Clark

foadi · 2003-04-14 10:58:42

I can't read what you've said on that thread. can you repeat on this thread?

- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani

clark · 2003-04-14 10:59:44

thwe other thread is eating posts, looks like yours may have been digested already. I notified Adrian of the thread, all we can do is wait for him to reset the thread or whatever is he does.

foadi · 2003-04-14 12:39:21

Here's my reply to Josh Cryer since the other thread isn't working:

You are suggesting that as populations become bigger, a state is more and more necessary.

Josh Cryer, I just flat out said statism is never necessary in any situation. In no way did I suggest, or did George suggest that it will become more and more necessary, as population increases. From the essay:

"The more humans who live and work in a small geographic area ( cities, in other words), the more virulent the demand for an overarching statist solution to the problems that naturally arise when basically self-interested, variously skilled and talented individuals co-exist. The reason for this is quite simple - population density equals a higher crime rate without fail, due to simple logic of increased opportunity. Rather than become a responsible individual and take the precaution of creating an armed, polite society, the lazier of the population will demand regulators and heavier security administered from a central point."

Statism arises out of the laziness of individuals, not because statism is necessary. The only way to get rid of the state is to head for the frontier, and never turn back.

In any anarchistic text I have read, the argument has always been that the State exists for property, for power, etc, not because of a population problem.

Just as it was with Libertarianism, I couldn't care less about the anarchistic text you have read.

But to say that ?all? large populations are inevitably statist is to suggest that the state is necessary,

Anarchy as the natural human condition which, ironically, is why it is difficult for people to recognize. Since it is natural, it is hard to perceive; sort of like trying to explain how I walk. Over millennia of statism engulfing the planet, individuals have come accustomed to being ruled. Many are lazy. But George is not suggesting laziness causes the necessity of statism. No, he is stating, quite simply, that this laziness causes statism. Since this is the second time you have brought this up in your post, I must ask, where are you getting this from?

and I simply don't see the justification.

You don't see the justification for the incorrect assumption you made that George Potter was suggesting that the state is necessary in populations, or you don't see the justification that cities are inherently more statist than the frontier? If it is the latter, just look at every city on the planet.

You go on and define ?the market? to be almost meaningless, since under your definition anything wherein humans interacted would be ?the market.?

You've got it. What else could I mean by the market?

I'm willing to wager that your market is the same as Proudhon's Right of Increase... this is hardlyanarchistic.

I am unfamiliar with Proudhon's Right of Increase, and have no ambition of ever reading about it.

Well, I'm sorry it offends you or something,

Offend me? I was just wondering what in the hell you were talking about. I still am, "and you'll see why mommentarily."

and I'm delighted that instead of questioning the logic in my comments, you simply picked out something that you found annoying.

But Josh Cryer, I did question your logic. In the following paragraph. See? See?

It makes it a lot easier.

Questioning your logic and picking out something I found annoying is not a lot easier than just questioning your logic. I spent hours, upon hours writing that paragraph.

?We? refers to everyone who is constrained by the laws of the universe. The laws of thermodynamics, the conservation of mass, etc.
?We? refers to real economic limitations. That we can't simply ship resources to Mars, and that we mustbe resource independent.
?We,? also, to a smaller extent, refers to social limitations. That we can't really have ?poor starving people,? no matter which system you chose, because they might get this funny idea to revolt and so on.
?We? includes you whether you like it or not.

You're the most insane collectivist I have ever talked to.

And I have not once mentioned a large organization, mainly because I'm not using ?we? in that context.

Yes you are:

"How do we define property?"

"Once we have autonomous processing facilities on Mars"

Both of these imply some sort of organization. A state, if you will. They have utterly nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics, or the conservation of mass.

"Any trade systems would then be cut off or drastically reduced."

What would be stopping trade?

Where have I suggested otherwise?

You have not. You have simply expressed your desire for a system-wide collective of some sort.

I'm fairly certain anarchism canwork.

Anarchism is not something that can or cannot work. It is something that is. Government doesn't exist.

So, if we're going to pick a system, why not pick one which works?

Why do you want a system so bad?

I see no problem with what you're suggesting on the face of things, really, you can do what you want, but when you start shooting people up, you turn things into a mob state real quick, and you show hypocrasy by pretending that your system promotes liberty.

Shooting someone makes a mob state? Mob states, or majority rule states, or Democracy's, whatever you want to call them, have nothing to do with shooting someone.

Are you even reading what I'm saying? Or are you extrapolating? It could be said that I am talking of a potential empire, but that's irrelevant, the so called empire would still be constrained by the same rules.

Yes, I am reading what you're saying. You are talking about a potential empire.

I don't see how I'm ?excluding? Earth, here.

You specifically pointed out that trade between the frontier and earth would be discontinued.

Other than that we're not going to be trading much.

People will trade for whatever they want, regardless of what you think.

Since you'd be unable to profit because of my generosity, I'm sure it'd piss you off.

No I wouldn't. I would just trade with individuals from Earth. From what you make it sound like, I would be the only person doing this. There would be lots, and lots and lots of profit for me.

Especially people who I've stolen patents from and so on.

Why would you steal a worthless piece of paper?

I like how to speak of a frontieer, statelessness, anarchy and so on, but you use the Earth's markets as an example of the ?frontieer market.? You show, almost automatically, how this so called market would require a state,

Then you agree with dicktice? Human interaction requires state intervention?

you just neglect, like most "anarcho"-capitalists, to accept that a mob which protects the Right of Increase is in itself a state.

I don't know what the Right of Increase is, but I do know that the only person who can protect my property is me.

I don't see the Earth as a legitimate example, because Earth has yet to successfully expand into space via capitalistic means

Certain individuals out there are definitely trying.

Name some stuff we'd be trading and we'll see how silly it really is...

I have no idea what your totalitarian empire would be trading with Earth.

What would people who want to make a profit trade with people on Earth? Every single mineral that is rare, or not found on Earth, but is found in other parts of the solar system. I don't suppose you want a list?

This topic title was somewhat misleading, because it explicitly mentioned anarchy.

Oh--Boohoo. Get over it already.

The American anarchist is the Idiot Anarchist.

I have never met one. I honestly wouldn't know. I live in Costa Rica.

Anarchists show solidarity with the rest of the masses, this does not equate ?begging for favors.?

No, they're begging. No way out of it.

Are you saying that I'm a space lover pushing for anarchy?

No. I thought you were a nazi.

- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani

clark · 2003-04-14 12:48:39

Me thinks Foadi is a bit confused.

He said:

Josh Cryer, I just flat out said statism is never necessary in any situation.

Then you say:

Statism arises out of the laziness of individuals, not because statism is necessary. The only way to get rid of the state is to head for the frontier, and never turn back.

So Statism isn't neccessary, it's just a natural development arising from increasing individual human interaction. Hmmm, something that naturally occurs as the product of our environment is not neccessary?

I might add that fleeing from the previous situation that engenderd the statism, and thus the reason to flee, only to repeat the same system is a bit, well, short sighted, since it will create the statism all over again.

Why do you choose to be subject to a cycle you can understand? Why choose to be an animal and just react?

foadi · 2003-04-14 12:59:01

Rather than become a responsible individual and take the precaution of creating an armed, polite society, the lazier of the population will demand regulators and heavier security administered from a central point.

Just because an individual choses statism over anarchism does not mean that the state is necessary. What in the #### are you people talking about?!

- Sha'uri de la Asca

clark · 2003-04-14 13:01:32

Just because an individual choses statism over anarchism does not mean that the state is necessary.

Yet you say that 'Statism arises out of the laziness of individuals'. How is there any individual choosing statism if it is merely an abbrogation of responsibility?

Isn't staism the end product of those within any given system that choose not to take an active part within the system?

Your sentiments make sense in terms of small numbers of people, yet it is flawed as the population increases- but you point to the wrong reasons.

The reason why statis, arises is becuase *I* as an individual have not the means, nor is it effecient, for me to secure my rights with every individual. The concept of fronteirism or whatever it is you are reffering to works becuase the individual is able to hold other individuals accountable for their interactions with me.

That is not true when you deal with a great number of disembodied individuals, or groups. it's harder to hold a multi national conglomerate accountable than it is Frank, my neighbor, for their actions.

Rant all you want, your ideas aren't going anywhere. Enjoy the merry-go-round people.

foadi · 2003-04-14 13:28:12

The reason why statis, arises is becuase *I* as an individual have not the means, nor is it effecient, for me to secure my rights with every individual. The concept of fronteirism or whatever it is you are reffering to works becuase the individual is able to hold other individuals accountable for their interactions with me.

You just proved my point. The laziness derives from delegation of responsibility rather than accepting it for themself. Delegating responsibility is simply an illusion - it does not make one safe. It provides an illusion of safety.

- Sha'uri de la Asca

foadi · 2003-04-14 13:29:11

So Statism isn't neccessary, it's just a natural development arising from increasing individual human interaction. Hmmm, something that naturally occurs as the product of our environment is not neccessary?

Viruses are natural. Are the necessary? Slavery is natural. Is it necessary?

- Sha'uri de la Asca

clark · 2003-04-14 13:32:27

Delegating responsibility is simply an illusion - it does not make one safe. It provides an illusion of safety.

Illusion? Like when the paramedics come after someone has stopped breathing. Or perhaps it's an illusion when the firefighters come to put out my neighbors house.

Delgating responsibility is rationale in that it allows for greater effeciency. I do X and Bill does Y so i don't have to do Y, and Bill dosen't have to do X. Both things get done, both of us are happy. I have entrusted bill with his responsibility, and he with mine.

Reality is friggin illusion so you're gonna have to do better than that.

Spare us the trite melodramatic asserstions.

clark · 2003-04-14 13:34:57

Viruses are natural. Are the necessary?

Yes, they are. But it's not my job to teach you why.

Slavery is natural. Is it necessary?

If you can justify how slavery is natural then you are intellectualy bankrupt. it jst ain't so.

foadi · 2003-04-14 13:42:20

If you can justify how slavery is natural then you are intellectualy bankrupt. it jst ain't so.

Laziness, the weak overcoming the strong, natural selection over-riding morality, prejudice and self aggandizment, a feeling of cultural superiority. All natural. Not necessary. Nor moral. Just like the state.

foadi · 2003-04-14 13:44:56

Illusion? Like when the paramedics come after someone has stopped breathing. Or perhaps it's an illusion when the firefighters come to put out my neighbors house.
Delgating responsibility is rationale in that it allows for greater effeciency. I do X and Bill does Y so i don't have to do Y, and Bill dosen't have to do X. Both things get done, both of us are happy. I have entrusted bill with his responsibility, and he with mine.
Reality is friggin illusion so you're gonna have to do better than that.
Spare us the trite melodramatic asserstions.

Those are defense of property? Hmmm. Sounds like division of labor to me - nothing to do with delegation of self defense.

foadi · 2003-04-14 13:46:21

You are hopeless.

clark · 2003-04-14 13:47:19

Laziness, the weak overcoming the strong, natural selection over-riding morality, prejudice and self aggandizment, a feeling of cultural superiority.

Intellectually bankrupt. Meaningless. Assertion. Rationalization of behavior. Cheap justification based on a narsassitic world view. Racism. Bigotry. Ignorant. Uninspired.

Slavery isn't natural. It is the height of un-natural.

A relationship where all that is mine, is yours, and none is ever mine, is a violation of every tenet of life and natural behavior.

You offer nothing but sophistry.

clark · 2003-04-14 13:48:22

You're a twit.

Now that we both know how each other feels about the other, shall we move on?

Charno · 2003-04-14 15:38:54

Laziness, the weak overcoming the strong, natural selection over-riding morality, prejudice and self aggandizment, a feeling of cultural superiority.
Intellectually bankrupt. Meaningless. Assertion. Rationalization of behavior. Cheap justification based on a narsassitic world view. Racism. Bigotry. Ignorant. Uninspired.
Slavery isn't natural. It is the height of un-natural.
A relationship where all that is mine, is yours, and none is ever mine, is a violation of every tenet of life and natural behavior.
You offer nothing but sophistry.

hahaha. i actually agree with you guys that foadi is saying the state is inevitable in large population centers. but your responses are hilarious...

Gennaro · 2003-04-23 08:38:34

Tyranny is natural. Without the state, there's tyranny. That's really all there's to it.

Josh Cryer · 2003-05-07 02:38:14

Ooh, I missed an interesting thread.

fodi, let the quote war ensue.

Statism arises out of the laziness of individuals, not because statism is necessary. The only way to get rid of the state is to head for the frontier, and never turn back.

Statism arises because of power, control, and so on, it has nothing to do with laziness. People in a communist country who work their asses off to keep their heads from being blown off aren't lazy. Hell, people in a capitalist society on the lowest rung aren't lazy either, and believe me, I've been there (on the lowest rung in a capitalist society, not in a communist country).

The only way to get rid of the state is to completely disassociate from it. To ignore it completely. To exist independently of it. The second you start depending upon the state, the momment you belong to the state, because you assume state-like structures.

But, of course, you probably lack any understanding of what a state necessarily is. You have seemed to hijack the anarchist definition of the state, but neglected to show any reasonable understanding of the definition at all.

Just as it was with Libertarianism, I couldn't care less about the anarchistic text you have read.

Well, unlike you, I'm totally willing to read any texts you've sent my way. In fact, I went to that original site you'd listed, and I thought it was a bunch of foldera, so feel free to enlighten me, because I'm not afraid to be educated by someones philosophy.

Anarchy as the natural human condition which, ironically, is why it is difficult for people to recognize.

Hah! What a laughable position from someone who believes in some form of silly capitalism, given that anarchy and capitalism are in inherent opposition, and that capitalism requires a state!

Are you just trolling now?

Over millennia of statism engulfing the planet, individuals have come accustomed to being ruled.

Oh, I beg to differ. Individuals do not like being ruled one bit, as long as they recognize it. But individuals do desire to rule, and it is that desire, through propaganda, that compells those individuals to not mind being ruled so much, since one day they think they will rule.

The majority of humans, I would probably accurately argue, are tired of being shitted upon. But since you're too pathetic to read anarchist texts, you'll never understand this simple idea.

Humans hate being ruled, as proven by practically every revolution in the history of mankind. And your idiotic idea of applying capitalism to the next revolution merely proves that you're just another sucker who wants to go from ruling one way to ruling another, completely missing the point of anarchy.

As long as one man rules another, there will be the state.

Many are lazy.

Many are deprived. Laziness is subjective. If I am in a third world and I have nothing to work with, much less the knowledge to work with whatever I do have, how can I possibly do anything other than sit around doing nothing? How could you expect me to?

If I am in a first world and I have a lot to work with, but I don't break a sweat because my machinery is air conditioned, with a TV and all sorts of cool stuff, am I lazy because I don't work outside and do manual labor? How can you expect me to?

If I'm a poor farmer in China and I can only farm a few tons of rice a season, compared to someone in a first world who can farm a few thousand tons with sophisticated machinery, am I lazy because the first worlder farms more rice than me? How can you expect me to do better?

No, he is stating, quite simply, that this laziness causes statism.

Ahah, George doesn't see his fallacy! Laziness can't be the ?cause? for statism, because ?laziness? is connected to the resources which are available to someone. Of course, in this context, it has to be made clear that you're not talking about conventional laziness (oh no, you're too good to actually use words in a meaningful sense), you're just talking about the ablity to ?do stuff.? Right now I can't fix an engine, because to you, I'm ?lazy.? The reality is that the engine is too ?hard? to fix because I don't have the resources (either the tools, or just a generally easy to fix engine that wasn't designed with mass production in mind- but rather individual ease of use).

This is the same line of argument I was having with clark about specialization, this will probably devolve into some convulted view you have if you continue discussing this with me, because most likely you'll miss the point entirely.

you don't see the justification that cities are inherently more statist than the frontier?

Not at all. Because satism has nothing to do with population centers. The frontier, as you put it, is extremely statist, but since you don't know what the state is, why do I persist?

You've got it. What else could I mean by the market?

Um, the market, conventionally speaking, in reality, ie, the now, is where people exchange goods and services for a profit (or a loss, depending on whether or not you're the buyer or purchaser). That is, the right of increase. Of course, since you're clearly someone who likes to twist definitions around, perhaps you can't understand that this is what the market currently is.

Social gatherings where everyone brings a portion of the overall meal aren't the same as the market (ever been to a bbq?).

Charity isn't the same as the market.

Trade of equal products (ie, no profit) isn't the same as the market.

I am unfamiliar with Proudhon's Right of Increase, and have no ambition of ever reading about it.

Yes, this is clear by your idiotic statements. You have no ambition to ever, you know, actually contemplate what other people are saying because you're in your own world.

Questioning your logic and picking out something I found annoying is not a lot easier than just questioning your logic.

Tsk, finding something annoying isn't the same as questioning ones position. I find you extremely annoying, that doesn't give me the right to just shrug off what you're saying and enter my own little world pretending I'm right and you're not. I find it interesting that someone coming from the position of being non-lazy is taking this quite lazy approach of pettiness.

You're the most insane collectivist I have ever talked to.

You're the most idiotic "anarcho"-capitalist I've ever had the joy of arguing with. I mean, you couldn't see an individualist if he smacked you in the face. You wouldn't dare argue with me the logistics of energy and resource consumption. This is why, instead of asking me what I was saying, you attempted to insult me. Oh well, I've been called far worse (insane is hardly a bad name), so you failed on that attempt.

Both of these imply some sort of organization. A state, if you will. They have utterly nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics, or the conservation of mass.

Hahaha! A state has nothing to do with orgainzation. A state exists for status reasons, alone. If there is no class, then there is no state, generally speaking. They have everything to do with the laws of thermodynamics and the conservation of mass.

If I can build an interesting little facility that takes regolith and builds another facility with it, I can give that to another person and he can do the same thing, then we all can have little facilties and there ya go. That's the argument in a nutshell, that we'd have technology so cool, that class will be eliminated whether we like it or not. But this is the extreme of the argument, but hey, this whole topic is about extremes, so why not?

What would be stopping trade?

Oh, I don't know, self-reliance? You're the one talking about people being lazy, how about stop relying on other people?

You see, I'm the one who is really talking about not being lazy, you just miss the point entirely.

You have not. You have simply expressed your desire for a system-wide collective of some sort.

Um, I say ?we? because I believe information and technology and resources and all this should be open, this does not mean that I desire a system-wide collective, this implies that all I expect is that people do not interfere with one another. To exist without interfering is to take on a philosophy where one cannot own or control the possessions of another. How these people get where they are is anyones guess, but since we have lots of energy streaming from the sun, it's not hard to concieve of people working together. This is not my personal philosophy, but it's compatable with the whole, everything is open idea, so you can't avoid it (and I'm certainly not trying to).

I have relayed that I wouldn't want to be part of a collective per-say, but I would help those out who needed it, and so on. This does not make me a collectivist, this is me saying that I understand the situation, and that I'm not losing anything because hey, the laws of thermodynamics are in my favor, because, well, sunlight is plentiful.

Anarchism is not something that can or cannot work. It is something that is. Government doesn't exist.

Heh, you don't even know what anarchism is. You're a silly little twit who needs to educate himself with actual anarchist texts instead of reading stupid websites without real philosophy, but rather Ann Rynd garbage completely devoid of substantive thought.

Why do you want a system so bad?

And you don't?

We all want a system. It's just that some of us have put a lot more thought into it than others.

Shooting someone makes a mob state? Mob states, or majority rule states, or Democracy's, whatever you want to call them, have nothing to do with shooting someone.

Oh, so you just state it and it is so?

I bet you've never been to a third world country. You know Afganistan? Everyone has weapons there! Oh wow, it's so wonderful there. The free trade and wonderful markets and so on are so anarchist! Oh me oh my, let's all go to Afganistan.

A mob state is what you have when you have class, and people running around with guns. When you get rid of class, you have no huge need for guns.

Yes, I am reading what you're saying. You are talking about a potential empire

So? And you're talking about a guaranteed mob state. We both are talking about something. Hurrah.

You specifically pointed out that trade between the frontier and earth would be discontinued.

Well, I was speaking specifically of necessities, and other practical things. I expect people on the frontieer to not be stupid and hording things which they couldn't get a direct benefit from.

The only way you're going to be dimond mining is if you have an interesting transport system, etc.

People will trade for whatever they want, regardless of what you think.

Sure they will, but they'll find out that they can't afford a lot of things they want, and things they need can't necesarily be traded at all, because the cost is too prohibitive.

Hell, most trade currently is based on necessity, not want or desire (though there's a fine line between the two). I love to bring up middle eastern oil as the perfect example.

No I wouldn't. I would just trade with individuals from Earth. From what you make it sound like, I would be the only person doing this. There would be lots, and lots and lots of profit for me.

Oh, I'd be giving away technology to earthlings, too. I started off on Terra, so my biosphere technology is already going to help third world countries become self sufficient (that is, self reliant). I'm not making any profit, because I don't need any profit, I'm set.

You'd be mining for dimonds on Mars, forever seeking this pathetic idea of profit (so that you can be better than others, and force yourself upon them by hording, etc). I'd be fencing off an area and building myself a little place to live on Albor Tholus, giving whatever technology I may have to passerbys who are in deseprate need.

Why would you steal a worthless piece of paper?

Um, when you steal a patent, you take someones idea and use it as your own. If you owned a tractor making place, and I stole the designs for your tractors, I can guarantee you that you'd be pissed. It's your nature.

What if I made dimonds which were of the same consistency that you were mining? And sold them as bonified Mars dimonds? Put on your tin foil hat, but it's been said that DeBeers has been able to make dimonds indistingiushable from the ones they mine, for much cheaper than the ones they mine, for years. It wouldn't surprise me if this is true, because it wasn't long ago that people were making dimonds which were nearly inditsinguishable from real ones. DeBeers was on the record saying that they had such programs, to be able to try to distinguish fake dimonds from real ones. These days, ?real? dimonds (that is, dimonds from DeBeers) have serial numbers on them. You almost can't buy one without a serial number now.

I bet you wouldn't like that, now would you? Me making fake dimonds and passing them off as Mars dimonds?

It's time like this that I'm reminded of a quote by Ambrose Bierce (from The Devils Dictionary).

PIRACY, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it.

Now, of course, one could call this unethical, but since I'd be using carbon from Mars, I wouldn't call it exactly wrong.

Then you agree with dicktice? Human interaction requires state intervention?

Nope, seems you do. I've been talking about self-reliance, and you've been talking about interdependence. This is the main thing I have with people who talk about todays Earth. They talk about how everyone is interdependent, and we have to get along. Well damnit, don't they think that if we weren't interdependent, we'd get along naturally, since there would be no resource strains on different countries? Of course we would!

I don't know what the Right of Increase is, but I do know that the only person who can protect my property is me.

And the state in whatever form it is. The Right of Increase is basically the right to profit. Rent, or whatever. If I rent something from you, you're getting an increase on something you aren't possessing, or making direct use of. You're basically getting a free ride. Talk about lazy! Someone who rents their property is quite reliant on all the people who rents from them. I am speaking of concepts which throw out reliance, and promote self-reliance. But you're missing it completely.

Certain individuals out there are definitely trying [to get into space via capitalistic means].

I am very pessimistic as to whether or not they'll succeed... a space elevator is the only way I can see it working.

What would people who want to make a profit trade with people on Earth? Every single mineral that is rare, or not found on Earth, but is found in other parts of the solar system. I don't suppose you want a list?

Oh, necessities. After all, nothing like forcing people to depend on you to make profit. After all, if they don't depend on me for my dimonds, you have to use the media or whatever to get them to desire dimonds, that in itself is a risky venture, because as we know, the consumer is a hard nut to crack. So trading in luxury items is very risk, if non-workable. Things from Mars, in the beginning, would be utterly priceless. Until a good trade system is going, elevators on both Earth and Mars or whatever, you're not going to have buyers, and then, assuming that in this highly technological civilization (uh oh, the space empire!) we still have silly concepts like luxury items, the frontieer would have long since passed, since the road would've been built and migration would've begun. So really, there's no profit in it for you.

Oh--Boohoo. Get over [foadi's inablity to understand the english language] already.

Sorry, it's just so restrictive. I mean, you don't know what anarchism is. So why are you pretending to? You certainly don't realize that capitalism is irrevocably tied to the state, which is a greate misfortune, because too many people have spoiled the concepts of anarchism by stupidly thinking this way.

No, they're begging. No way out of it.

This coming from someone who self-admitedly knows nothing about the father of anarchism. Should anyone take you seriously? I don't, really, I'm just enjoying myself here.

No. I thought you were a nazi.

Ahh, well, that was interesting. Though quite unjustified. Not surprising coming from someone who is unable to not exhibit troll-like behavior.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-14 10:58:42

Re: Clark

#2 2003-04-14 10:59:44

Re: Clark

#3 2003-04-14 12:39:21

Re: Clark

#4 2003-04-14 12:48:39

Re: Clark

#5 2003-04-14 12:59:01

Re: Clark

#6 2003-04-14 13:01:32

Re: Clark

#7 2003-04-14 13:28:12

Re: Clark

#8 2003-04-14 13:29:11

Re: Clark

#9 2003-04-14 13:32:27

Re: Clark

#10 2003-04-14 13:34:57

Re: Clark

#11 2003-04-14 13:42:20

Re: Clark

#12 2003-04-14 13:44:56

Re: Clark

#13 2003-04-14 13:46:21

Re: Clark

#14 2003-04-14 13:47:19

Re: Clark

#15 2003-04-14 13:48:22

Re: Clark

#16 2003-04-14 15:38:54

Re: Clark

#17 2003-04-23 08:38:34

Re: Clark

#18 2003-05-07 02:38:14

Re: Clark

Board footer