Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-22-2013, 00:28   #101
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animal Mother View Post
No, they don't. From your link: The First Church of Atheism was born out of necessity. Created by Paul and Jacki McMaster, the FCA is the first society of its kind. Dedicated solely to ordaining atheists so that they too may perform ceremonies previously performed by religious men.

You cited two examples, neither supports your thesis. Perhaps it's time to abandon it?
He has no problem relying on examples that contradict his thesis, what makes you think he'd give up after a mere non sequitur?

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 01:18   #102
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post


Welcome to RI. You're new here, obviously... How do you like our pet troll?
Honestly, I shouldn't bother even attempting to talk to him, given the monstrosity that were the various thousands of 'atheism is a religion' threads. (I'm exaggerating ... a little).
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 01-22-2013 at 01:19..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 02:28   #103
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Honestly, I shouldn't bother even attempting to talk to him, given the monstrosity that were the various thousands of 'atheism is a religion' threads. (I'm exaggerating ... a little).
That's his thing. Every time you talk to the guy that's what it comes down to. He'll ignore posts you make, claim he never saw them, when you point them out he'll create this alter argument he's accusing you of making that is completely alien to the point you were actually making (Still not addressing the point he claims to have never seen), when you call him on it, he insults your intelligence or tells you you aren't as smart as you think you are. All the while never actually addressing the topic at hand. He'll internet diagnose you with psychological disorders even though he's only a PA. He'll make false claims, say he never made them, and when you quote it and stick it right in his face he'll still say he never said it... or that you don't understand what he was actually saying. He's just an intellectually dishonest guy. Took me about a month of dealing with his nonsense to learn to just stop engaging him. He's a troll.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 01-22-2013 at 02:28..
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 02:47   #104
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
That's his thing. Every time you talk to the guy that's what it comes down to.
I don't know if you know that I know that. FWIW, he started that thread in RI because I was arguing the same with him in a *different* thread in a different section of the board entirely. I know. What I don't know is why I let myself respond to any of his posts at all.

If I remember right he misrepresented my position in his first post of that thread. If I am remembering correctly my posts were basically trying to get the idea across that I don't believe because I don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe, and given that there are many unprovable things, believing in something unprovable because you have faith is quite different than not believing in something unprovable because you *don't* have faith. He represented that as my being "As devout as any other religious fellow ... " So ... I know about CD.

What this thread *should* be about is the JPL vs. Coppedge ruling and what people think about it and why. It's become yet another pile of junk, and I have to admit - I took part in that, by taking CD's bait, and I am ashamed.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 01-22-2013 at 03:10..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:04   #105
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,931


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
I am not changing the subject again. *You* are changing the subject again. My initial point was to state that DI is contradicting itself as to whether or not ID should legally be treated as religious - you responded with some claim that I was somehow using the same logic/arguments.

You had the choice to just simply admit that, yeah, DI is contradicting itself. Instead you tried to argue that I was somehow using the same logic they are, and *you* brought in the different subject with that claim and a bunch of talk about me having to get RI to agree that atheism is a religion, which is completely ridiculous.

If you're going to pretend that I'm just being obtuse, rather than trying to get you to plainly admit that DI is contradicting itself on whether or not ID should be treated as religious in courts of law (which you have not yet done - you've merely stated something along the lines of 'some theists say it's a scientific claim', while pretending I'm somehow holding you to their contradiction), while *also* getting you to admit that I have never made a likewise contradictory claim that *anything* should be treated as religious by the courts in one case, but not religious in others, then there's really no point in talking to you, is there?

To be clear: I am not saying you are making the same argument they are, nor am I trying to hold you to their argument.

I am saying *your statement that I am somehow using the same argument they are is flat out incorrect*. They claimed that ID should be differently treated, by courts, based on whether or not the suit they wanted to win would win on a particular interpretation. *YOU* claimed I was making the same argument, as far as I can tell. I am not holding you to *their* argument, I am holding you to *YOUR* claim.

So please quote where I have *ever* stated or implied that *anything* should be treated as religious by a court in one context, and not religious by a court in another context. That is the contradiction DI is committing. If you cannot provide such a statement, then your claim that I am somehow using the same arguments they are fails.

Please also quote where I have ever stated that you hold the same position as DI - you will not be able to, as I never said any such thing. I merely stated that you were missing the point, when your response actually missed the point that DI was contradicting itself.

We've meandered through the maze, where you imagined traps and enlightening moments.

Hey, no group is without contradictions, in fact, if you look long enough, over time, people will honestly hold contradictory opinions on certain things. It's quite natural.

Lets nail down your initial point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post

....

As Bren noted in different words, given the *full* context of that question, it is asking how someone can claim that ID is not a religious position, but claim religious discrimination on the basis of belief in ID.

And given that ID proponents in fact claim that ID is not a religious position, it's quite apropos, actually, given that the Discovery Institute has claimed that ID is not a religious position, yet funded/supported this lawsuit claiming religious discrimination due to someone's belief in ID.
So, the DI supported contradictory descriptions of ID? OK.

Laying someone off for their religious beliefs, even if they had previously argued it was a scientific belief, can still be religious discrimination. Obviously, in the is case the court has decided (probably with many more details than in the story) that it wasn't.

The point that you are missing, is that a poster asked why it should be a problem if he was laid off because of his belief in ID.

On it's face, that is a pretty good description of what religious discrimination is. On a different day, argued by a different lawyer, in front of a different judge, it may have turned out far different than it did.

But it did turn out how it turned out. I still would not think it a good idea to base a hiring or firing decision on whether a person believes in ID or not. If you do, you might not want to articulate that. You're much more likely to get away with it if no one else knows that was the ultimate reason.
__________________

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; 01-22-2013 at 09:04..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:35   #106
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post

The point that you are missing, is that a poster asked why it should be a problem if he was laid off because of his belief in ID.

On it's face, that is a pretty good description of what religious discrimination is. On a different day, argued by a different lawyer, in front of a different judge, it may have turned out far different than it did.
If it's not a religious belief, if it is in fact "simply another claim about how life began", as you have claimed, precisely how is it religious discrimination on its face?

Quote:
But it did turn out how it turned out. I still would not think it a good idea to base a hiring or firing decision on whether a person believes in ID or not. If you do, you might not want to articulate that. You're much more likely to get away with it if no one else knows that was the ultimate reason.
Well, they did not in fact fire him because he believed in ID. He got into a little bit of trouble because he was pushing conversation about ID (as well as some of his political views) on others, during work hours, to the point those others were complaining about harassment and he had to be asked to stop (but was explicitly told that they were only asking him to stop during work hours). They let him go during the layoff because the HR process that JPL goes through to decide who they should let go determined that he was less qualified than other sysadmins, and that had nothing at all to do with his belief in ID - other than he came back after the fact and claimed that it did.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 01-22-2013 at 09:37..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 10:19   #107
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,931


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
If it's not a religious belief, if it is in fact "simply another claim about how life began", as you have claimed, precisely how is it religious discrimination on its face?


....
Well, saying it's "simply another claim" isn't so simple either. People have been arguing over that for as long as I've been around, and probably a lot longer than that.

In this case it was found not to be, but it can be.

Beliefs can be both scientific fact, and religious in nature. They are not always exclusive. If he believed that his god created the universe, and his god did, then it's a fact as well as a religious belief.


And the prima facie statement was made about a question.

Quote:
If it's ignorant to consider creationism as a Christian Religious view... why is it religious discrimination even if they did lay him off for accepting creationism? Seems they laid of a scientist that accepts junk science. Can't be religious discrimination if creationism is just an alternative scientific explanation. If creationism IS a religious view... it isn't any kind of science.
Just a tip, if you are being sued for firing an employee because he believed in ID (true or not), I would not read that aloud to the judge.

It's surrounded by value judgements, but the question asked implies a direct cause and effect relationship to the employees belief, and the action taken.

Prima facie is a legal term, used very similar to "at first glance" it would seem there is a case here. It's not meant to imply a firm and resolute decision about a particular set of events. By using the term, you are admitting that there are pieces missing and that you are not done collecting evidence or ready to decide anything.

Bren can explain it to you, he's an attorney.
__________________

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; 01-22-2013 at 10:24..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 10:29   #108
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
In this case it was found not to be
Actually, as far as I can tell, this case found nothing of the kind. What this case found is that JPL used a layoff ranking policy that determines who to lay off based on "need, skills, abilities, performance, conduct, reliability, education/training, and experience", that the evidence showed that this is what JPL actually did, and that Coppedge failed to prove otherwise. (He claimed otherwise a lot, but when it came down to proving it, he didn't).

Basically, if you read the findings of fact, it boils down to they decided to keep the SA's who knew Linux, MySQL, and how to manage Web servers - because that's what they were going to need. Coppedge acknowledged *in the lawsuit* that he had minimal Linux skills and other people on the team were better at managing the web servers - and the software and equipment that Coppedge *did* know better than other team members was already being phased out.

Whether or not ID is religious or not was not the issue, despite many people wanting and claiming it to be. As far as I can tell, the court never had to decide that because the evidence shows that was not the reason he was laid off.

Quote:
It's surrounded by value judgements, but the question asked implies a direct cause and effect relationship to the employees belief, and the action taken.
Something being a belief does not make it religious. The point here is, if it is *actually true* that ID is not a religious concept - then how is firing someone for believing in ID religious discrimination?

This is not to say that there can't be circumstances that could possibly make it religious discrimination - such as the employee or employer perceiving it to be a religious belief. But that's not what you alleged - you alleged that it would be religious discrimination on its face, which implies independence of such factors.

If someone happens to believe that crop circles are created by aliens, but crop circles being created by aliens is not in fact their religion, and neither the employee nor the employer claim that is a religious belief, are you alleging that the employer letting that employee go because they believe that crop circles are created by aliens is religious discrimination, merely because it is a belief?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 01-22-2013 at 10:49..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 10:38   #109
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,864
Jesus, CavDoc, you just can't help yourself, can you?

Right after you, yet AGAIN, chastise someone for what you consider to be ad hominem attack, you follow up with this gem:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
...Your mother had such high hopes for you..... sigh. Not everyone gets what they wish for....

You're being intentionally ironic, right?
hooligan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 10:49   #110
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,931


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Jesus, CavDoc, you just can't help yourself, can you?

Right after you, yet AGAIN, chastise someone for what you consider to be ad hominem attack, you follow up with this gem:




You're being intentionally ironic, right?
Nope, I just don't turn the other cheek. It's not a requirement for me. Steve and I have a very special relationship. It goes back a long way.

I see that a lot. People get upset when you poke them in the eyes after they try to poke you in the eyes.

I am more than willing to be polite to polite people. You for instance.
__________________

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; 01-22-2013 at 10:49..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 11:13   #111
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,864
OK. I appreciate the explanation. Just letting you know what it looks like from an outsider.
hooligan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 11:46   #112
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,931


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Actually, as far as I can tell, this case found nothing of the kind. ....


On any given day in court, several odd things can be proven. It has a lot to do with how the arguments are framed and considered. Most Judges do try to be as objective as possible, but there is no claim that everything is 100% accurate.

It could be argued that a belief can be both scientific and religious at the same time. In a lot of court cases, especially involving labor relations, there are contradictory testimonies given, and judges make decisions based on who they find more credible.

There are guidelines and parameters in law that try to make things as reasonable and even sometimes fair as possible, but in the end, one should never underestimate the power of a sympathetic judge.
__________________

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   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 12:06   #113
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
On any given day in court, several odd things can be proven. It has a lot to do with how the arguments are framed and considered. Most Judges do try to be as objective as possible, but there is no claim that everything is 100% accurate.

It could be argued that a belief can be both scientific and religious at the same time. In a lot of court cases, especially involving labor relations, there are contradictory testimonies given, and judges make decisions based on who they find more credible.

There are guidelines and parameters in law that try to make things as reasonable and even sometimes fair as possible, but in the end, one should never underestimate the power of a sympathetic judge.
This does not address why you seem to think that, if ID is *not* a religious concept, that firing someone because they believe in ID would be religious discrimination on its face.

A court could certainly rule that a nonreligious concept was treated as a religious one and that was a path to religious discrimination. That is not what I was asking about, though.

Stating that something would be considered religious discrimination 'on its face' basically means that it would be assumed to be religious discrimination in the absence of evidence merely because it happened. Do you agree or disagree?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 12:21   #114
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
This does not address why you seem to think that, if ID is *not* a religious concept, that firing someone because they believe in ID would be religious discrimination on its face.

A court could certainly rule that a nonreligious concept was treated as a religious one and that was a path to religious discrimination. That is not what I was asking about, though.

Stating that something would be considered religious discrimination 'on its face' basically means that it would be assumed to be religious discrimination in the absence of evidence merely because it happened. Do you agree or disagree?
No.
















__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.

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.

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.

Quote:
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 12:36   #115
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,931


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
This does not address why you seem to think that, if ID is *not* a religious concept


...

...
Wrong. I said it can be a religious or scientific belief, depending on how you look at it. In court, it can easily be either or, or even both.
__________________

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   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 14:49   #116
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Satan wins another one...

"You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." - Mark 13:13

..
That's why I included him in my smilie dance party.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 15:19   #117
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Wrong. I said it can be a religious or scientific belief, depending on how you look at it. In court, it can easily be either or, or even both.
That is not the context of the question you are objecting to.

The question you originally objected to was this:

Quote:
If it's ignorant to consider creationism as a Christian Religious view... why is it religious discrimination even if they did lay him off for accepting creationism?
The point being made there is, *if* something isn't religious, how can firing someone for it be considered religious discrimination?

To further help you understand - I do think that firing someone simply because they believe in ID would be considered religious discrimination. I think that because courts have ruled that it can't be taught in schools because it is actually a religious idea, and is in fact *not* science.

That's not the point of the totality of Glock36shooter's post, though, as I see it. I don't think he was actually trying to claim that it absolutely is not a religious idea. I think he was pointing out that *if* it weren't, there would be no basis a religious discrimination suit for firing someone merely because they believe in ID - which leads to the point that the people backing ID want ID to be legally "not religion" where it suits them and legally "religion" where it suits them. But they can't really have it both ways.

You cut off the qualifying statement in your initial reply to Glock36shooter's post - which is the important bit - and then started telling him to do case law searches, etc. Which indicates you either missed the point completely, or didn't, and intentionally made it appear as if you missed the point completely.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 15:46   #118
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
That's not the point of the totality of Glock36shooter's post, though, as I see it. I don't think he was actually trying to claim that it absolutely is not a religious idea. I think he was pointing out that *if* it weren't, there would be no basis a religious discrimination suit for firing someone merely because they believe in ID - which leads to the point that the people backing ID want ID to be legally "not religion" where it suits them and legally "religion" where it suits them. But they can't really have it both ways.
This is correct. And I think everyone knows that. Cav-PA knows that as well. But he's intellectually dishonest. The only way he knows how to discuss things with people is to manufacture a fictional second point and accuse people of making it.

Quote:
You cut off the qualifying statement in your initial reply to Glock36shooter's post - which is the important bit - and then started telling him to do case law searches, etc. Which indicates you either missed the point completely, or didn't, and intentionally made it appear as if you missed the point completely.
This is what he does. You still aren't going to get a straight answer out of him. You've pinned him to the wall nicely yet he'll still claim this is about some other point and you don't understand what you're talking about. He's having an entirely different conversation and he's doing it on purpose.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 15:50   #119
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
That's why I included him in my smilie dance party.
Religious Issues
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 15:57   #120
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 14,547


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Which indicates you either missed the point completely, or didn't, and intentionally made it appear as if you missed the point completely.
The latter would be an accurate description of his modis operandi. Doc will use any available avenue to avoid giving a direct answer to any question. It has nothing to do with the topic. It's pure gamesmanship to him. Not only does he bring nothing to the debate, he derails any meangingful discussion with his strawman tangents. His tactic is to confuse a thread to the point that people become frustrated and leave. Sort of like an internet scorched earth policy.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

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 17:43.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,137
329 Members
808 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31