Aesthetic Death
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:23 am



Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Favourite Philosophers 
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post 

AnneGwish wrote:
I love Theodor Adorno because of his writings on Postmodernism, kitsch and high art and culture in general. He said reason has become irrational, that all we care about is how to achieve our goals without even reflecting upon the nature of the goal itself (instrumentalized reason). I mean, everthing he wrote is absolutely relevant, I can't even sum it up here.
I can't take anyone who writes such as that and calls it 'philosophy' seriously, I have of course not read it but I am pretty sure that work does not give its deduction and reasoning. The problem with this kind of 'continental' and pretty much præscriptive philosophy is that you can either agree with it, or not. You cannot analyse its reasoning, its methods, its deduction, build further on it. It are just someone's hunches written down. Mostly just a subjective opinion. A review about society how this site reviews doom metal. I am against conclusions, and certainly against conclusions without reasoning. A good work does not say 'This is true', it says 'If this is true, than that is true.' pretty much like mathematics. Only if the axioms are true, then everything derived from them is also true. Anyone is free to add or remove an axiom, which creates a new set of conditional truths.


Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:08 am
Forum User

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:55 pm
Posts: 159
Reply with quote
Post 

frublz wrote:
The problem with most philosophy (Plato, Nietzsche, to some extend Descartes, well essentially the whole lot safe for a few) is that these people use extreme intuïtive and incoherent reasoning. They are amateurs of though mostly, like Schopenhauer debating endlessly what makes 'a good human' or 'free will' without giving a proper definition of both terms firstly, surely one cannot take something like that seriously? Nietzsche and Plato are the worst in this, I doubt Nietzsche has ever even written down his reasoning, he was not a thinker he was a critique, who outed unfunded criticism. And I cannot take anything continental in philosophy serious, how can one honestly think about morale and ethics, these people never thought or reasoned, the wrote down their intuïtions. I also find it a tad styleless in a work I can take seriously to make a conclusion of the form 'x is true' it should be 'if y_1, y_2...y_n are true, then x is true'.


Hi, just like to talk up a few things with you here. I dont want an argument etc (sophist); just a conversation with two people who are interested in the subject, so to speak. You may have a better understanding of the many deductions, dogmas and epistemological stand points etc etc.

When you say the whole lot save for a few, who would you include in the few? Popper, Aristotle? When i read through his Ethics along time back, he doesnt just go over and explain his reasoning, he practically spends the whole book re-addressing each and every point continuously with every other idea or polemic he comes across. 'Long-winded' isn't even getting near how tedious it can get, but throughly captivating neither the less.

To Descartes. The guy was so Rational, seeing the empirical world around his, 'I am' with such critical scrutiny; that when his much loved and cherished daughter Francine died at an early age, he constructed a doll and named it Francine. He was forever to have a strange attachment to it, believing it to be his daughter. So is said. But his, 'I think, therefore, i am'; can, many have argued and claimed - such as Heideggers' Dasien - be broken down to an extent. As he already assumes what it is his doing is 'thinking'. Really it should be 'I think, i think therefore... yet ultimately all this is assumption. 'I am', seems to be the only certainty. 'I think', been a premise.

Schopenhauers' World of Will and Interpretation (or idea) was one of the first books i read on the subject of philosophy, more to find out about Kant. The only thing i remember about reading it was that i tended to stand looking at paintings alot longer, trying to find 'the idea'. :D

Nietzsche. He claimed that to write vaguely would intrigue the reader and make you somewhat of a enigma. As we see today, his highly known. (possibly Hitler helped this along). But with him he trys to cover his back too much for my liking, alluring to how his purposefully been paradoxical at every turn. Then people say he only wrote like he did to avoid been of English composition. But i wouldn't call him an idiot. More a good philosophical historian, who wrote beautifully and engagingly on the subject. Of course, he stole each and everything he wrote down. If not from the Greeks than anyone else.

[edit] Have to add Spinoza. I havent read him, though his apparently one of these religious sort that created a philosophy that is almost irrefutable in a monotheism (one god like) sense, and jolly. Remind me again of Dostoevsky.

frublz wrote:

- nihilism
- the idea that inherently, meaning cannot exist (somewhat part of nihilism)
- quantum immortality
- string theory (yes, this is philosophy and not physics)
- the resolution of the paradox 'No truth exist, this sentence is not true' (I cannot believe serious philosophers fall for this paradox, it shows their grand ineptness to reason)

And I really have no idea who first came with these concepts.


I have an interest also in these subjects, to an extent. Sartre (Mr "Hell is other people." - great quote), although he denied it, read alot of Nietzsche. As his Being and Nothingness is all about trying to prove Nihilism. His conclusions apparently tend to be not strong enough. Doubt works both ways in a dualistic sense. Such as the argument that by denying God your already alluding to the existence of God by denying him. As you say, with the paradox 'No truth exists, this sentence is not true'. But i have great difficulty articulating around these postulates, thats why i let Dost do it for me. He is wiser.

Quantum Immortality. Highly interested in this subject also. Though it can be seem as a recourse back to a religious mentality, or simply a human need. That science is creating myths of its own, such as different theories, different theisms in pagan times. Quantum Immortality is basically stating that theres an infinite amount of 'Yous' in parallel universes that did things differently than you did. It goes on to suggest that Death itself is a metaphysical myth. When a person dies they are really just transfering dimensions into the nearest split reality, or circuit rather, where they assume the body (or brain) of the other "them." But this transfer is not experienced because it happens too fast, nor is a memory of the previous body retained in the restored consciousness.

To get tricky.

For each nanosecond of existence there are an infinite amount of universes being created. How. For every moment that there exists an alternative to an event, there must also exist, a reality where that alternative actually happened, and, like its counterpart, is functioning perfectly. When an event occurs, its alternative occurs simultaneously and branches off into a new dimension. When a death happens in one of these realities the consciousness enters the nearest reality branch and assumes that reality. Been that there is only a finite amount space in an infinite time span within each dimension of itself, that death will as eventually be repeated. So on and so forth.

It kinda follows on from the Bohr approach to Quantum Mechanics. A philosophical problem with the Many Worlds theorums, backed up with long maths and studies done in superposition theory. Your then left with the problem of been immortal, condemned to live forever....

Quote:
This is what is sad when one contemplates human life, that so many live out their lives in quiet lostness . . . they live, as it were, away from themselves and vanish like shadows. Their immortal souls are blown away, and they are not disquieted by the question of its immortality, because they are already disintegrated before they die.


Kierkegaard.


Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:38 am
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

frublz wrote:
- the resolution of the paradox 'No truth exist, this sentence is not true' (I cannot believe serious philosophers fall for this paradox, it shows their grand ineptness to reason)

Well, I think Foucault would go through this in a quite lovely way without denying himself.

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:02 pm
Profile
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:44 pm
Posts: 895
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Reply with quote
Post 

frublz wrote:
AnneGwish wrote:
I love Theodor Adorno because of his writings on Postmodernism, kitsch and high art and culture in general. He said reason has become irrational, that all we care about is how to achieve our goals without even reflecting upon the nature of the goal itself (instrumentalized reason). I mean, everthing he wrote is absolutely relevant, I can't even sum it up here.
I can't take anyone who writes such as that and calls it 'philosophy' seriously, I have of course not read it but I am pretty sure that work does not give its deduction and reasoning. The problem with this kind of 'continental' and pretty much præscriptive philosophy is that you can either agree with it, or not. You cannot analyse its reasoning, its methods, its deduction, build further on it. It are just someone's hunches written down. Mostly just a subjective opinion. A review about society how this site reviews doom metal. I am against conclusions, and certainly against conclusions without reasoning. A good work does not say 'This is true', it says 'If this is true, than that is true.' pretty much like mathematics. Only if the axioms are true, then everything derived from them is also true. Anyone is free to add or remove an axiom, which creates a new set of conditional truths.



If you haven't read Adorno I suggest that making a judgement on his work based upon my extremely simplistic (not so say poor) summary is quite possibly not the way to go.

_________________
Whoopdeefuckingdoo.


Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:05 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post 

AnneGwish wrote:
frublz wrote:
AnneGwish wrote:
I love Theodor Adorno because of his writings on Postmodernism, kitsch and high art and culture in general. He said reason has become irrational, that all we care about is how to achieve our goals without even reflecting upon the nature of the goal itself (instrumentalized reason). I mean, everthing he wrote is absolutely relevant, I can't even sum it up here.
I can't take anyone who writes such as that and calls it 'philosophy' seriously, I have of course not read it but I am pretty sure that work does not give its deduction and reasoning. The problem with this kind of 'continental' and pretty much præscriptive philosophy is that you can either agree with it, or not. You cannot analyse its reasoning, its methods, its deduction, build further on it. It are just someone's hunches written down. Mostly just a subjective opinion. A review about society how this site reviews doom metal. I am against conclusions, and certainly against conclusions without reasoning. A good work does not say 'This is true', it says 'If this is true, than that is true.' pretty much like mathematics. Only if the axioms are true, then everything derived from them is also true. Anyone is free to add or remove an axiom, which creates a new set of conditional truths.



If you haven't read Adorno I suggest that making a judgement on his work based upon my extremely simplistic (not so say poor) summary is quite possibly not the way to go.
That is because you cannot come to such conclusions with a proper reasoning because the conclusion contains terms which are not rigorously defined. This kind of terms like 'goal', 'irrational' are not properly defined and are only intuïtively comprehensionable by humans and should therefore be avoided in logical constructs. The only proper definition of 'irrational' that exists explicitly states that any human action is irrational. This is stuff which is kept simple and intuïtive and as a direct cause of that is comprehensionable for any to read without a background in the field.

EDIT: I did some mild research on him and I could not find a single reasoning behind his ideas, I could only find his ideas, not how he derived them.

Kesh: I will get into you tomorrow, you've clearly done your homework and I only had two hours of sleep.


Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:12 pm
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:44 pm
Posts: 895
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Reply with quote
Post 

frublz wrote:
AnneGwish wrote:
frublz wrote:
AnneGwish wrote:
I love Theodor Adorno because of his writings on Postmodernism, kitsch and high art and culture in general. He said reason has become irrational, that all we care about is how to achieve our goals without even reflecting upon the nature of the goal itself (instrumentalized reason). I mean, everthing he wrote is absolutely relevant, I can't even sum it up here.
I can't take anyone who writes such as that and calls it 'philosophy' seriously, I have of course not read it but I am pretty sure that work does not give its deduction and reasoning. The problem with this kind of 'continental' and pretty much præscriptive philosophy is that you can either agree with it, or not. You cannot analyse its reasoning, its methods, its deduction, build further on it. It are just someone's hunches written down. Mostly just a subjective opinion. A review about society how this site reviews doom metal. I am against conclusions, and certainly against conclusions without reasoning. A good work does not say 'This is true', it says 'If this is true, than that is true.' pretty much like mathematics. Only if the axioms are true, then everything derived from them is also true. Anyone is free to add or remove an axiom, which creates a new set of conditional truths.



If you haven't read Adorno I suggest that making a judgement on his work based upon my extremely simplistic (not so say poor) summary is quite possibly not the way to go.
That is because you cannot come to such conclusions with a proper reasoning because the conclusion contains terms which are not rigorously defined. This kind of terms like 'goal', 'irrational' are not properly defined and are only intuïtively comprehensionable human and should therefore be avoid in logical constructs. The only proper definition of 'irrational' that exists explicitly states that any human action is irrational. This is stuff which is kept simple and intuïtive and as a direct cause of that is comprehensionable for any to read without a background in the field.

Kesh: I will get into you tomorrow, you've clearly done your homework and I only had two hours of sleep.


I'm just an art student who uses philosophical texts to understand art history, practice and theory. I cannot use those terms in a way that is not intuitive; I use Adorno, Foucauld, Baudrillard and others as mere tools, and not to study them deeply. So you can't expect me to describe Adorno's ouvre like a philosophy student would because I don't have the necessary skills nor do I need to.

_________________
Whoopdeefuckingdoo.


Last edited by AnneGwish on Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:17 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post 

AnneGwish wrote:
frublz wrote:
AnneGwish wrote:
frublz wrote:
AnneGwish wrote:
I love Theodor Adorno because of his writings on Postmodernism, kitsch and high art and culture in general. He said reason has become irrational, that all we care about is how to achieve our goals without even reflecting upon the nature of the goal itself (instrumentalized reason). I mean, everthing he wrote is absolutely relevant, I can't even sum it up here.
I can't take anyone who writes such as that and calls it 'philosophy' seriously, I have of course not read it but I am pretty sure that work does not give its deduction and reasoning. The problem with this kind of 'continental' and pretty much præscriptive philosophy is that you can either agree with it, or not. You cannot analyse its reasoning, its methods, its deduction, build further on it. It are just someone's hunches written down. Mostly just a subjective opinion. A review about society how this site reviews doom metal. I am against conclusions, and certainly against conclusions without reasoning. A good work does not say 'This is true', it says 'If this is true, than that is true.' pretty much like mathematics. Only if the axioms are true, then everything derived from them is also true. Anyone is free to add or remove an axiom, which creates a new set of conditional truths.



If you haven't read Adorno I suggest that making a judgement on his work based upon my extremely simplistic (not so say poor) summary is quite possibly not the way to go.
That is because you cannot come to such conclusions with a proper reasoning because the conclusion contains terms which are not rigorously defined. This kind of terms like 'goal', 'irrational' are not properly defined and are only intuïtively comprehensionable human and should therefore be avoid in logical constructs. The only proper definition of 'irrational' that exists explicitly states that any human action is irrational. This is stuff which is kept simple and intuïtive and as a direct cause of that is comprehensionable for any to read without a background in the field.

Kesh: I will get into you tomorrow, you've clearly done your homework and I only had two hours of sleep.


I'm just an art student who usea philosophical texts to understand art history, practice and theory. I cannot use those terms in a ways that is not intuitive, I use Adorno, Foucauld, Baudrillard and others as mere tools, and not to study them deeply. So you can't expect me to describe Adorno's ouvre like a philosophy student would because I don't have the necessary skills nor do I need to.
Ah yes, I understand. But do not get me wrong, as I feel that most philosophy students fail at logical construct as well. I have been in debate with several of them and they kept making logical fallacies in their defence of for instance platonic realism. And that is my critique on a great deal of philosophy, its reasoning often contains subtle flaws, or is simply not præsent at all. Like the ever returning argument against error theorism (nihilism) that 'There is no truth, therefore, this sentence is not true.', this is supposedly a contradiction and therefore nihilism cannot be true. However the simple refute to this is that they have used things from outside nihilism, mainly ' not true equals false'. Surely this would be a valid logical step in nearly every system, since most work with the binary of true and false. That is to say, every statement is either true of false, so if something is not true, it must be false. This however would also not work if one works in a tertiary system, which contains that every statement is either true, false, or another thing. Then you also may not conclude that it is false if it is given to not be true. Nihilism however works in a monoform system. Namely, 'everything is neither true, nor false, but something else, which is denoted as _ often. In nihilism, it is a valid logical step to in any case conclude from any statement that it is not true. And many philosophers have actually used that argument to supposedly prove the inconsistency of nihilism, also those philosophy students. In fact, one can virtually construct the whole of nihilist notions from releasing the true/fase system of normal logic and replacing it with uniform _. This type of logic is wholly useless to describe or compute anything which is relevant to human progress but it is completely consistent and seems to describe the universe flawlessly.


Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:39 pm
Forum User

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:55 pm
Posts: 159
Reply with quote
Post 

Quote:
Kesh: I will get into you tomorrow, you've clearly done your homework and I only had two hours of sleep.



Used to take it as homework to an extent. Until, it no longer seemed of any use. Must have turned pragmatic.


Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:21 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:38 am
Posts: 53
Reply with quote
Post 

99% of philosophy is meaningless to me.

I have a special hatred for nihilism and existentialism.


Tue May 13, 2008 12:29 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:49 pm
Posts: 30
Reply with quote
Post 

i believe , nietzche , he said good things ... freud for his "illness in the culture" ... and psychanalysis ... i love kant ideas too ... and socrate talks true .

_________________
http://www.myspace.com/cloudsofpain


Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:43 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

Lately I've been going through some Wittgenstein (Philosophical investigations) and skimmed through some Foucault on bio-power. Nice stuff...

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:22 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:55 pm
Posts: 159
Reply with quote
Post 

Havent read much of Foucault yet. Going through a mix of Huxley, Dostoevsky short stories and Goethe's way of science. Wittgenstein quotes Geothe's maxim in his PI: 'Don't look for anything behind the phenomena; they themselves are the theory.'


Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:38 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:25 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Wish it was Greece
Reply with quote
Post 

I have no, there 's kaos(chaos) into me, I cant find my seld, some times I like X sometimes Y , so I have no Favourite Philosophers, one day it can be Nitche other Socatis, one day it can be Platho other some guy from my university

_________________
Life is to short for LOVE
Because there are to many great wines to try

GATE7(Thira7)

PS my english are poor, sorry about it hope you figure out what I try to write


Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:23 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:30 pm
Posts: 142
Location: Goat's Hoof, NJ
Reply with quote
Post 

Alan Watts is the shit.

I've been listening to his lectures off and on for years, and remains a favorite.
He was brought up protestant in the C of E , but was heavily influenced by meditation and Zen Buddhism in his younger years, going on to become (what i think) a major figure in bridging Eastern and Western thought.

His angle, though is unique IMO. Instead of coming of as some distant philosopher, he relates to his audience in a very modern and accessible fashion, something I never find in other sources on Zen. Concepts are studied in layman's terms with pregnant metaphors that are easily recognizable.

I whole-heartedly endorse him.

_________________
SaturnDescendS Blog + Sounds

Thee Dungeon Ov Thee Dooomed Thread


Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:45 pm
Profile WWW
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:04 pm
Posts: 30
Reply with quote
Post 

I'm absolutly fascinated by the imense lack of notion of philosophy is about that i see in all this comments. Some read Nietzche, Marleu-Ponty, Witgenstein, Adorno, and a lot more, but it seems that doesn't understand the point of what is philosophy, and what are the major interests of philosophy, and the transformation that ocurred in the history of Philosophy. What is the point of reading a book, and show a immense culture, when you dont understand the real essence of what is being told, and if you lack the vocabulary that can be helpfull in understanding what really is being told. It is like someone that is interested in reading a medieval manuscript and doesn't know nothing about paleography, or doesn't know latin, how can you understand that manuscript?

But i can put here a question that you can think by yoursel and if you want you can put your personal answer. it is possible to think in a truly philosophical way about doom metal, funeral doom? There are philosophical questions, and philosophical problems in this type of music? Dare to answer, and " sapere aude".


Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:14 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:40 pm
Posts: 193
Location: Florida, USA
Reply with quote
Post 

silencioeterno wrote:
But i can put here a question that you can think by yoursel and if you want you can put your personal answer. it is possible to think in a truly philosophical way about doom metal, funeral doom? There are philosophical questions, and philosophical problems in this type of music? Dare to answer, and " sapere aude".

I am astonished by the lack of grammar and spelling on forums. Maybe you can rephrase your sentences into proper questions since you have such an immense understanding of knowledge. I am no English major but the lack of clear thought, structure and spelling of your post is ridiculous. Forgive me if on the other hand that you are not proficient in english or grammar being of foreign origin.............................. :)


Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:45 pm
Profile WWW
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

V-GER wrote:
I am astonished by the lack of grammar and spelling on forums. Maybe you can rephrase your sentences into proper questions since you have such an immense understanding of knowledge. I am no English major but the lack of clear thought, structure and spelling of your post is ridiculous. Forgive me if on the other hand that you are not proficient in english or grammar being of foreign origin.............................. :)

I'd like to defend the dude. Grammar and formal language rules are just limits to the unbelievably fascinating, free and beautiful flow of thoughts.

Image

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:12 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:40 pm
Posts: 193
Location: Florida, USA
Reply with quote
Post 

Well Worm, I thought he was a bit hypocritical especially when he says people have a lack of vocabulary to understand things. So according to you and silencio, using 100 dollar words while not spelling them right or using them improperly in a sentence is o.k. with this logic? Makes no sense to me!
Also having a basic understanding of grammar and spelling and using these parameters only makes you convey your thoughts so I don't see a problem at all. In regards to songwriting, poetry and other literary works I defintely see your point.
Oh and here is an appropriate image back at ya!
Image


Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:38 pm
Profile WWW
Forum User

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:56 pm
Posts: 317
Location: Arizona
Reply with quote
Post 

i like huxley lately. also, scott adams (the guy who created dilbert) wrote a pretty good book called god's debris. i certainly don't agree with most of the ideas illustrated in the book, but i do agree with many of them (for instance, that the mind is used as a filter from the infinite complexity and abundance of all things going on around us at any given moment). i love huxley because he was a strong advocate of free thought and psychedelic use, and wrote deeply on the human ability of all-knowing and the mind's nature as a filter from the world, rather than a window unto the world.

my all-time favorite philosopher is jesus christ, though.

_________________
funn! O)))


Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:47 am
Profile WWW
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

V-GER wrote:
Well Worm, I thought he was a bit hypocritical especially when he says people have a lack of vocabulary to understand things. So according to you and silencio, using 100 dollar words while not spelling them right or using them improperly in a sentence is o.k. with this logic? Makes no sense to me!
Also having a basic understanding of grammar and spelling and using these parameters only makes you convey your thoughts so I don't see a problem at all. In regards to songwriting, poetry and other literary works I defintely see your point.
Oh and here is an appropriate image back at ya!

How has philosophy to differ in language rules from poetry, songwriting and so, apart from the fact that there are certain content-wise or methodological rules on how to argue, as well as some professional jargon / terminology? I understand that without something I would refer to as very foundational basis of language (e.g. the forms that make language a language, no matter how vague the term is itself), it's difficult to communicate ideas, but if you ignore the more marginal rules of the language, it's still not difficult to be understood despite making changes in the more advanced grammar to your benefit?
Well, the post wasn't actually referring to the hypocrisy of the guy posting before, (indeed, he should listen to the first S.O.D. album before posting next time) I was just trying to give a disagreement about some very formal details. I would in fact agree that skills in grammar may be useful, however, but if you operationalize them, at the very same time they do become limits of the same extent.
And going back to the image war, to try to illustrate my argument:
Image

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.