Comments by riandouglas

451. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170439 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Mphil, I think you need one of theses -> 'e'

Just being pedantic :-P

452. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170435 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:28 pm

smellhound: Oh, I'm not too against the theory of evolution in general. I just don't think its perfect or fact as a lot of people do. I think it is a good theory in general. I'm not to the point of ruling out the presence of a supernatural being at many points of the development of life on earth, but the general idea of inherited traits and beneficial traits surviving and possibly creating new species. I dont have a problem with that.

You just put a huge smile om my face - thank you.
You realise you're position is very like those of us discussing with you. I probably put less likelyhood on the supernatural than you, but I don't rule it out. I probably have a little more confidence in the theory of evolution too. It's not pefect, but it's the best we've got, and it's awefully good to boot.

thank you again. You've increased my faith in us over imaginative apes

453. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170432 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:25 pm

smellhound: come on. In the way that the theory of evolution drives you away from the natural human thought that there is an almighty being and an after life, it should also drive you away from morality. Both things that make people feel good etc., but you have made an intellectual assent to the idea that they are not actually beneficial/useful

No, we're saying that morality developed from beneficial behaviours, and is still beneficial. If you somehow did take away morality, humanity would perish. That is not to say, however, that taking away a belief in a god, or in objective morality takes away actual morality.
Just because something is "natural" (believe in the supernatural), doesnt mean the subject exists or is true (the actual supernatural)

454. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170426 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:23 pm

smellhound: sorry, i know this was a post on the last page, but I gotta ask again, if morality is a natural development then isnt people developing faith natural too. If so, why are you so worried about fighting it? Just wondering.

Developing faith would seem to be natural - it occurred almost every where.
The interesting this is why?
Was it because of a god or gods?
Or was it due to ignorance and an over active imagination (and ascribing intent to stuff)?
I don't think we can say the latter for sure yet, as the mechanisms haven't really been studied.
The number and variability of the former however, would seem to be a strike against any actual gods revealing themselves.

455. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170422 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Smellhound, just being pedantic, and because it edit: might make me smile could you answer a question for me.
Given the (brief) discussion you've had here, are you somewhat happy that the theory of evolution stacks up, and your issues are with the source of morality and the beginning of life (abiogenesis)?

Thanks muchly

456. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170421 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:17 pm

smellhound: Hey, just wanted to bring up a funny point. Not meaning to start an argument about this, but it isnt it kind of funny that people who don't believe in Darwin's theory are probably the ones who are the most viable under it. I mean, religious people breed a lot more than others.

Perhaps it is the religious meme which is benefitting, along with the genes of the hosts (some of which may contribute to the effects of the meme).
I'm just saying...

457. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170415 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:14 pm

MPhil, glad you're around. I was afraid I might have to explain something philosphical :-)

458. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170413 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Bizarro: I found Hitchen's essay particularly incoherent. Although it is admittedly a bit off topic, he makes the rather sweeping statement that morality shudders at the idea of God (by "God" I assume he means all gods, including the Christian God). I've always been surprised and a little disappointed that some of the greatest minds in the atheist community attack God's character with the intention of somehow detracting from the reasonability of His existence. Those such as Hitchens and Dawkins call God evil and immoral, hoping that they can sway the minds of the ignorant into buying this counterfeit logic. For the sake of argument they assume God's existence, and then presumptuously claim that his design is faulty, or that His plan for salvation and redemption reflects a spirit of malevolence and cruelty. They have even gone so far as to call God "immoral", as is implied by Hitchen's above statement.

They don't tend to condemn all gods, just those created by man, eg Yahweh. If, upon reading the OT, you don't see Yahweh as an immoral and evil character, I'd think you had some kind of problem, but that's just me.
You're free to put forward an argument for a god which doesn't suffer the moral (and evidential) problems that Yahweh does.

Bizarro: God of the Bible cannot, by definition, be immoral.

By the standard definition of "sin against Yahweh" yes. Without a suitable separate word for "decent way of living", you'll forgive me if I borrow yours.

Bizarro: In the Biblical scheme, whatever is moral is whatever is consistent with God's nature.

I'd claim that Yahweh's behaviour is not consistent with "his nature", if his nature is all-loving, all-good etc. How can one go against one's nature? Yahweh must not exist :-)

Bizarro: This is certainly a convenient argument, but I believe it is nonetheless valid. If a person is going to attack the character of the God of the Bible, this individual cannot arbitrarily disregard one of the necessary and defining attributes that makes the god they are attacking the God of the Bible. If one must assume the existence of the Christian God for the sake of argument, then one must also accept every attribute that defines God's existence.

And if those attributes are illogical, that god can be dismissed, right? thanks :-)

Bizarro: Hitchen's argument really boils down to a rather crude argument from personal incredulity, and it deserves nothing less than to be discounted as emotionally charged rubbish. While it is certainly convenient to twist God's words and actions to conflict with our own sense of morality, I'm sure there are other ways of going about the business of attacking God's existence that are not so intellectually lazy.

Now i'm confused. Isn't yahweh the source of all morality in your view? So how can hitchens morality be anything less than a reflection of image of the source of that morality?

459. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170402 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:05 pm

smellhound: I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do. Regardless of my views on God etc. (I am a Christian) I do believe that there is an objective morality of right and wrong.

Why is it the right thing to do?

460. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170399 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:03 pm

smellhound: why be altruistic if someone can't/won't ever pay you back?

I'm with commontoad. What is your reason for behaving morally?

461. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170398 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:02 pm

TCT: Well I can give you my reason. Because I care what happens to others. Others suffering cuts like a knife. Human solidarity, basically that elementary moral principle the golden rule, which is a fairly good rule of thumb.

Ah, empathy. That would be somewhat related to the mirror neuron link.
We treat people as we'd like to be treated as we can see what it is like from their point of view.

462. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170395 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 6:00 pm

smellhound: Ok, I read the thing about reciprocal altruism, and I understand that, but again the problem becomes, why be altruistic if someone can't/won't ever pay you back?

How can you know at the outset?
And how do you know the only payback can come from the recipient. Aren't people who help the needy, with ho though of themselves thought of very highly. being thought of highly is a very valulable thing.

EDIT: I don't mean to say that this is a conscious thing on the part of the altruist, though it may be.

463. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170394 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Brian English: Religious people have to learn that morality can't come from God. Even if there were an objective morality, God could be nothing more than a messenger of morality. But it's quite obvious there is no objective morality. Some peoples thought (still think) that slavery was (is) fine and moral. Many do not, this demonstrates that what is seen as moral changes. The basic feelings that we feel when something seen as moral is transgressed are the same as previous generations.

I'd say people need to learn this, not just religious (though they're the majority).
Also, simply because morals aren't relative, doesn't mean we can't strive to improve them.
There is no such thing in reality as a perfectly straight line, but that doesn't preclude us from trying to make one.

464. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170390 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:56 pm

TCT, I guess I now have to read Socrates. I have a new book to read every 10 minutes on this site.
If I didn't like it so much, I'd hate you people! :-)

465. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170389 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" goes into some detail concerning this. You can read a small snippet on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Genes_can_reproduce_at_the_expense_of_the_organism

466. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170386 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:52 pm

smellhound: No, sorry, i think you are missing the point. Acting moral sometimes means acting irrationally against your own interests. The only reason to do that is that you have faith that what you are doing is right. Faith in something that can't be proven I would identify as religion.

I understand what you're getting at. It simply doesn't mean what you think it means. Please take a look at the wiki links I posted. They explain an evolutionary basis for the development of "selfless" behaviour, which is what you're talking about.

EDIT: basically, meaning there is no reason in saying that it is irrational to behave selfishly unless there is something higher/greater

467. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170384 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:50 pm

smellhound, if morality can only exist because of god, either it is his nature and he can do nothing about it, in which case we should be after the laws which god follows. If it is his whim, then it is simply following commands, and isn't really morality.

(Hope I put that argument together in a lucid fashion)

468. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170383 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:48 pm

smellhound, I've never been religious, so by your argument I can't be moral (sorry if I'm misinterpreting).
I'm actually quite a nice guy, trying to do the right thing and be kind to people. Why do I do it, if not because of faith? It was how I was raised (thanks mum). It feels like the right thing to do.
Some (many?) on this site were evangelicals, who might have held the opinion that without god/faith, there can be no morality. Some of them no longer have a belief in god, but are still (or have become?) moral people.

469. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170381 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:44 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

All good things to read concerning the development of morality in homo sapiens (and other species)

470. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170378 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:42 pm

smellhound: You increase your own ability to survive and thrive by not caring for and eliminating those who cannot survive on their own. I'm just arguing what is the rational action to take if you eliminate morality. I'm not arguing about what is moral or immoral

My ability to survive is not the thing. It's about genes. If my genes ability to replicate is helped by caring for someone (kin selection and reciprocal altruism are good read's on wikipedia) then that behaviour will be selected for.

471. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170376 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:40 pm

smellhound: I don't mean this as a way to justify anything other than to say that to avoid conclusions that slavery, eugenics, involuntary euthanasia, are logical without appealing to some set of morality that is neither rational or logical. A kind of morality that, dare i say it, is faith based.

Why is morality neither rational nor logical?
The morality presented in the bible is not what we have today, and the sense you get from it is informed by your own morality. This explains why we don't think stoning homosexuals and adulters is a great thing to do anymore.

472. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170373 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:38 pm

smellhound: Sorry, as I understand ID, or at least the kind that right now I will accept as a scientific theory is that something or someone must have intervened at the start in order get the process moving. Whether it was God or something else, I don't think can be explained at this point. I think of ID as more of a rejection of saying that Darwin is enough.

You're thinking theistic evolution, not ID.
ID seems to be (and there is no real, decent, definition around for some reason), that the complexity we see in live is too much for simple descent with modification (evolution), so they postulate a designer to add this complexity in.

473. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170371 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:37 pm

smellhound: We all have the biologically programmed goal to survive and breed.

I think I'm still correct in saying it's actually genes which do the replication. Our desires to breed are simply a manifestation of that ie. Those who had a greater desire to breed bred more often and left more ofspring.
No mention of the sick or weak. In fact they can be important sources of knowledge, especially while we were still living in small tribal units.

smellhound: The only rational argument I can think of supporting this is to gain the assurance that you will not be thinned from the herd. I am just wondering if that is the explanation for why it is a bad idea to do things like that if you abandon morality

Why do you think there is an abandonment of morality?
If you want I'll point you to some reasons why morality is subective even if god exists, and why we can't/shouldn't use the bible as a source of morality. Or something close to that

474. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170360 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:21 pm

smellhound: Ok, I'll admit that I am a supporter of ID. I also support at least some form of evolution because its pretty obvious. The reason I support ID in part is because I find no plausible explanation for the creation of the first living cell, but I digress.

If you mean the first replicator/life, and I think you do, then you're an "evil darwinist" like the rest of us. The theory you actually have a problem with is abiogenesis.
Welcome!

smellhound: If we remove an objective source of morality, there is no reason not to want to try to encourage the reproduction of the "best elements" of society while discouraging the reproduction of the "worst elements." This would lead to more comfort for individuals who would not be given the burden of caring for people who are weak or unintelligent. Could someone explain to me how I am wrong about this?

Others will (hopefully) address this better than I will, but here foes.
There is no objective source of morality. I'm not removing god, simply that morals are objective even with his existence. happy to explain further or point you to material.
Eugenics is a case of "artificial selection" as we practice on domesticated animals, and the spartans did on their children. They were a little before darwin too.
Any further points or clarification?

475. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170356 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm

moderndaythomas: Morality and compassion are boasted as the sole property of religion. This is a direct assault on their turf.

I thought eternal life/danmation was the big draw card. The others just make you feel superior while you're waiting for your reward

476. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170355 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Bonzai: Kirk and crew went to this planet to rescue a certain Captain Pike who was believed to be captured. They found out Captain Pike was actually burned beyond recognition and became a vegetable from an accident, He was too far gone for the medical technology to fix. The aliens hooked him up to some virtue reality machine so that he could experience his life as a vibrant, handsome young man just like it was before the accident even though only in his head. In other words, the aliens created this delusion to keep the poor man happy.

Just to be geeky, it was a revisit of the pilot episode, where pike was the captain (no kirk), and they discovered a crashed ship with survivors. Long story short the inhabitants of the planet were very strong telepaths, wanted humans as their slaves etc because they'd become physically week. Pike save the day somehow, I think by saying that they'd simply not help them (it was a while ago).
In the episode you refer to they return to the planet which had been marked as a no fly zone due to the aliens, so that pike could be reunited with the sole survivor of the original crash.

A memory for the trivial, but you think I can remember anything usefull? Nope

477. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170344 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Wasn't Yahweh directly refering to the Israelites when he said "And I will be their God and they will be my people."
Mel I hope you're of the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

478. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170338 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 4:33 pm

phil rimmer: Not with Good Old pre-Christian Yahweh. He'd just give you a damn good smiting (and an apology if you'd been a kid and He'd been overzealous.) It was the Jebus re-branding that added the clever extra stick of Hell to go with the withered carrot of salvation.

Yeah, but you don't often get Jews evangelising. There's still some pretty nasty stuff in there at times, but not so much with the fiery lakes, I agree.

479. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170332 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Brian English: f he's spilled the beans, what's not to divulge? But I think it's probably more traitor to the cause in some sense. Which makes me guilty by association. Cool! I love being the rebel, loner, lunatic!

You're in Australia - what harm could you possibly do?
I had no problem with you keeping your secret. It was dangling it out there which was more the issue (which, as you said, epeeist would be guilty of as well).
I'm new here however, so apart from my constant stream of words, ignore everything I said :-)

480. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170331 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 4:07 pm

phil rimmer: They're such idiots thinking they could cut and paste a whole religion and get the same professional indemnity cover.

It worked for the Christians. In fact, they claim to have taken over the same policy from the original policy holders.

While reading WLC's genocide justification I reaslised, again, that, while I accept the (unlikely) possibility of god(s) and feel the evidence doesn't support any, I really don't want it to be Yahweh, in any of his guises.

I couldn't bow down to such an obnoxious character, and would be sent to hell. It would be unfair in every sense I can think of, even though this entity is supposed to be just and merciful, good and loving, it would still subject me to an eternity of torment (by most interpretations) for a reason I cannot agree with.

I think that's part of the problem I have with WLC. He's obviously an intelligent, well read guy. Yet he buys into the entire story. He could have gone with the view that the conquering of Canaan was a story, but he stuck with the obnoxious guy and then justified it as the best possible action. That is sickening.

481. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170326 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Brian English: He, I tried that one with Richard Morgan the other week and copped a bit of flak. Everybody flak Epeeist. (When he hasn't got the sabre on him of course.) :P

Perhaps it's because irate has spilled the beans as it were on this site (to some degree at least). So no one seemed particularly interested?
Could also be because of epeeists bodyguards?
[sarcasm]Nah, probably because RM was a traitor to the cause[sarcasm]

482. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170321 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Kardashel: I've just finished some veggie burgers, in keeping with my newfound confusion about pescatarianism

I've recently heard the term "fish & chipocrite" used to describe you pescaterians.

I quite like it :-)

483. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170319 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 3:44 pm

phil rimmer: So we agree. The beliefs of intellectual innocents divorced from any real understanding of science:)

A harsh but fair assessment

How could theists possibly get the idea atheists are arrogant :-P

484. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170309 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Phil Rimmer: But thats unreasonable. An intellectual innocent looking through a microscope for the first time might surmise an Intelligence, but thats not science.

I was thinking along the lines of the god of theologians, or deism. Something wispy and insubstantial, which might have got the ball rolling.

485. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170305 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Brian English: Maybe I should be come a moral philosopher. Beer and strippers with philosophy. Then again, doing a Bender, I could just skip the philosophy and cut straight to the beer and strippers.

Truly you have lived more in your one week, than we have in our entire lives!"

486. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170303 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Brian English: I felt a disturbance in the force, as if someone was following in my footsteps and senselessly posting on every thread.....

I'll have you know I made sense on at least 2 occasions.
That's right, I'm the new you. Same city, same idiocy, same stupid attachment to posting on this damn website!

487. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170301 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 3:24 pm

PhilRimmer: So those who perished in the twin towers were corrupt and any innocent children killed probably just scooped up into Allah's merciful arms. No real harm done then?

Ah, see that's where you're mistaken Phil. Muslims don't worship the right god!

488. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170291 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Donald: Quite extraordinary. In fact, knowledge from modern science makes belief in an Intelligence behind the cosmos unnecessary, optional, and therefore much less reasonable than before.

Science, for some, may make belief in an intelligence reasonable.
Science also makes belief in the local god of a small desert tribe from the bronze age somewhat ridiculus from what I can see

489. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170287 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 3:02 pm

MPhil: Corylus, - yes I have... disgusting.

Just read it...eek!
I may be mistaken, but couldn't you take WLC's argument to mean you should kill children and the saved.
You'll be doing a moral wrong and go to hell yourself, but you'll be saving those others from any influences which may cause them to not have faith. Surely Yahweh would look favourable upon you for that, and you'd end up in purgatory.

Disgusting!

490. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170281 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Steve Zara: 68000 assembler code as an Appendix

Retro!
Pity x86 killed 68xxx & PPC & Mips & Alpha, at least in personal computers (and most other places).

491. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170277 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:39 pm

oldwobbly: And Ben Stein would have to go back to running a game show on cable.

Couldn't he go back to being a social activist? His jew-fro looked great

492. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170272 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Mitchell: then I don't think he is insane for being committed to saving the whales.

The insane is more to do with the raming other vessels at sea, and blowing them up while at port. Though I suspect he hasn't done either too often, and the stories may have been exagerated.

493. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170270 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Mphil: Thanks. Will read them, and have visited contracraig before. I'd kind of assumed the arguments were unconvincing, but one can never be too careful :-)

Corylus, I read a review of that defence (I think). Will have to read the real thing, as it sounded too good to miss out on - ie. Justification of monstrous acts by twiddling with the details. Or something like that...

494. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170262 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Mitchell: The founders left though, because it was hi-jacked by people that now focuse their efforts fighting against "establishments",

One of them started the Sea Shepherds, right? He seems moderatly batshit insane, but committed, at least as far as whaling goes

Heard about the water thing - it's also a common internet meme. At least it used to be before spam filters

495. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170260 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:23 pm

MPhil, not sure if this is remotely you're thing, but you mentioned Lane Craigs argumentation, so I thought I'd ask.
Have you encountered his arguments in support of the ressurrection, and in your opinion do they hold water? I've heard them referenced, and I guess briefly been introduced in debate settings, but haven't seen them laid out as some kind of proof. I'm not even sure he does that - it may simply be an argument from the Gospel accounts, with some justification for the Gospels being "true".

496. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170255 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:16 pm

On a completely different subject, and as this is the current unofficial "this thread doesn't really have a topic anymore" thread - is it just me, or am I commenting on just about every active thread, more than is normal/required?

This attention seeking behaviour has to stop, and stop at once! :-)

497. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170254 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Probably.
I also had the thought concerning what "creates" the batshitters in the first place. Do they start out slightly off side, and then as more people understand and sympathise, feel like they have to increase their ferocity so as not to be part of the crowd?
Not saying everyone would do this, but being different seems to be very important for some people.

498. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170252 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Kardashovel: I was just joking, Havok.

Damn! I was hoping to move your tale/hypothesis/belief story along

Kardashovel: Have you recovered from your virus?

Enough that I should be out riding this morning, instead of on here. I would have liked to have gotten some sleep as well, but it didn't work out for me

499. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170246 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I think the batshit insane stuff does cause a few to think, but generally just annoys. I guess it's up to the non-batshit guys, who were possibly made tom think by the batshitters to actually do the bulk of the convincing. Not a rewarding task, i'd think

500. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170245 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 2:01 pm