It is currently Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:12 am

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:47 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:02 pm
Posts: 1491
Location: Hanging around with mermaids. And still looking for the elusive Funky Bahro.
Um, folks - is it possible we're over-examining this thing? In the absence of facts, opinions are all that's left. For whatever reason, there's only so much Cyan can/will tell us, so we have to guess - preferably with educated guesses. In the end, the truth will probably be something none of us considered.

_________________
New to Uru? See this video.

KI numbers:
TOOO 24657
Magical Mystery TOOO 643784
Institution TOOO 816645
Karaoke TOOO 816776

~and featuring~

Murinna (the mermaid) 2484723
Mallina (the other mermaid) 3015052

Second Life: TOOO Fall


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am
Posts: 510
TOOO wrote:
Um, folks - is it possible we're over-examining this thing? In the absence of facts, opinions are all that's left. For whatever reason, there's only so much Cyan can/will tell us, so we have to guess - preferably with educated guesses. In the end, the truth will probably be something none of us considered.


Sadly, speculation is not what the real issue was, I was raising that "standards for discussion" or better "standards for debate" are best when method driven.

If you demonstrate a point logically, with supporting facts, and demonstrate personal/others opinion clearly when required. You get less miss-understanding overall and helps keep true information, from fiction.

Additionally, this crossed into the issue of a newish forum member been addressed in an unfriendly manner after asking a series of questions. This seemed to be down to some misled assumptions.

If mislead assumptions had not been used, I think things might have gone more smoothly.

Uru does not have a large community and I wanted to bring this issue to light to help people discover and learn.

Growing the community through words and friendly debate is something that is going to be a key part of Uru’s future. I’m not aware that this is the actual train of thought throughout the community currently; however it is clear that in this episode it sadly didn’t seem to be.

I hope the summary helps :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Jahmen writes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:11 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida USA
DarK, reading through your breakdown of my post I laughed out loud until my sides were hurting. It was very well done and your understanding of my mindset and intent was dead on. I have yet to read a post thread so well done with such undeniable logic as the way you have done this one. My post was meant to seek a better understanding of what I knew and had heard. I’m fairly sure Nalates and JWPlatt knew this, but would not be deterred from taking issue with me nonetheless.

DarK, it is my private and behind the scenes forum history with Nalates and JWPlatt unknown to you that’s what’s really missing most to the motivation with which they posted at me as they did. Your thread posts break down of my post and ongoing thread debate exposes the underlying unnoticed real motivation to the real truth.

DarK wrote:
Quote:
It’s ironic really, that a problem solving game community does not use problem solving methods to find solutions for issues with language and debate.

and again I laugh out loud at a well put insightful truth!

Thanx for using my post as you did to shed some truth about forum thread debates. Well done!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 1814
Location: California
Jahmen, I’m curious what truths you see?

Dark did an analysis that some see as trying to show that more emotional content or state of the writers mind can be taken or discerned from the post and that little things like punctuation and logical deduction can add information.

My point was and still is that English is so ambiguous that doesn’t work all that well.

My challenge to you was where did you get an idea that JWP found an offensive mischaracterization and I suspected similarly. However, I did not assign you a motive or assume you were taking a shot. I suspected you might have been and I also knew you might not be. So, I asked. You responded. The issue that JWP and I were responding to was handled.

My misstatement that the post did not lend itself to clear a clear understanding of your mind set while writing was reacted to by Dark. He was on point and I think I can understand his reaction and response. But when I made that correction and admitted I was sloppy in writing that sentence, Dark did not address my clarification.

Once his analysis began he was so far off point on item after item and misunderstanding my points I gave up the possibility of being able to communicate. I think his analysis shows English is highly ambiguous. Since I pointed that out and he didn’t address it… I gave up.

For my point on ambiguousness I think Dark’s writing, “In addition I was not “slamming” Jahmen’s post; I was using it as an example to …” raised the question of why he thought anyone thought he was. I had written, “Rather than slamming Jahmen for what I inferred from his writing I initially asked where he got the idea.” (post) While I thought the sentence was clear that I had avoid ‘slamming’ from an inference I made he seemed to have construed something else.

When I wrote about English being ambiguous and used and example Dark asked why one would write something like the example. To me that misses the point and we have all seen people write similar things. The why question seems to expand the discussion without meeting points, which can be a diversionary tactic in a debate. So, I started to have questions as to his real point.

When he responded to ‘prima facie’ it wasn’t about my concept that he was misunderstanding my point with his analysis and therefore made it obvious English is ambiguous but about how he evaluated and reads posts to avoid misunderstanding. That seems to imply he does not think English is ambiguous nor that his analysis missed my point and his way works better.

Since a couple of posts had devolved (IMO) and we were talking at cross purposes it looked more and more like something more than what was in the thread was at work. Or I simply didn’t understand, which sort proves the point.

So, what truths you think you see would be really interesting to me.

And TOOO's post to over analyzing... :shock: I take that as a massive understatement. :)

_________________
Nalates - GoC - 418 - MOULa I: Nal KI#00 083 543, MOULa II: KI#00 583 875Nalates 111451 - Second Life: Nalates Urriah
Guild of Cartographers Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:11 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida USA
Quote:
So, what truths you think you see would be really interesting to me.


Ok Nalates, I’ll give it a go.

First of all, the truths I see maybe of no interest to you at all, even though I might like them to be or feel they should be. For the most part, I like you and find your writing style interesting, even though it is over my head at times. Your obviously better read and more educated than myself, though I’m not intimidated by those better educated or more literate than myself. Ones worth and abilities can be measured across many fronts. Being wrong is not a stranger to me and I don’t fear it to stop me from trying or expressing myself, even if poorly. :lol:

Quote:
Jahmen, I’m curious what truths you see?


I believe that what DarK brought out from his analysis and break down of my post, was that dis-spite my poor sentences structure and lack of grammatical skills, he showed it was still possible to get an accurate sense to the mood and context of my post.
Knowing what my own mood was and context, I found DarK’s break down analysis to be so well matched to what I was feeling and going for that I literally laughed out loud for a few minutes at how well he had done it. As to his pointing out the failings of my posts grammatical deficiencies, I ready acknowledge my horrible lack of grammatical skills. So much so, that I am considering going back to school to improve them.

Quote:
My point was and still is that English is so ambiguous that doesn’t work all that well.


What truth I saw that might interest you was that to me, although from what I read it seemed nobody disagreed with you that the English language can be ambiguous. Yet, Dark showed logically that my post wasn’t ambiguous as your post implied it was. And in his doing so, at least to me, it made a clear case that you and JW responded more out of your own forum topic history of concerns with me, than from the face value of what my post warranted from ya. That Dark showed the danger in responding to posts so as to shut down newbie’s and discourage others. I believe perhaps the very concern behind what was motivating the responses to my post, may have caused the responses to come across more critical than meant. That and seperating what you and JW posted from one another. I didn’t think DarK was far off to how JW appeared to speak for you. Truth, your well developed knowledge base of Uru topics and Guild politics, coupled with your obvious wit and literary abilities, certainly above my own can work against you at times. I believe Dark was trying to use my post and what happened to as a sample demonstration for how to communicate and avoid practices that can hurt the growth of the uru community. The very things you and JW want say you want.

It is in the perception of the forum topics threads from the eyes of newbie's and the less literate, that posting anything runs the risk of getting bashed and slammed by others more informed and literate. Unfortunately, if the more literate and informed posters keep feeling the need to put others in ther place because they didn't post according known information, their standards or standards they can't match up with, then the community looses potentially great contributers that dispite their posting failing might have been great stroy tellers or grapgic artists, coders, etc... :oops: Or I maybe I missed DarKs points entirely. :oops:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:56 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 2:00 am
Posts: 1669
Location: Lakewood, WA
Jahmen, your observations are spot on. 8)

Thank you for speaking up.

IMHO one of the better attributes of a good communicator is the ability to ratchet up or down to the listener not the other way around.

On a personal note; I personally detest the label “newbie” and its derivatives. A better and more palatable label would be “New Explorer” of which they are. It is interesting and entertaining observing the reactions to the label “elitist” when used. Neither label is acceptable and only causes riffs in the community that seem to last for ever.

Let’s clear the decks and turn the tables now. It is never too late to change.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 1814
Location: California
In the SD&D section I write about transference and how it impacts discussion and people’s views and inferences as they read.

Jahmen wrote:
Yet, Dark showed logically that my post wasn’t ambiguous as your post implied it was.

I think I can see why one would think that. I did have to correct my use of a sloppy sentence when I referred to the entire post rather than the sentence. Dark is correct the overall post has a tone and one could logically make the inferences Dark points out. I can make a case for other interpretations and did. But the only part that mattered to me was the one sentence. I’ve explained why I think the sentence had ambiguity and the basis for my question and JWP’s response. To deny there is any ambiguousness in the post and specifically the sentence, while ignoring my explanation and leaving it unchallenged says something.

Jahmen wrote:
And in his doing so, at least to me, it made a clear case that you and JW responded more out of your own forum topic history of concerns with me, than from the face value of what my post warranted from ya.

I know why I responded. I won’t speak for JWP. So, I know you applied your own inference to my motivations. While I could have taken more meaning from other posts and threads you participate in, I see that as risking more misunderstanding. If one associates all of someone’s posts to come up with their style and mind set they can add many new interpretations to what they read. One of the problems, I see, with that is that people change mood, grow, change opinions, and shift context over time and by subject. Some attitudes, biases, and prejudices do remain the same over time. But, anyone can change at any time.

We all use past experience to guide us in interpreting what we read. That is what most of us have found works. The challenge is in remembering it also often fails and gets us out on limb.

I think one of the presuppositions you have is that it was you my response was about. It was the comment. If made by a few others, I know I would not have asked a question. I don’t really know JWP’s experience with you but he explains his mind set and motivations for responding in a later post. I just found it interesting that Dark choose to respond more to me than JPW and to debate how English could be rationally interpreted to get clear meaning while drastically misunderstand what I was writing.

Jahmen wrote:
I didn’t think DarK was far off to how JW appeared to speak for you.

I read JWP’s post very differently and am still somewhat surprised Dark and you think JWP spoke for me. I thought he clearly expressed what he thought I was getting at. I think you are both reading more into it than is there and are mischaracterizing what he wrote. Especially after he posted his thinking and mind set in a later post.

Jahmen wrote:
I believe Dark was trying to use my post and what happened to as a sample demonstration for how to communicate and avoid practices that can hurt the growth of the uru community. The very things you and JW want say you want.

I like this point. I think it leads to the heart of the exchange here.

Dark may have been doing as you think. I remain unconvinced, but Dark and I are certainly not communicating well in this thread. We do have an entire forum section at OU for debating these ideas of how to post, so it seems a bit out of place here. Also we have a wiki at OU where we can distill the discussions for easy reference.

I think the motivations for the various posts are mixed. There are a number of people that have decided to challenge misinformation and harsh characterizations, which initiated this spin-off thread. I think you have taken this more personally than was intended, at least from me. While several of your comments have seemed sarcastic, to me, I’ve left those alone because I have not taken the time to see if that is part of your typical writing style nor did I intend to do more than find out why you made your comment.

Jahmen wrote:
It is in the perception of the forum topics threads from the eyes of newbie's and the less literate, that posting anything runs the risk of getting bashed and slammed by others more informed and literate. Unfortunately, if the more literate and informed posters keep feeling the need to put others in ther place because they didn't post according known information, their standards or standards they can't match up with, then the community looses potentially great contributers that dispite their posting failing might have been great stroy tellers or grapgic artists, coders, etc... Or I maybe I missed DarKs points entirely.

We are not going to ever post only for the new members. If one is really going to that level of care in their posting, it would seem posting would require considerable effort and research, which just is not going to happen.

Also, there is no way to control how another will interpret what we write.

Any person posting misinformation is likely to get corrected or bashed. That is life on forums. If I take Dark’s purpose in the thread has providing a way to avoid that, I would describe it as coming at the problem from changing how people reads posts. I would describe the SD&D threads as providing the tools and ideas to guide us in handling poorly thought out reactive posts.

I see there as being a very small window between reading and reactively firing off a post. While Dark may have demonstrated that it is possible to read more carefully, he hasn’t really provided the rules or guidelines that would allow us to change how we post. Nor do I see his posts as a good demonstration of communicating, but that may not have been his intention.

I doubt we can ever stop reactive posting. So, I see it as being more likely that we can improve the level of discussion by providing good rules and guidelines for moderators and members about how we post. Corrective measures have to happen after the fact. We can’t preemptively control or respond to someone’s thinking before they post.

While I like RAWA’s play nice and JPW’s do no damage rules. I think those rules need to be expanded on. Those rules are more than excellent in that they clearly express the spirit and intent of the rule. The problems from those rules arise when we have disagreement and a moderator needs to step in and say why something posted is damaging or not playing nice. At that point we are educating people after the post appears. So, perhaps we keep the simple rules and clarify definitions, guidelines, and identify good and bad behavior to give moderators and members the tools to do that.

_________________
Nalates - GoC - 418 - MOULa I: Nal KI#00 083 543, MOULa II: KI#00 583 875Nalates 111451 - Second Life: Nalates Urriah
Guild of Cartographers Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: I respectfully disagree.
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:11 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida USA
My initial reaction in response to your post was to get into another quote by quote breakdown analogy of points.

Nalates, can I just say I respectfully disagree with you and leave it at that without further point by point banter? Your very diplomatic and raise valid points and generate great supporting information. While your points on the surface have merit, I can't help but feel they are just meant to gloss over the fact that you got it wrong. It happens and it's no big deal. To me it's a simple matter with the simple answer.

A SIMPLE: Jahmen, sorry I came down so strong on your post. I'm passionate about correcting and stopping posts that might be seen to promote misinformation. My BAD.

I read your stuff across the forum threads and your spot on most of the time from my point of view. I don't always agree with or like your style, but l won't deny your well informed, understandble for the most part and respected. Well, at least by me.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am
Posts: 510
Nalates

I want to respond to this because you have made a very grave error in your last post, and I want to highlight it.

Nalates wrote:
We are not going to ever post only for the new members. If one is really going to that level of care in their posting, it would seem posting would require considerable effort and research, which just is not going to happen.


You’re saying that you would rather cause offence to a person, because their new to the forum. Instead of taking the time to actually read what was said and understand what was posted, additionally preventing offence as a result.

Are you better than a new person somehow?

I feel this comment shows a lack of respect for anyone else. I am actually angered by this comment and it oddly comes back to an age old discussion that has never ended about "the elitist"

I know what I have said, I stand by it. I will call anyone out who shows such disrespect to others!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:01 am 
Offline
Creative Kingdoms

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 6235
Location: Everywhere, all at once
Ok, try this:

Umbrella Man.

Now, should I fully explain in detail what this means so that no one is left out when I simply want to use a cultural reference specific to this community? Or do I make the reference in passing to not detract from the real intent of this post? New arrivials won't have a clue what this post is talking about. Although I generally do try to make the effort to provide citations when facts are involved, if I were required to dig up the references, links and details right now, I wouldn't have taken the time to contribute to this discussion.

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Make a commitment.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 1814
Location: California
Jahmen, one can always come to the point of saying they disagree and conclude the discussion.

It seems I am characterized as coming down strongly on you by asking;
Nalates wrote:
Jahmen wrote:
[…]
Can you confirm CYAN still needs to acquirie "pluggin's" a former employee has and wants compensation for and reportly required to get Open Source Uru Live up again?
[…]

Where did this idea come from?
Reference

At some point after that Dark was trying to show your post did have indicators of your state of mind. I acknowledged that was right when I explained I wrote a sloppy sentence, which both of you have ignored in all subsequent posts.

I have posts where I have made apologies and admitted screw ups. Admitting a screw up is not a problem. The problem I’ve had with the thread is the lack of response to my stated points and the mischaracterization of my motives. Example;
Jahmen wrote:
While your points on the surface have merit, I can't help but feel they are just meant to gloss over the fact that you got it wrong. It happens and it's no big deal. To me it's a simple matter with the simple answer.
Reference

I didn’t get it wrong. I realized it could be any number of things and I suspected a viewpoint. However I asked for clarification before jumping to a conclusion. In a later post I wrote what I saw in the post and why I questioned the comment. But, I did not assign motives to you by explaining why I asked. When you explained your intent and where you came by the idea (Reference) I thanked you for it and accepted you at your word. (Reference) I explained why I ask for clarification. I don’t see where I came down hard on you. That after all the posts in this thread, that you then characterize me as coming down hard on you, needing to apologize and charge me with making a mistake and trying to cover it up… it is surprising. It seems you have ignored the main points of our discussion.

Dark, you completely mischaracterize my comment. You even rephrased it.
DarK wrote:
[…]
Nalates wrote:
We are not going to ever post only for the new members. If one is really going to that level of care in their posting, it would seem posting would require considerable effort and research, which just is not going to happen.


You’re saying that you would rather cause offence to a person, because their new to the forum. Instead of taking the time to actually read what was said and understand what was posted, additionally preventing offence as a result.

Are you better than a new person somehow?

I feel this comment shows a lack of respect for anyone else. I am actually angered by this comment and it oddly comes back to an age old discussion that has never ended about "the elitist"

I know what I have said, I stand by it. I will call anyone out who shows such disrespect to others!


When I wrote, “We are not going to ever post only for the new members.” I was using ‘we’ as the group of people posting in the forum. If you can prove all members of this forum, or even the majority of them, will post with the new members constantly in mind as they write, I’ll admit the concept is wrong. You misunderstood what I wrote and have launched into ad hominem rhetoric, which is what my point about the ambiguity of English was about. You seem to have failed to follow your own advice and procedures when reading posts.

You still claim I misunderstood Jahmen and reacted. I suggest you read the section of this post I wrote to Jahmen because you are still mischaracterizing what I’ve written and the thread. That you think I haven’t read what they wrote and thought about it… I would have to say you’re caught in transference and projecting.

Thanks for explaining about ‘elitist’. I suspected something more than how I responded to Jahmen was at work in your posts. Especially considering how I responded verses how JWP responded. Now I think I understand why we are not communicating.

Respecting people is partly about handling issues when and where they come up. Dragging the baggage into following threads of another topic… most forums have rules against that.

That you will challenge others about respect but I can’t ask my 6 word question to challenge an idea… that is… well anything I say will likely agitate you.

_________________
Nalates - GoC - 418 - MOULa I: Nal KI#00 083 543, MOULa II: KI#00 583 875Nalates 111451 - Second Life: Nalates Urriah
Guild of Cartographers Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:11 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida USA
Quote:
Where did this idea come from?


A lone single line question. Your initial post question alone on its own can be seen as you say. However, JWPlatt picked up on the motivation of your questions tone reflected in his contributing posts that identified and assigned to you your motive towards me because you didn’t separate yourself or disagree with his post statements. And that is my view point.

I also don’t care if you post strong at me or disagree with me :!: :cry: I'll cry and get over it. :cry: Moving on!

Lets move on with more positive interesting threads like your great thread post to me on OSgrids.
I googled it and have been reading about it all. Very cool and promising stuff. I get what your saying now.


:arrow: I agree we can agree to disagree. I’m done with this thread now. Continue to post explorers if you must.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am
Posts: 510
Nalates ...

I’m sorry I called your behavior into question, and I will take back anything that you feel has offended you, please feel free to correct my behavior in the future, you are a model citizen of this community.

Please forgive me for telling you that you have no respect for anyone, I only wish to learn to fit in; sadly I look to have a lot of work to do.

I too want to use the term ‘We’, however it’s clear I have not earned the respect of enough of the others to use it.

I want to put all this behind us, and become friends so that I too can one day use words to justify myself and any of my actions.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 1814
Location: California
Jahmen wrote:
A lone single line question. Your initial post question alone on its own can be seen as you say. However, JWPlatt picked up on the motivation of your questions tone reflected in his contributing posts that identified and assigned to you your motive towards me because you didn’t separate yourself or disagree with his post statements. And that is my view point.


JWP did not pick up on my tone. My single sentence did not convey tone because I had not yet decided what you were trying to convey. I asked to find out. Nor is there enough information in the question to define a single tone.

That you decided some subsequent action of agreeing or not agreeing with JWP reveals my motivation is illogical. Especially when I explained my motivation and then you ignore the explanation. Both JWP and I have/had little if any emotion on the issue, have mentioned that and explained our motivations. I think both Dark and you are projecting and ignoring what we have said and how we said it.

When one chooses to disagree and end a conversation, they usually just state that and stop posting. Stating one disagrees and assigning motivations to the other is sort of taking a parting shot, whether you intended that or not.

Dark… you didn’t offend me. I just assumed you miss read an ambiguous sentence. Reading your response I realized why you would take it as you did and corrected it. As to how the rest of your post sounds to me… I’ll leave that alone.

_________________
Nalates - GoC - 418 - MOULa I: Nal KI#00 083 543, MOULa II: KI#00 583 875Nalates 111451 - Second Life: Nalates Urriah
Guild of Cartographers Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am
Posts: 510
Nalates wrote:
Dark… you didn’t offend me. I just assumed you miss read an ambiguous sentence. Reading your response I realized why you would take it as you did and corrected it. As to how the rest of your post sounds to me… I’ll leave that alone.


Odd really...

You still seem to have chosen to look at content over context, yet have managed say that there is something ...
Nalates wrote:
As to how the rest of your post sounds to me… I’ll leave that alone


To actually come out and say it was a sarcastic tone would have not been an opinion but actual fact.

I really have no intention to send my apologies to you, and you only seem to rub it in my face the point that I aparently "have done wrong”.

I’m sick of coming here and seeing pompous posts by people in the community who have this self elected importance about themselves.

Please think about why I have intentionally brought these items up:

Inability to read
Rudeness
Lack of Respect
Inability to take any responsibility for own actions

I'm done ... it’s clear I can do no more here unless you are willing to consider that perhaps I speak any sense.

Someone lock this thread already... since its proberbly the best thing that anyone has said since the start.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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

Search for:
Jump to: