GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-02-2013, 19:30   #341
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
That's an odd assumption. Are the two possibilities come tell random?
Good question. There are only two possibilities; either at least one deity has existed at some point, or not. Is there an equal probability for both?

Last edited by ksg0245; 02-02-2013 at 19:38..
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 19:34   #342
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
So I can extrapolate from your reasoning that all possibilities are equally likely,

that out of 3 possibilities of a coin toss

1) quarter lands on the floor heads up

2) quarter lands on the floor tails up or

3) quarter lands on the floor standing on edge

each outcome will happen 33.33333.....% of the time.

Yes, of course that is what happens.

Edit: I appear to have missed the sarcasm in your post when I first responded. Never mind ksg.
No problem; such arguments have been seriously put forth, so it's easy to think it was being made again.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 20:10   #343
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 10,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Actually, a coin tossed into the air and allowed to land on the ground most frequently lands on its edge. It just rarely comes to rest on its edge. I've never seen it happen except on a movie.
My use of the term land is correct.

Land used as a verb
2. To descend toward and settle onto the ground or another surface.
4. To come to rest in a certain way or place.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...ary/entry/land
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.

Last edited by G26S239; 02-02-2013 at 20:11..
G26S239 is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 20:31   #344
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
My use of the term land is correct.

Land used as a verb
2. To descend toward and settle onto the ground or another surface.
4. To come to rest in a certain way or place.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...ary/entry/land
That's true. I'm thinking about the impact. My mistake.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-02-2013 at 20:41..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 20:38   #345
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
Nobody misses the point with you Doc. We all know your point very well by now.

You keep pushing your "atheism is religion, everything is taken on faith so atheists are just believers like theists" BS with the constant reminder/argument/hangup/obsession that science is only taken on faith if the experiments aren't done specifically by the one claiming to believe. You're trying to equate the faith that theists have in their gods and their holy books and their stories of how everything was and will be with the faith I have in a scientists (group of scientists all specializing in the relevant field actually, before I'll believe it) that says something about the way things were and will be.

I've seen you say it many times, "Have you done the experiments yourself? Nobody is around now to tell us what was really going on (truly spoken like a man that has very little clue of the many accurate ways we have to look into the past) back then so who's to say?" You keep pushing an equality between religious claims and scientific claims and a claim of foolishness on the part of anyone that considers one a more reputable source of information than the other.

Or maybe you're just stuck in another debate that hinges on the definition of a single word. "Faith" is what theists have in god, not what atheists have in science. Science has completely replaced faith with an encouragement to go find out for yourself.
Man, you sure are stuck in a rut. You're also off base and out of sync again. I have very frequently stated that its highly unlikely that if there is a deity, man has described it perfectly in any written text. Most of the different texts contradict themselves, and all of them contradict each other.

We are discussing the difference between knowledge and belief. Faith is only a firm belief without proof, it's related, that's all.

I thought we had agreed to disagree on atheism being a religion. But if you want to talk about that some more, start another thread and I'll show up. No need to disrupt this one with your fixation.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 20:44   #346
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Good question. There are only two possibilities; either at least one deity has existed at some point, or not. Is there an equal probability for both?
Without any real evidence one way the other, ignoring all of the strongly believed speculation both ways, in my opinion each is roughly equally possible. Others have different opinions on the subject, obviously.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 20:50   #347
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
What is it you think I've been told is true?
I think you'd have to tell me what you've been told.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 23:27   #348
Animal Mother
Not Enough Gun
 
Animal Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Not always. It's OK, even recommended to look at each issue separately, and decide what is the best standard.
Your standards are variable based on context. Got it.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure getting shot is not fun.
But how can you be sure without actually experiencing it for yourself?
Quote:
I've seen a couple hundred people with holes in them from fast moving pieces of metal, but have never been shot. Not one of them was laughing and having fun. Every one of them I can think of right now looked like they were having a bad day.
Are non-comprehensive samples regularly acceptable in your investigations?
Quote:
I don't need to shoot myself to confirm this, I can just go with it.
Accept it on faith you mean? Is this something you believe with ardor?
Quote:
True, have you personally sequenced the DNA?
Have you personally analyzed all instances of gravitation?
Quote:
Or did someone else tell you they did it, and you accepted that? It's OK to accept some things easily. Others? Not so much.
There are those variable standards again. How do you determine which instance is which?
Quote:
Yes and no. AM, I'm not going to do your google homework for you.
You seem to have a problem with this. Making claims and then being asked to support them with evidence isn't doing my google homework for me, it's defending your claims.
Quote:
No offense, but even when you are shown, you can't see, there is always a dis-qualifier in anything I collect for you.
Often that it in no way supports the position you present it in defense of. I can hardly be blamed for that.
Quote:
So please accept my apologies for not collecting data for you. Take it or leave it. Disagree, complain, whatever, it's OK. No hard feelings I hope.
None at all. We'll simply ignore your assertion in the absence of supporting evidence.
Quote:
Not everything can be tested with litmus paper. Each question has a slightly different route to an answer.
No, the route is consistently the same. We could call it a method even, a scientific method.
Quote:
Not on Earth, or at least not under normal atmospheric conditions with every object in your front yard. Try the bowling ball and feather. But there is a good explanation for that.
You're mistaken, the acceleration due to gravitation is the same on both the feather and the bowling ball. The difference is the other forces acting on them.
Quote:
Anything you would like to try. Get back to us with that thesis paper when it's done.
You're the one making the proposal, but again, if you chose not to defend it we can simply discard it without further consideration.
Quote:
It has been a mildly interesting argumentum ad absurdum that you have proposed. "If you are for this, then you have to be for that" is usually a failing of digital thinkers.
I've proposed no such thing, I've asked a question. The curiosity is why you're so unwilling to address it.
__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
Animal Mother is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 23:50   #349
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Man, you sure are stuck in a rut. You're also off base and out of sync again. I have very frequently stated that its highly unlikely that if there is a deity, man has described it perfectly in any written text. Most of the different texts contradict themselves, and all of them contradict each other.
That's funny, because in your very next post you say,

"Without any real evidence one way the other, ignoring all of the strongly believed speculation both ways, in my opinion each is roughly equally possible."

So somewhere in the 6 min. between those 2 posts you changed your mind from one of the 2 possibilities being highly unlikely to both possibilities being equally possible. Maybe if you'd make up your mind and stick with it there wouldn't be so much confusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
We are discussing the difference between knowledge and belief. Faith is only a firm belief without proof, it's related, that's all.
And knowledge is a firm belief with proof. Sounds like one is clearly superior to the other. But not so much the people who trust knowledge more than faith?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I thought we had agreed to disagree on atheism being a religion. But if you want to talk about that some more, start another thread and I'll show up. No need to disrupt this one with your fixation.
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 07:09   #350
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by Animal Mother View Post
Your standards are variable based on context. Got it.
But how can you be sure without actually experiencing it for yourself?
Are non-comprehensive samples regularly acceptable in your investigations?
Accept it on faith you mean? Is this something you believe with ardor?
Have you personally analyzed all instances of gravitation?
There are those variable standards again. How do you determine which instance is which?
You seem to have a problem with this. Making claims and then being asked to support them with evidence isn't doing my google homework for me, it's defending your claims.
Often that it in no way supports the position you present it in defense of. I can hardly be blamed for that.
None at all. We'll simply ignore your assertion in the absence of supporting evidence.
No, the route is consistently the same. We could call it a method even, a scientific method.
You're mistaken, the acceleration due to gravitation is the same on both the feather and the bowling ball. The difference is the other forces acting on them.
You're the one making the proposal, but again, if you chose not to defend it we can simply discard it without further consideration.
I've proposed no such thing, I've asked a question. The curiosity is why you're so unwilling to address it.

AM, you're the one making the proposal of intelligent falling, you, for some reason, think I should support it. It's only mildly humorous the first time, and sorta boring after that.

You seem to have a problem looking at issues in context. If you have the exact same standard for everything, what is the standard? If you read it in a text book? At least 3 peer reviewed articles? At least two morning shows on different networks? What is your standard, and are you really sure you apply it to everything? Oh, and while you are identifying your standard, can you go ahead and let me know if you have any children and just an approximate age they are now?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 07:21   #351
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
That's funny, because in your very next post you say,

"Without any real evidence one way the other, ignoring all of the strongly believed speculation both ways, in my opinion each is roughly equally possible."

So somewhere in the 6 min. between those 2 posts you changed your mind from one of the 2 possibilities being highly unlikely to both possibilities being equally possible. Maybe if you'd make up your mind and stick with it there wouldn't be so much confusion.
I think you've missed it yet again. Did You miss the word "if" in a sentence? The question is not whether one of the religions of man and the text that describes it is correct vs. atheism. The question is whether there is/was a deity, or not. Even if every religious text on earth was imagined and written without any knowledge of an actual deity that designed life on earth, that doesn't negate the possibility that there was one.


The thing to consider, is it possible for two conflicting and opposite possibilities to be considered both remote and roughly equally possible.


From the perspective of one who has a firm belief one way or the other, that is probably hard to grasp.

Quote:
And knowledge is a firm belief with proof. Sounds like one is clearly superior to the other. But not so much the people who trust knowledge more than faith?
If you read something from several different sources, supposedly from several different people, does that meet the criteria for proof for you? What if there is another group claiming something different?

Quote:
You don't think we disagree? I thought we still did.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-03-2013 at 07:30..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 11:39   #352
Animal Mother
Not Enough Gun
 
Animal Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
AM, you're the one making the proposal of intelligent falling, you, for some reason, think I should support it. It's only mildly humorous the first time, and sorta boring after that.

You seem to have a problem looking at issues in context. If you have the exact same standard for everything, what is the standard? If you read it in a text book? At least 3 peer reviewed articles? At least two morning shows on different networks? What is your standard, and are you really sure you apply it to everything? Oh, and while you are identifying your standard, can you go ahead and let me know if you have any children and just an approximate age they are now?
You keep asking new questions while neglecting to answer the questions you're asked. I'm not proposing Intelligent Falling, I'm simply pointing out that it is just as well supported as the Intelligent Design you apparently believe should be taught alongside the modern evolutionary synthesis in science classes. I'm simply asking if your position on both these topics is consistent, given your stated acceptance of gravitation.
__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
Animal Mother is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 12:33   #353
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by Animal Mother View Post
You keep asking new questions while neglecting to answer the questions you're asked. I'm not proposing Intelligent Falling, I'm simply pointing out that it is just as well supported as the Intelligent Design you apparently believe should be taught alongside the modern evolutionary synthesis in science classes. I'm simply asking if your position on both these topics is consistent, given your stated acceptance of gravitation.
Gravity is present. It may have always been present. If you want to believe it was made, make the case for it. Support the argument too.

Life is present. It had a beginning. True or false? As best we can tell, there was a moment when the first cell appeared on the planet.


Evolution and the origin of life itself are two separate subjects. Life started, THEN evolution happened.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 13:24   #354
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
...This is where I break ranks with most evolutionists. I see no reason why the natural combining of elements into the self-replicating precursor building blocks of life should not fall under the definition of 'Evolution' as well. I think the constant reminder that evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing is a bit of a knee jerk reaction to the boorish claims from theists that "you can't show what started life off in the first place". So what, neither can they and we're getting closer to that explanation so the theory of evolution still has a better story.

At the early stages it was more about chemistry than evolution but there's that other constant reminder you keep getting from us, that life is not "wild random chance" and each new step was the starting point for the next step. There's still a natural selection process going on before there was anything that scientists would agree to call "life".
I agree completely. From the quantum level up things work a certain way. Everything a level up is dependent on the way the previous level works being correct. As I have said before science isn't wrong, it's only incomplete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Gravity is present. It may have always been present...Evolution and the origin of life itself are two separate subjects. Life started, THEN evolution happened.
Wrong and wrong. Gravity has not always been present. Evolution and the origin of life are intrinsically linked and are two facets of one subject.
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 15:07   #355
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
I agree completely. From the quantum level up things work a certain way. Everything a level up is dependent on the way the previous level works being correct. As I have said before science isn't wrong, it's only incomplete.



Wrong and wrong. Gravity has not always been present. Evolution and the origin of life are intrinsically linked and are two facets of one subject.
Looking at what you posted, are you of the opinion that gravity is not present? Are you sure you are saying what you meant to say??????

Have you personally witnessed a period in time when gravity was not present. Do tell.

Oh, and please take care to note the word "may" in the post you quoted. As far as I can tell, as long as there has been mass, there has been gravity, almost "fer sure" during my lifetime.

Evolution explains a characteristic of life observed on this planet, pretty well as a matter of fact. It does not explain how the first cell capable of mitosis happened. That is still a mystery to most, even if some have firm beliefs in certain possible explanations. A lot like, well........, more than a lot like faith.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-03-2013 at 15:11..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 16:15   #356
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Looking at what you posted, are you of the opinion that gravity is not present? Are you sure you are saying what you meant to say??????

Have you personally witnessed a period in time when gravity was not present. Do tell.

Oh, and please take care to note the word "may" in the post you quoted. As far as I can tell, as long as there has been mass, there has been gravity, almost "fer sure" during my lifetime.

Evolution explains a characteristic of life observed on this planet, pretty well as a matter of fact. It does not explain how the first cell capable of mitosis happened. That is still a mystery to most, even if some have firm beliefs in certain possible explanations. A lot like, well........, more than a lot like faith.
Yeah gravity is not currently present. Don't play dumb it doesn't suit you. I'm well aware of your "may" qualifier but prior to the event there was no gravity.

Evolution and the origins of life are two different subjects like cardiology and neurology are. They are different facets of one subject. Science. The how isn't a question, as you pointed out the why is but the why isn't important as it has no barring on the how.
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 16:40   #357
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
Yeah gravity is not currently present. Don't play dumb it doesn't suit you. I'm well aware of your "may" qualifier but prior to the event there was no gravity.

Evolution and the origins of life are two different subjects like cardiology and neurology are. They are different facets of one subject. Science. The how isn't a question, as you pointed out the why is but the why isn't important as it has no barring on the how.
I'm not playing dumb. I'm asking if you are. You're the one that made the dumb statement.

Are you sure that there was no gravity at any time in history? Or are you just believing what someone else has thought might be possible. Think about it for a while, then respond.

Cardiology and Neurology are most definitely different facets. One cannot switch in between them without pause. How long do you think it would take for a neurologist to become a cardiologist. Give an example or three. It's not nearly as easy as you seem to be implying.

The truth is that life began in a certain way. There was a moment on this planet when the first cell capable of maintaining homeostasis happened. Then there was a point where a cell like that could replicate itself. If you are sure how that happened, do tell.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 17:29   #358
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm not playing dumb. I'm asking if you are. You're the one that made the dumb statement.

Are you sure that there was no gravity at any time in history? Or are you just believing what someone else has thought might be possible. Think about it for a while, then respond.

Cardiology and Neurology are most definitely different facets. One cannot switch in between them without pause. How long do you think it would take for a neurologist to become a cardiologist. Give an example or three. It's not nearly as easy as you seem to be implying.

The truth is that life began in a certain way. There was a moment on this planet when the first cell capable of maintaining homeostasis happened. Then there was a point where a cell like that could replicate itself. If you are sure how that happened, do tell.
Yes I am sure that math indicates that at a past point gravity was not a separate force. If we have to independently verify everything than no one knows much of anything.

And I was not implying anything, you choose to infer it. The truth is that neurology and cardiology are linked in the same way, not that it is easy to jump from one to other. But they are most certainly facets of one subject not two unrelated concepts.

The how is chemistry. Self replicating cells form because that is how amino acids and proteins work. It's like asking how atoms exchange electrons. They do because that is how they function. Again the why is a mystery but hardly one that matters.
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 19:51   #359
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
Yes I am sure that math indicates that at a past point gravity was not a separate force. If we have to independently verify everything than no one knows much of anything.

..../
So you get it then. Who's going to win the super bowl, and what will be the final score?

Answer before the lights come on.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-03-2013 at 19:53..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 21:53   #360
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Whoops. Missed it.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:26.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,513
391 Members
1,122 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42