All of you have it wrong

Palomar · 2004-09-18 07:19:51

*Cobra: Yes, that's probably fair.

I think it ultimately boils down to 2 world views:

1. Rape happens. It's happened throughout human history and likely will always happen. Get used to it. If it happens to you, accept that it's part of human behavior -- lay back and enjoy it. [ :down: ]

2. It happens, but it doesn't have to be accepted nor tolerated. Laws can be created and enforced to protect those most targeted for such behavior; punishment by those laws may curb such behavior in some people tempted to commit rape, even though said laws and punishment won't entirely stop/prevent rape.

I know which one I prefer.

>>There's also a reason I avoid a busy intersection if the streetlights have gone on the lam.<<

Can I toss Ayn Rand into the picture? I think she was right when she said quite a few people show a definite lack of healthy self-love by their very behaviors. She gave an example of Germans (some Germans...not all, of course) during the Hitler era saying they'd gladly suffer pain, affliction and self-sacrifice in order to please/serve the Fuhrer. If she's right that a lot of people don't love themselves to the point of seeking self-protection and preservation, it logically follows that they don't give a hoot about society and civilization.

I don't want a world of endless bloody upheavals, unthinking brute actions, an endless writhing mass of bitter struggle and etc. We have brains, the ability to reason, the ability to think BEFORE acting -- it's a matter of using and exercising those capabilities or being unthinking and intellectually lazy. Laws are necessary, unfortunately, to keep the human race from entirely destroying itself (considering many people already have self-destructive tendencies). I'd rather have laws based on reason, justice, equity, etc. (Western world) than laws based on superstition and religious dogma (Middle East).

It's all about choices, right? And consequences.

Gennaro, you make an interesting comment about preferring truth to "noble lies." What is a lie depends on how one defines truth. Also, new trends in thought (whether new 250 years ago or today) might not necessarily be "lies" (could be good intentions gone bad, sincere/well-intended but misguided thinking), etc.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-18 07:42:05

I'm in general agreement with your "2 world views" example Cindy, and firmly in the second group. All I'm saying is that we need to recognize that all our laws, justice and noble concepts of rights are entirely our own creation. Take away armed people who believe in the rightness of those ideas and who are willing to enforce them and they cease to be for any practical concern.

What was this thread about initially? :hm:

Gennaro · 2004-09-23 20:39:28

Gennaro, you make an interesting comment about preferring truth to "noble lies." What is a lie depends on how one defines truth. Also, new trends in thought (whether new 250 years ago or today) might not necessarily be "lies" (could be good intentions gone bad, sincere/well-intended but misguided thinking), etc.

Outdated forms of thought only become lies if you stick to them against better judgement. The worldview of Dr Pangloss, Leibniz and Alexander Pope, where everything that is, is there for a god-given reason, and (speaking with Rousseau, my main adversary) is corruptable possibly only by man herself as she enstranges herself from nature, came natural to an age where the world was still seen as more or less a couple of thousand years old, divine creation was not seriously disputed and the perception of status quo was basically as fixed as an antique column.
Some of this began gradually to be challenged during the Enlightenment epoch itself, of course.

As for theory of knowledge (I'm not sure I use the correct English term here, it's a direct translation), I fundamentally proceed from Immanuel Kant. There is your view of things, my view of things and the thing in itself.
:;):

Morris · 2004-09-24 04:48:42

Which is not to say the state can arbitrarily abridge them, accepting the idea of rights entails full adherence, otherwise it's meaningless.

???? Huh? If rights depend on the state, then why can't the state arbitrarily abridge them? Even the possibility of critisizing the position that "rights are what the state says they are" implies a frame of reference broader than the state. As I indicated earlier in this thread, the idea of rights is made with reference to some system of ideas. The idea of a state is only a part, perhaps even a small part, of such a system.

And no, accepting the idea of a right does not entail full adherence anymore than a religious conception of what is "right" automatically entails full adherence. In fact, the existence of "right actions" despite injustice (violations of our expectations based upon what the system says is right) is one of the primary issues that religions address.

Thanks to Cindy for bringing up Ayn Rand. She is a prime example of an atheist philosopher who has a very sophisticated concept of natural rights.

As far as full adherence goes, the important thing is to understand is that man does not fully understand his own nature. This is especially obvious in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the area of genetics and genetic expression of behavioral tendencies. The fact that we do not fully understand them does not mean that they are not there. In a similar manner we will eventually discover more and more about what patterns of action are most suitable for man. Allowing man to work intensely in his own self-interest while not allowing him to interfere with his neighbor's right to work in his own self-interest led to a stronger economy and a more peaceful state. Socially, this concept is simply a better mousetrap, as even communist nations have discovered.

No doubt increasingly sophisticated modifications of this idea will occur in the future as we try more experiments and learn more about ourselves. It may even be found to be subordinate to (a special case of) some other concept. Just as quantum mechanics extended Newtonian physics without invalidating it within its own boundaries, so we may well expect to improve upon Enlightenment conceptions of rights, social contracts, etc. But you can't go backwards and invalidate them for all situations because they have proven themselves objectively better for producing healthy, prosperous societies than the previous alternatives, just as Newtonian physics still makes very accurate predictions when operating within its own boundary conditions.

Morris · 2004-09-24 05:25:00

As for theory of knowledge (I'm not sure I use the correct English term here, it's a direct translation), I fundamentally proceed from Immanuel Kant. There is your view of things, my view of things and the thing in itself.
:;):

Theory of knowledge is also what we call it, alternatively giving it the name epistemology. How do you reconcile Kant and existentialism?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-24 05:41:48

Huh? If rights depend on the state, then why can't the state arbitrarily abridge them?

There is a duality to the concept of individual rights. They depend on the state in a practical sense, without a state framework to support those rights they don't exist. However, in supporting the concept of rights the state must adhere to them fully without abridgement, for if it selectively respects the rights which it claims to uphold they cease to be rights at all and become priveleges. This is a fine distinction as rights are dependent on the state and are in a sense priveleges of the state that adheres to them, but they can only be considered rights if the foundation of the state believes them to be, even though the state itself is the foundation of their existence.

Yeah, I know. A fuzzy argument, but there it is.

Rights cannot exist in a practical sense outside the state, but the state cannot claim to uphold individual rights while selectively violating them without invalidating the entire concept.

Individual rights are a good and noble idea, and are well served by believing they are natural, endowed by nature, God or whatever other source suits you. But the cold reality is that they depend entirely on the apparatus of a state holding those concepts, otherwise they are nothing more than words on a page. Were there truly natural rights we would all simply have them. The fact that they are so lacking in the world is evidence enough of their dependence on fragile social contracts.

Gennaro · 2004-09-24 06:14:22

Morris wrote:

How do you reconcile Kant and existentialism?

I'm not sure I understand your question (although I can guess). Would you please elaborate?

Morris · 2004-09-25 07:02:25

Rights cannot exist in a practical sense outside the state, but the state cannot claim to uphold individual rights while selectively violating them without invalidating the entire concept.

If we make a slight change, I could agree with much of what you say. Rights cannot exist outside a belief system. The state is only one such belief system. The prime example of rights existing outside states is where religious systems grow up in a state foreign to them. Once again, Christianity and the early Roman Empire are prime examples. The religious belief system may be very strong (and therefore a practical consideration) even in a state which opposes it.

Were there truly natural rights we would all simply have them. The fact that they are so lacking in the world is evidence enough of their dependence on fragile social contracts.

This appears to be the primary point on which we differ. Rights may exist as ideal social arrangements even though they are only partially practiced. The ideal doesn't change, even though practices do. In an evolutionary model, we will come to have a clearer and clearer idea of the detailed nature of these ideal arrangements as we discover more and more about our own nature.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-25 08:44:59

If we make a slight change, I could agree with much of what you say. Rights cannot exist outside a belief system. The state is only one such belief system...

Only if all parties accept the premise of that belief system. If you and ten other people exist in a perfect state of nature and hold the belief in all the individual rights we hold dear then all is well. Until a bear comes along, or some thug with a rifle who doesn't think too highly of these 'rights' he keeps hearing about.

If there is no state to safeguard them, they're just an agreement between people, and therefore only really apply within that context.

This appears to be the primary point on which we differ. Rights may exist as ideal social arrangements even though they are only partially practiced. The ideal doesn't change, even though practices do.

So it seems that the real point of difference we have is that I don't believe an ideal exists in any meaningful, practical sense. Ideally we wouldn't have war and suffering, but if wishes were fishes as they say...

Morris · 2004-09-25 19:36:17

If there is no state to safeguard them, they're just an agreement between people, and therefore only really apply within that context.

Even a state is only an agreement between people, so ALL applications are within that context. And there are probably NO states where ALL the people agree on ALL laws, not to mention the many circumstances where one "right" or "law" conflicts with another in a particular circumstance. Rights do NOT require unanimity in order to exist, as your own example of state-defined rights makes clear.

BTW, I have repeatedly admitted the practical VALUE of embodying rights in governmental organizations; I only point out that it is not NECESSARY in order to define rights.

So it seems that the real point of difference we have is that I don't believe an ideal exists in any meaningful, practical sense. Ideally we wouldn't have war and suffering, but if wishes were fishes as they say...

Sorry to disrupt your dream world, but ideals exist in many highly practical senses. In fact, most of modern physics is expressed in the form of ideals which NEVER exist in reality, e.g. Newton's laws of motion [a body in motion will remain in uniform rectilinear motion unless acted upon by some outside force], the gas laws, etc. In fact, those very useful principles could never have even been formulated except in their ideal forms. In fact, as the English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once commented, "The negative judgement [stripping away the real to reveal the ideal form that lies beneath] is the peak of mentality." This same process, so useful in the natural sciences, can also be applied to the social/behavioral sciences.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-26 10:30:44

Even a state is only an agreement between people, so ALL applications are within that context.

Yes, and a state has the means to enforce the 'rights' agreed on, making them real in a practical sense.

Sorry to disrupt your dream world, but ideals exist in many highly practical senses. In fact, most of modern physics is expressed in the form of ideals which NEVER exist in reality, e.g. Newton's laws of motion [a body in motion will remain in uniform rectilinear motion unless acted upon by some outside force], the gas laws, etc. In fact, those very useful principles could never have even been formulated except in their ideal forms.

With all due respect, you're reaching now. Physics and some philosophical concept of 'rights' are not comparable. We can ignore the rights of others whenever it suits us.

EDIT:: What this disagreement really comes down to is simply that I do not believe that an abstract philosphical construct exists in any meaningful or quantifiable sense on its own. "Natural rights" is an oxymoron, rights don't exist in nature, only in human societies that accept them on a basic level. Arguing that they exist or have any meaning outside that context strikes me as a rather flimsy position requiring a great deal of rationalization.

Can one appeal to the universe for violations of natural rights? No.
Can rights be violated by man with ease? Yes.
How much does the "right to free assembly" weigh?
???

Seems like something with a rather weak claim to indepedent existence. But then philosophy is prone to such disagreements.

Morris · 2004-09-27 18:59:12

EDIT:: What this disagreement really comes down to is simply that I do not believe that an abstract philosphical construct exists in any meaningful or quantifiable sense on its own. Arguing that they exist or have any meaning outside that context strikes me as a rather flimsy position requiring a great deal of rationalization.
Can one appeal to the universe for violations of natural rights? No.
Can rights be violated by man with ease? Yes.
How much does the "right to free assembly" weigh?
???
Seems like something with a rather weak claim to indepedent existence. But then philosophy is prone to such disagreements.

Yes, and a state has the means to enforce the 'rights' agreed on, making them real in a practical sense.

I believe that state enforcement is the weakest application of rights. The strongest are those that are voluntarily respected because personally agreed on. If you don't believe me ask the early Christians, Lech Walesa, George Washington, Pope Jean-Paul II, etc.

With all due respect, you're reaching now. Physics and some philosophical concept of 'rights' are not comparable. We can ignore the rights of others whenever it suits us.

Not without penalty. Statistically, over a long period of time, some conceptions of rights work a lot better than others.

"Natural rights" is an oxymoron, rights don't exist in nature, only in human societies that accept them on a basic level.

Well, if there are at least two sentient species with languages that allow the discussion of "rights" then we dispell the human limitation immediately. It is more the level of cognition that allows them to be discussed than a restriction to humanity. As modern complexity theorists, and others, have been telling us, "emergence" is a very real property of complex, and some not so complex, systems.

mr mirana · 2004-09-28 04:15:20

Food for thought-

http://www.panarchy.org/spencer/ignore. … .1851.html

Or how about -

http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/ … treas.html

mr mirana · 2004-09-28 04:58:21

'All of you have it wrong.'

First law of science, first law of life - 'Beware of premature certainty.'

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-28 11:04:14

I believe that state enforcement is the weakest application of rights. The strongest are those that are voluntarily respected because personally agreed on.

That's perfectly valid. It's essentially what I was arguing to start with though, that rights exist only as an agreement between individuals.

Not without penalty. Statistically, over a long period of time, some conceptions of rights work a lot better than others.

It depends on how one defines "work" and "better", there are few absolutes.

Well, if there are at least two sentient species with languages that allow the discussion of "rights" then we dispell the human limitation immediately. It is more the level of cognition that allows them to be discussed than a restriction to humanity.

A nit-picky distinction, but yes, sentience and ability to communicate ideas is what's important in this case.

Point for Morris.

Welcome, Mr Mirana, I'll look over those links. I know I've read the "no treason" essay before but it's been a few years.

mr mirana · 2004-09-29 04:19:06

Thanks for the welcome, Cobra Commander ( scary crew-cut name! ).

http://www.trans4mind.com/persona....ime.htm]http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/GeneralSemantics/Ken'sEPrime.htm]http://www.trans4mind.com/persona....ime.htm

Morris · 2004-09-29 14:09:04

Not without penalty. Statistically, over a long period of time, some conceptions of rights work a lot better than others.
It depends on how one defines "work" and "better", there are few absolutes.

Well the most straightforward definitions are survival of the particular concept of rights and its social embodiments in an evolutionary sense.

As for there being few absolutes, I'm not so certain. George Miller, for many years a prominent Harvard psychologist, believed that behavior follows "higher order invariants" which are extremely subtle. However, when the invariance is discovered and defined, then what appeared to be very complex, even chaotic, becomes clear. A good example of this is the physical descriptions of phonemes in human languages.

From an evolutionary standpoint, there is an empirical component to ethics. However, just as in the natural sciences there may well be a critical formal component as well.

Morris · 2004-09-29 14:15:22

Food for thought-
http://www.panarchy.org/spencer/ignore. … .1851.html
Or how about -
http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/ … treas.html

Thanks for the very interesting articles. While I am not a libertarian of the anarchist stripe, I certainly think that the relevant arguments need the same degree of (but hopefully more sophisticated) examination that thay did in the late 1800s.

Morris · 2004-09-29 14:24:59

Thanks for the welcome, Cobra Commander ( scary crew-cut name! ).
http://www.trans4mind.com/persona....ime.htm]http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/GeneralSemantics/Ken'sEPrime.htm]http://www.trans4mind.com/persona....ime.htm

And add my welcome as well!

As far as the current link goes, I am happy to see that general semantics is alive and well. Science and Sanity was one of the transforming books of my intellectual life. Of course, it is very influential in many forms of psychotherapy. The influence is especially strong in Albert Ellis' Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy.

Just reading a couple of books in this area can help avoid all sorts of linguistic pseudo-problems. But don't spread the word too widely. It might reduce the number of posts on the forum and the steam generated by them <wink><grin>.

mr mirana · 2004-09-30 05:53:59

Thanks for the welcome, Morris. I haven't tracked down a copy of Science and Sanity yet, though I found a great deal of info on Korzybski online. I came to the subject mainly through Robert Anton Wilson via Aleister Crowley. Another influence that I hold responsible for my less panic-stricken response to the world these days, Buckminster Fuller. Anyway, I won't get off topic here - these library computers do not exactly race along when the system gets busy so I'll try to contribute more and more thoughtfully when I get more time. Incidentally, my anarchist tendencies constitute a pretty recent development as far as actually thinking about the subject goes, mainly due to an excellent book, Demanding the Impossible by Peter Marshall to which my response was a horrified, 'Why did I never hear any of this stuff in school??' I always look closely at anything that provokes such a reaction. Interesting too that complexity and emergence get mentioned in this thread, I just started reading Capra's The Hidden Connections. Most interesting.

Morris · 2004-09-30 06:26:35

Thanks for the welcome, Morris. I haven't tracked down a copy of Science and Sanity yet, though I found a great deal of info on Korzybski online. I came to the subject mainly through Robert Anton Wilson via Aleister Crowley. Another influence that I hold responsible for my less panic-stricken response to the world these days, Buckminster Fuller. Anyway, I won't get off topic here - these library computers do not exactly race along when the system gets busy so I'll try to contribute more and more thoughtfully when I get more time. Incidentally, my anarchist tendencies constitute a pretty recent development as far as actually thinking about the subject goes, mainly due to an excellent book, Demanding the Impossible by Peter Marshall to which my response was a horrified, 'Why did I never hear any of this stuff in school??' I always look closely at anything that provokes such a reaction. Interesting too that complexity and emergence get mentioned in this thread, I just started reading Capra's The Hidden Connections. Most interesting.

Yes, I enjoy Buckminster Fuller's work. It's a little hard to read, but his accomplishments make it worth it.

I also find Fritjof Capra a good popularizer of major scientific advances. I think he relates best to those who are approaching it from a "new age" perspective.

Is the Peter Marshall you are referring to the famous minister who was Chaplain of the U.S. Senate?

Remember the purpose of schools it to narrow your perspective in many important ways and expand it in only a few.

mr mirana · 2004-10-01 03:54:52

I doubt if it's the same Peter Marshal but how wonderfully funny if it was! I love the idea of a Chaplain of the US Senate becoming an anarchist historian spreading notions of revolution and free love! Never happen under Bush though...

Morris · 2004-10-01 07:00:53

I doubt if it's the same Peter Marshal but how wonderfully funny if it was! I love the idea of a Chaplain of the US Senate becoming an anarchist historian spreading notions of revolution and free love! Never happen under Bush though...

I looked it up. No, it's not the same Peter Marshall.

As far as "anarchism and free love" are concerned, those might have attracted some degree of interest for me 45 years ago, but I'm afraid that the repeated recycling of those same old things (late 1800s, 1920-30s, 1960s) produce very little that seems to have the potential for real growth and constructive change.

Maybe the young will find a new combination that works. Certainly some of the anarchistic critiques should be studied in philosophy, history, and government courses because they do raise issues that need to be dealt with. However, the solutions they provide tend to be utopian. In reading the Spencer essay you referenced I was amused that he was describing the "withering away of the state" from an anarcho-capitalist perspective and Marx used the same concept later from a socialist perspective. I do, however, agree with Spencer's observation that the idea of a state is so attractive to most people that it won't be given up until the need for it is long past! Like the American Federalists, Spencer had a very good grasp of human nature.

mr mirana · 2004-10-03 05:56:09

I tend to think that the 'withering away of the state' seems inevitable as the move toward a globally connected culture occurs, since movement of capital and resources for global benefit would tend to get obstructed by nation-states whose primary concerns were local: and that movement of capital and resources more and more falls under the control of corporate entities which recognise no national boundaries. In Martian terms, any Martian civilisation - and for this I assume a terraformed and colonised Mars - would have an advantageous position in that people arriving on the planet would, I hope, tend to see it as one world without borders and therefore have a common interest in avoiding the territorial squabbles that have afflicted Earth in the process of it's development. Martian civilisation would start off unified.My inner-optimist hopes so. The bitter and cynical part of me believes that humans will take their primate territoriality with them wherever they go and the consequences will not look pretty. However, the collapse or 'withering' of nations is a fascinating subject - ever since I read HG Wells and his notions of World Government and the World Brain. If and when crunch comes I hope it occurs without any Wellsian catastrophe to precede it.Michiu Kaku touches on the subject briefly at the end of his book, 'Visions' but if anyone can recommend reading or links I'd be grateful.

I'm not sure how relevant this is, I was looking for info on Kardashev's Civilisation Types: -

http://www.darkage.fsnet.co.uk/HistoryS … ociety.htm

I just found it and haven't read it through, but it looks interesting.

Actually, this link isn't working and I can't figure out why - help! - but if you go to the 'darkage' homepage and click on 'Theory of History and Society,' you'll get the relevant page.

Morris, don't knock repeated recycling ( is that a tautology? ), it's nature's way! I know what you mean though about such notions producing very little that seems useful, but there are always pioneers whose ideas and lives achieve change gradually and by seepage, for want of a better word. Such things tend to resonate with me more on a personal level not a 'revolutionary' level. I'd make more sense here if the cleaners in the net cafe weren't scraping the chairs and talking loudly about the various inadequacies of their boyfriends!!

Incidentally, I tracked down Korzybski's Science and Sanity online, albeit in pdf format.

http://www.esgs.org.uk/art/sands.htm]ht … /sands.htm

Damn, I got the first link working but now the second one is knackered...don't put me in charge of the airlocks...

Morris · 2004-10-03 14:09:10

I'd make more sense here if the cleaners in the net cafe weren't scraping the chairs and talking loudly about the various inadequacies of their boyfriends!!
Incidentally, I tracked down Korzybski's Science and Sanity online, albeit in pdf format.
http://www.esgs.org.uk/art/sands.htm]ht … /sands.htm
Damn, I got the first link working but now the second one is knackered...don't put me in charge of the airlocks...

I tend to think that the 'withering away of the state' seems inevitable as the move toward a globally connected culture occurs, since movement of capital and resources for global benefit would tend to get obstructed by nation-states whose primary concerns were local: and that movement of capital and resources more and more falls under the control of corporate entities which recognise no national boundaries.

Certainly these factors could tend to undercut the nation-state. An interesting review of the actual and potential impacts is given in The New Barbarian Manifesto by Ian Angell.

An early science fiction novel discussing some of these implications, especially with respect to military considerations is Robert Aspirin's The Cold Cash Wars.
However, these processes may not produce a withering of the state, but tend to centralize power in a "super-state" or "world government". For some, this is the most feared possible consequence.

In Martian terms, any Martian civilisation - and for this I assume a terraformed and colonised Mars - would have an advantageous position in that people arriving on the planet would, I hope, tend to see it as one world without borders and therefore have a common interest in avoiding the territorial squabbles that have afflicted Earth in the process of it's development. Martian civilisation would start off unified.My inner-optimist hopes so.

You will find a number of people who agree with you on this board, but when I look at the pragmatics of the situation I am not hopeful. Most scientific missions would have to be financed by governments (or groups of governments like the EU) as would all military missions. Other interested parties such as religious groups or industrial operations would want a high degree of control over their own settlements. It would take an extraordinary effort to develop a set of ground rules for settlements and the current payoffs would not make it worth it for the major players to invest heavily in such an effort at present. However, I think it should be tried. Several groups (including the Mars Society) might well come up with proposed solutions to have a rapid response capability when the real negotiations begin.

Moving on to non-quoted paragraphs - thanks for making me aware of Kaku's book. The library computer shows that it's checked out but overdue so I might be able to get it soon. Also the reference for Kardashev.

Morris, don't knock repeated recycling ( is that a tautology? ), it's nature's way! I know what you mean though about such notions producing very little that seems useful, but there are always pioneers whose ideas and lives achieve change gradually and by seepage, for want of a better word. Such things tend to resonate with me more on a personal level not a 'revolutionary' level.

Yes, I think you are right about achieving change by "seepage". Then there is usually a "catastrophic" (in the mathematical sense) change when these personal changes accumulate (e.g. the Puritan Revolution and the rise of the bourgoisie).

BTW, repeated recycling is neither a tautology nor a redundancy. Recycling would refer to a single repetition, repeated recycling to multiple ones.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-09-18 07:19:51

Re: All of you have it wrong

#52 2004-09-18 07:42:05

Re: All of you have it wrong

#53 2004-09-23 20:39:28

Re: All of you have it wrong

#54 2004-09-24 04:48:42

Re: All of you have it wrong

#55 2004-09-24 05:25:00

Re: All of you have it wrong

#56 2004-09-24 05:41:48

Re: All of you have it wrong

#57 2004-09-24 06:14:22

Re: All of you have it wrong

#58 2004-09-25 07:02:25

Re: All of you have it wrong

#59 2004-09-25 08:44:59

Re: All of you have it wrong

#60 2004-09-25 19:36:17

Re: All of you have it wrong

#61 2004-09-26 10:30:44

Re: All of you have it wrong

#62 2004-09-27 18:59:12

Re: All of you have it wrong

#63 2004-09-28 04:15:20

Re: All of you have it wrong

#64 2004-09-28 04:58:21

Re: All of you have it wrong

#65 2004-09-28 11:04:14

Re: All of you have it wrong

#66 2004-09-29 04:19:06

Re: All of you have it wrong

#67 2004-09-29 14:09:04

Re: All of you have it wrong

#68 2004-09-29 14:15:22

Re: All of you have it wrong

#69 2004-09-29 14:24:59

Re: All of you have it wrong

#70 2004-09-30 05:53:59

Re: All of you have it wrong

#71 2004-09-30 06:26:35

Re: All of you have it wrong

#72 2004-10-01 03:54:52

Re: All of you have it wrong

#73 2004-10-01 07:00:53

Re: All of you have it wrong

#74 2004-10-03 05:56:09

Re: All of you have it wrong

#75 2004-10-03 14:09:10

Re: All of you have it wrong

Board footer