few high school have philosophy classes. Small schools can not afford to offer this curriculum, but Are required to offer Biology. This is why I believe that it should be addressed in science classes...at least on discussion anyway...
Simply because schools don't have philosophy classes doesn't mean we need to compromise the teaching of actual science by bringing philosophy into science classes. It has no place there. And once we introduce competing ideas into the science classrooms, especially ideas that we can't actually prove or disprove, we elevate those ideas to the same level of science, raise skepticism against science and turn it into yet another agenda when nothing could be further from the truth. And we fall further and further behind in education.

And besides, if we start teaching, in a science class, something that does not even adhere to the principles of science, where do you draw the line? Should we then include every single creation theory from every single religion, since they also have philosophical implications on the origins of life? Or do we just include ID and Christian creationism?
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 01:36 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Here's the challenge: science does not deal in the abstract; science deals in reality. While religion/philosophy deals in largely existential questions of meaning and purpose, science deals in observable, quantifiable facts.

The problem is that when it comes to the origins of life, those origins are fundamentally unknowable because they are unobservable.

So when it comes to the origins of life, while science can study fossil records and the like, fundamentally they are studying the effects of evolution. Science can't explain the causation. It can make projections about the causes of life's origins, but it can't make fundamental decisions, because the causes are unobservable.

It's at the causation level where science and philosophy start to mix, in part because one cannot theorize about the origins of life without trying to understand the cause. I'm not saying that "God" even needs to be a part of the answer, but the fundamental question "what caused the cause" is as much a philosophical as a scientific one.

There is no problem with, in a science class, postulating a theory of everything, or postulating a cause behind the cause. But once we get into such postulations, various theories seem to come into play -- all philosophical in nature.

ETA:

The challenge is for scientists to admit they don't have all the answers, in the same way that the challenge for religionists is to admit the same (the Bible is not a science textbook). In a fundamentally defensive world such as ours, where both science and religion are being challenged, there is naturally a tendency to close ranks and see the other side as the problem, which tends to create polarization. Naturally the nature of scientific inquiry means that answers are going to be sought, but I don't believe everything has a scientific explanation.....and I think there is a way for people of science and people of faith (who are much closer than they perhaps would care to admit, since a recent survey showed that 43% of scientists are also religious) to create an open-minded dialogue, rather than a polarizing one. I don't think science and God are opposites, and I don't think it's helpful to create an either/or scenario. (The Bible doesn't discuss the minute details of HOW God created the universe -- I read a fascinating book a while ago called "The Science of God" by Gerard Schroeder, which shows how a rapidly expanding universe, complete with the volume and force required for such spontaneous expansion, can be reconciled with a reading of the Hebrew scriptures of the Genesis account.)

I'm not sure where EXPELLED lands in all this. Knowing some of the filmmakers behind the film, I know that they are not rabid creationists. At the same time, in the rush to make a movie that will make money for its investors, and to hit a niche audience, even if the film is fundamentally about the need for a bigger tent as far as scientific inquiry goes, the flash-points of ID/creationism may ultimately sink the desire for a greater dialogue, as it has seemed to polarized the discussion.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 02:33 PM   #89
Acrobat
 
popsadie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hsinchu, Tawain
Posts: 461
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Nathan, thank you for expressing this point of view so eloquently.
popsadie is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 03:23 PM   #90
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
So when it comes to the origins of life, while science can study fossil records and the like, fundamentally they are studying the effects of evolution.
I understand what you're saying, but "studying the effects" is exactly what ID proponents claim they're doing--that they're simply studying the effects of intelligent causation, not the cause itself, and therefore ID is science, not philosophy or religion. It's ID, not 'science,' that has a problem with saying, "No, we don't have empirical evidence for everything"--they want to jump in at that point and say, "Aha! See, we can't fully account from the evidence for this phenomenon [flagella, blood clotting etc.], therefore a greater intelligence than ours must be at work here." They're treating the absence of evidence as evidence in itself, which confuses faith with knowledge. And arguing that it constitutes "censorship" not to teach such claims in science class is of course asserting that ID is scientifically valid.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 03:36 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,744
Local Time: 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


The challenge is for scientists to admit they don't have all the answers
Credible scientists will always admit that they don't have all answers. I would even venture to say that all scientists admit to not having all the answers. That's why they are scientists and still studying, after all. And this is the holes melon was referring to earlier, either.

Nevertheless, the answers (i.e. evidence) we have so far show that Intelligent Design is wrong, plain and simple.

And quite frankly, the USA is the only country in the world that discusses Intelligent Design as being a credible theory to be taught in school. And this is not because they are so far ahead of the rest of the world.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 04-21-2008, 03:50 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Please note that I'm not defending the notion of ID being taught in schools. (Particularly since I'm not a proponent of ID, since I find it intellectually dishonest in the first place. If you believe in a Creator, say so.) What I am saying is that in reaction to ID being taught in schools, some proponents of evolutionary theory seem to be fighting so hard in the other direction (mistaking the effect for the cause) that the conversation becomes unnecessarily defensive and polarizing.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 04-22-2008, 12:16 AM   #93
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:06 PM
One fairly positive review (of which I found a few) and one quite negative one (of which I found several) for Expelled.
Quote:
Rex Roberts, Film Journal International

Ben Stein won’t endear himself to his Beverly Hills neighbors with his sardonic Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary in Moore mode that manages to be flippant and darkly provocative at once. Ostensibly an exposé of the Darwinian cabal that has hijacked the scientific academy, purportedly squelching debate about alternative theories on the origins of life, Expelled evolves from a well-wrought warning of eroding freedoms into a brooding meditation on the dangers of secular humanism. Stein has embraced a strain of conservative thought that attempts to expose affinities between progressivism and fascism (represented in the film by Darwin and Hitler), but his use of Dachau, the German concentration camp, as a cautionary tale of science gone awry, as well as his choice of the Berlin Wall as a metaphor for the modern scientific mind, will send liberals into anaphylactic shock.

The movie doesn’t exactly defend Intelligent Design, a hypothesis that holds that the origin and structure of life on Earth is best explained by intelligent cause (in other words, by God), but it does defend researchers who advocate the position. One scientist in particular, biologist Richard Sternberg, has become a cause célèbre following his resignation, he claims under duress, from the Smithsonian Institution, where as a research fellow and managing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a peer-reviewed article on ID. Two other biologists, Guillermo Gonzalez and Caroline Crocker, claim they were forced from their universities because they wrote about ID or “briefly mentioned” the theory in the classroom.

Stein, a Yale-trained lawyer and Nixon speechwriter before he morphed into the engaging comic actor we know and love from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and The Wonder Years, argues that the abuse of these three scientists (and anonymous others who appear on camera in silhouette) represents a disturbing attack on free speech that is both anti-scientific and anti-American. He thus undertakes a quest to discover if, indeed, the so-called elite scientific establishment systematically put the kibosh on ID in order to protect its liberal ideological prejudices and political agenda. To this end, he interviews Sternberg and company as well as Richard Dawkins, leading proponent of neo-Darwinism and author of the bestselling book The God Delusion, and other ID debunkers.

Like most documentaries aiming to entertain as well as enlighten, Expelled takes a jocular approach to its subject, enlivening the proceedings with snarky archival footage and newsreels, ironic clips from classic flicks (Inherit the Wind, Frankenstein, The Wizard of Oz), and retro animation illustrating natural selection with slot machines. It’s good fun. Stein plays coy, lobbing big fat softballs to his interlocutors: “Aren’t we all Darwinists now, except for a few cranks?” Eventually, however, he grows earnest, setting up a declension by which Darwinists (that is, secular progressives) establish random chance as nature’s modus operandi, thereby eliminating divine purpose in the universe, undermining morality and destroying free will. “It appears Darwinism does lead to atheism,” he concludes.

...Expelled isn’t likely to convince anyone unpredisposed to the notion that life has grand design and godly purpose, but these kinds of documentaries (as the producers of this one readily admit) make money by preaching to the choir. The problem with the genre is that many people who watch the film don’t have a scorecard to follow the inside baseball that ultimately makes them interesting. Do fans of Ben Stein the game-show host know that he was a longtime columnist for the notorious right-wing organ The American Spectator? Since Stein travels to Seattle to visit the offices of the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank sympathetic to Intelligence Design, should he identify interviewees who have connections to the foundation? He doesn’t, just as he fails to tell us that religion reporter Larry Witham, who talks about media coverage of Intelligent Design, was a longtime employee of the conservative newspaper The Washington Times. The fact is, few filmmakers disclose such connections, partly because they haven’t time to do so in a feature-length movie, but mostly because they would undermine their own agendas. Ben Stein is about as fair and balanced as any of the new breed of documentarians, so the standard warning applies: Viewers beware.
Quote:
Jeannette Catsoulis, New York Times

One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry. Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of “big science” to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy—after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes "Everybody’s Business" for The New York Times.)

Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins—accurately identified on screen as an “atheist”—are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves. Every few minutes familiar—and ideologically unrelated—images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in Planet of the Apes. This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.

Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn, Expelled is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 05:33 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,266
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Intelligent Critique
Expelled adroitly addresses the dogmaticism of Darwinian theory in the scientific world.

By Dave Berg


I like rebels, especially ones who go against type. Take Ben Stein in his latest film, Expelled, which comes out this Friday. Dressed in a sport coat, tie, and tennis shoes, he’s not who you expect — the deadpan, monotone-voiced but ever-likable teacher he portrays in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and The Wonder Years.

Stein retains his characteristic deadpan affect, but this time he’s playing himself — a deceptively erudite and well-educated interviewer, who is passionately skeptical of evolutionary biology and its leading proponents.

The film’s endeavor is to respond to one simple question: “Were we designed, or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?”

Big science doesn’t like that question because they can’t answer it. Underneath their antagonism toward explanations that suggest an intelligent cause, lies a fundamental egoism. Science wants to deny any evidence of a supreme being precisely because it wants to be a supreme being. Moreover, representatives of big science in the film are unsettlingly snippy, suggesting that they feel threatened by rival opinions, rather than assured of their own.

To make this point, the film introduces teachers and scientists who are shunned, denied tenure, and fired for questioning dogmatic Darwinism. The film’s producers spent two years traveling the world, talking with more than 150 educators and scientists who say they have been persecuted for questioning Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Dr. Richard Sternberg, a biologist, publishes a peer-reviewed paper, which posits evidence for intelligent design (ID) in the universe. For his efforts, Sternberg’s bosses at the Smithsonian Institution trashed him so badly that it led to a congressional investigation.

Iowa State University denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, an accomplished astrobiologist. University officials admitted that Gonzalez’s work on ID is a factor.

For Richard Dawkins, by contrast, job security is not a problem. To this superstar Oxford University evolutionary biologist, and devout atheist, intelligent design is nothing more than an “ideological cousin of creationism.”

The highlight of the film features Ben Stein interviewing Dawkins, who concedes that an intelligent being may have created life on earth. But that being cannot be “God.” Instead, he suggests it may be an alien, itself a product of “Darwinian evolution.” Oh, the scientific imagination — there’s nothing like it on God’s green earth.

Dawkins has since complained that the interview was set up under false pretenses, and that he didn’t even know who Stein was. It is rather astonishing that it did not occur to the world’s smartest atheist to look up Ben Stein on the Internet, where he might have readily discovered numerous examples of his writings that are critical of Darwinism.

Dawkins dismisses the Emmy-winning actor as having “no talent for comedy.” He believes during the interview Stein is an “honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.” A lawyer, a law professor, an economist, and a speechwriter for both Nixon and Ford, Stein hardly seems to fit the description “honestly stupid.”

In the end, the film isn’t really about intelligent design as much as about a relentless attack on an authentically free inquiry. As Ben Stein points out, “Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. It’s anti-the whole concept of learning.”

— Dave Berg is a senior segment producer at The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...FmMWIxMmE5M2I=
the iron horse is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 05:45 PM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
EdgeIsTooSexy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,828
Local Time: 04:06 PM


saw it last night thanks to a friend. i wasnt really into it and it turns out he didnt like it either
EdgeIsTooSexy is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 05:47 PM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
My 80 year old neighbor asked me to take her to see this movie,
will probably go next Wed or Thurs evening.
Well

I did take my neighbor to see this Thursday 3:00 matinee. We were the only people in the audience. It opens up with a string arrangement of "All along the watch tower" most of the music was 60s and 70s, I did enjoy the music.

Ben Stein is somewhat entertaining to me.

The first 2/3s was not as far-fetched as I had expected it to be.

The last 1/3, suggesting that Darwinism drove the Nazis was a bit of a stretch. Jews have been persecuted in Europe for thousands of years with the Church's support.

The movie left me with the impression that creationism has no relationship to ID.

Also, Ben Stein does manage to pull off a "gotcha" kind of a moment with Richard Dawkins. Much like Moore did with Heston in Columbine.
deep is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 06:08 PM   #97
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:06 PM
^ I've noticed that many of the critics have compared Stein's style to Moore's in their reviews.

That was kind of you to take your neighbor, I hope she enjoyed it.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 06:15 PM   #98
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:06 PM
She did.

She is a Ben Stein fan.

We shared a bag of pop corn.

I think Moore makes a better documentary.
I will admit that after leaving the theater Stein had me a bit sympathetic with the ID people.
deep is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 08:07 PM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep




The last 1/3, suggesting that Darwinism drove the Nazis was a bit of a stretch. Jews have been persecuted in Europe for thousands of years with the Church's support.

The movie left me with the impression that creationism has no relationship to ID.

Also, Ben Stein does manage to pull off a "gotcha" kind of a moment with Richard Dawkins. Much like Moore did with Heston in Columbine.
Deep,

That could speak to the Godless place you live in-that you we're the only 2 souls in the movie house.

I saw this last night with my girls and the ultra athetist was pinned and pleaded uncle for a bit. Comparing Heston a man with Alhemizers to Dawkins interview shows favortism to Moore and Darwinism.

I did notice the ID people being more calm and peaceful in their interviews while the athiests bristled and blinked a lot-that spoke volumes to my childen and I who happen to be 4.0 students and attend avanced classes for their age- theyre very intuitive.

I *really* felt for Ben when the tour guide of the Nazi death camps was glib and ambivilent about the inhumanity of the Nazis.

Going light on the Darwinism connection to Nazis is a cop out.
The Jews may have been persecuted and driven like the Mormons in the USA, (much worse than Mormons) but Hilter took glee in riding the planet of the Jews and those he felt were inferior, a view proffered also by Darwin.

I give the movie 7/10 Stars.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-27-2008, 10:46 PM   #100
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:06 AM
Quote:
Hilter took glee in riding the planet of the Jews and those he felt were inferior, a view proffered also by Darwin.
Care to give a citation for this?
__________________

A_Wanderer 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 04:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×