User Tag List

First 71516171819 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 249

  1. #161
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Infinite by definition means without bounds.
    LOL!
    Then by definition, the universe, as postulated by you, can't exist, ergo disproving the very event that is this argument. Since we are in fact arguing, then it's a safe assumption that the universe isn't infinite, and instead, that certain qualities are boundless.

    Infinity is far too powerful a stance for any one person to assume knowledge of, and the likelihood of its falsity is indubitably more formidable to defend against than you are equipped with the ability to do so.
    Last edited by Nocapszy; 09-29-2008 at 09:02 AM.
    we fukin won boys

  2. #162
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Where is the contradiction in here with one of my claims?
    For example, there are infinitely many odd integers, infinitely many even integers, and (hence) infinitely many integers overall.

    (You had said "an entity that is unbounded (which is infinite by definition) will occupy all things, simply because there is nothing to prevent it from doing so.", yet here we see two infinite sets coexisting right next to each other, and they do not "occupy" each other!).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  3. #163
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    You obviously didn't read my posts, otherwise you'd know that I don't assert that a finite entity can create itself -- there's no actual rule saying one way or the other, it's just that we've never seen it happen so we like to assume they can't.

    Anyway, my point was, if the universe, as you say, being infinite, always existed (you'd be in pretty staunch disagreement with... well, every scientist anywhere) then the same cane be said about God. Let's say God always existed, just like you propose the universe did. Then he could have existed long enough to create the universe, thereby making it less than infinite, thereby toppling your entire stance.

    You don't know that the universe is infinite. It is, at the very best, a good guess.

    If God has always existed, he is all that has existed. What has always existed has no beginning, which also means it has no end. Therefore this entity cannot create, because everything that could possibly exist, already exists, thus nothing new can be concocted. Such a metaphysical scheme is incompatible with conventional Christian theology because Christian theology insists that God and the universe are 2 seperate entities. God is one thing, and hte universe is another. If God does not exist separably from the universe, he lacks the personhood, omnipotence, and many other qualities which are essential to the concept of God in standard Christian theology.

    Your reading comprehension requires much improvement. None of what you said was relevant to the opening post. The catch was that God cannot exist SEPARABLY from the universe.

    Bottom line is, we do know that the universe in itself is boundless or infinite. The alternatives to these we have is that it came from nothing, (absurd) and that it was created by another limited or a finite entity. We would regress ad infinitum seeking the original entity. Eventually, there will have to be a finite entity that came out of nowhere, this is absurd.

    Hence, the universe has always existed, because it could not have been any otherwise.

    But obviously the world we live in is finite, it could not have always existed. Indeed, it is an extension of the infinite realm. It is an emanation Influence of Arabic and Islamic Philosophy on the Latin West (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

    As in Kantian-Schopenhauerian philosophy, we encounter a notion that the finite world or the phenomenal world of experience is an unconscious representation of the noumenal world, or that aforementioned infinite world.

    Unlike in creationism, the infinite and the finite are not different things. The former is a distorted perception of the latter. In other words, the infinite realm is all that there is, which we know nothing about, what we know is the world we regard as real, as real as it could be. The world of our finite, unconscious representation.

    As stated earlier in the OP.

    "Consequently, there is no pure knowledge outside of the world based on our senses, and no objectivity of knowledge possible without being founded on subjectivity. The way we perceive the world seems to consist simply in receiving outside information, and yet, according to Kant, it is a rather complicated relation of first giving and then taking, and consequently any epistemic relation we have to another implies a relation also to ourselves. Kant is not thereby advocating a subjectivism; he invites us to reconsider the nature of objectivity as dependent on our subjectivity. Thinghood or causality, for instance, which Hume sceptically claimed to be merely subjective constructs (subjective in the bad sense of representing something that in reality does not exist), are acknowledged by Kant as indeed subjective concepts, but subjective to a degree that all objectivity of our knowledge depends on them. They are so fundamental, so deeply rooted in our subjectivity, that without them no empirical world remains for us to know." Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason.

    Now, nocap, lets stop talking non-sense shall we?

    Ti-Si mode for this thread. Which means, you read the text carefully (Si), make sure you have sensed or seen all the written words and that you remember what was said (without being distorted by your imagination), and then you proceed to analyze each statement you read one by one. Ti, not Ne. Which means statement A only at this point. Not, A,B,C and D simultaneously. When you are done with statement A, you can go to B, and then B only, not A and B simultaneously.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    For example, there are infinitely many odd integers, infinitely many even integers, and (hence) infinitely many integers overall. !).


    The origin of this equivocation of the word 'infinite' begins to make more sense now.

    In Learning To Reason, An Introduction To Logic, Sets and Relations, we have 2 sections. (Nancy Rodgers) 3.5-On Finite Sets, and 3.6 On Infinite sets.

    In the very introduction we find this collection of statements. " The term "infinite" is often used in the media to indicate a very large set, but this is not what it means in mathematics. The set of atoms in our universe is one of the largest physical sets that one could imagine; however, this set has less than 10 (80th power) elements, so it is a finite set. To understand the meaning of infinite, we must first understand the meaning of finite". P.271

    Here it appears that Rodgers is suggesting that likely a finite set is a countable set, and an infinite set is uncountable. As if we could use the conventional definition of finite as synonymous with countable, and the conventional definition of infinite as non-countable, or uncountable.

    I believe however, that it should indeed be so, and the term 'infinite' should be reserved strictly to the uncountable. Or entities so great that could not be countable. That is indeed what Rodgers appears to be saying in the opening paragraph, yet surprisingly, this begins to change as the chapter progresses. From the standpoint of descriptive linguistics (how language is used), this is very interesting, as here we discover how mathematicians have been using the term 'infinite', though from the standpoint of prescriptive, their use of the term encounters problems. The most prominent of which are most closely related to the confusion or even an equivocation with how a word infinite is to be used.

    Later in the chapter (3.6), it turns out that there are two kinds of infinite sets, countable and uncountable. The only reason why an entity is uncountable is if it is too large to be counted, and this Rodgers refers to as the 'higher levels of infinity'. Yet, the countable 'infinite' sets are indeed merely very large sets. This is exactly what Rodgers in the opening paragraph stated that 'infinite' does not mean.

    In summary, from the standpoint of descriptive linguistics, infinite, by most mathematicians is regarded as a very large set, which appears to be never ending.

    From the standpoint of prescriptive linguistics, the set which has an end is to be regarded as finite. The opposite of having an end, is not having an end, therefore is to be regarded as infinite, or the opposite of finite. There is no reason to call a set which has an end, but only appears not to have an end, infinite. That is exactly like calling the race car driver who only has appeared to have won the race but has actually finished second, (completing his course only a 1/1000 of a second after his opponent), a winner.

    Lets investigate the writings of Rodgers further in order to shed light onto the descriptive and prescriptive approaches to the use of the word 'infinite'.

    Thus, clearly, as stated in the opening paragraph, a finite set is one that has one to one relations with natural numbers. Basically, one that could be expressed in terms of basic numbers, like 4,5,6,7, and so on. No question here, these numbers as entities in themselves are finite, and perhaps the entire collection of such numbers will be as well.

    However, an interesting point occurs to us. What if we tried to list all of the natural numbers? 4,5,6,7,8,9 and and forever. Would we ever stop? We certainly would run out of paper in our notebook, or millions of notebooks even, but the numbers would continue forever. For this reason, it is often stated in mathematical books that a set of natural numbers is infinite. Or 'at the higher levels' of infinity, where an entity is so large that it cannot be counted.

    Yet, what have we here. A quote from Cantor.

    "My theory stands as firm as a rock; every arrow directed against it will return quickly to its archer. How do I know this? Because I have studied it from all sides for many years; because I have examined all objections which have ever been made against the infinite numbers; and above all because I have followed its roots, so to speak, to the first infallible cause of all created things." Georg Cantor 1845-1918

    "Since antiquity, the great nemesis of logic was the vast concept of infinity, which produced disturbing paradoxes. Like the Sumerian clay pots which could never contain an infinite number of pebbles, it was widely believed that a set could not contain an infinite number of elements." P. 275

    "Georg Cantor, though, considered a set as "a collection of definite, distinguishable objects of perception or thought conceived as a whole, " and he saw no reason not to conceive of the collection of all natural numbers as a single entity labeled as a set. As he probed and explored the logical ramifications of his idea, he developed an intriguing theory of sets that included both infinite sets and infinite numbers."



    "In our culture, most people use "infinity" in the same sense , as the size of a set whose size is beyond comprehension; however, as we will see in the next section, the well-reasoned mind can distinguish between different sizes of infinity."

    Thus, here we have a 'higher level' of infinity, which is too big to be counted. Which indeed is the size beyond comprehension, and 'infinite' sets which are only very large, yet not large enough to be beyond comprehension.

    "The following method for creating the natural numbers may seem excessively laborious, but great precision is needed to logically escape the finiteness of mortal existence. After all, no human can count all the natural numbers. Even the days of existence for the sun that fuels our solar system is a finite numbers. The belief in an infinite set of natural numbers requires logical articles of faith, which can be boiled down to the following axioms. These axioms were the intellectual product of Georg Cantor's journey in following to its roots 'the first infallible cause of all things." P.276

    'The first infallible cause of all things' is indeed the matter that this thread is intensely interested in.

    "The first axiom of a set theory postulates the existence of the empty set. Like the Big Bang, this axiom gives us all the material that we need to start building the universe. In the beginning was the empty set, and from this set we will build all our sets and numbers." P.277

    I am not exactly sure how to interpret this passage. Though the clear-cut inference is that we have an axiom that nothing comes from nothing. An axiom is a truism, a proposition that does not require to be supported with reasoning.

    Because nothing comes from nothing, the infallible cause of all created things could not be nothingness. It must be something. This something must have always existed. It did not derive from anything. Thus, we have not contravened the axiom concerning the impossibility of something coming from nothing. This something must cover all things, because if it covers only some things, the things that it does not cover must have come from nothing.
    This is not possible.

    Thus, a universal set, or everything, is to be preferred over the empty set, which is nothing. However, upon a superficial survey, it is difficult to tell the difference between an empty set and a universal set, as everything is as difficult to define as 'nothing'. When we define an entity, we assign one particular trait to it, or a combination of traits. Yet, we cannot define an entity that is everything because our combination would have to include all things that exist. This is not possible because this elevates to the 'higher levels of infinity' the levels beyond comprehension.

    For this reason, Rodgers was likely justified in regarding this infallible cause of all created things' as an empty set, as mathematically, we cannot provide a clear-cut value for either of the two.

    You bring up a very interesting point, an idea similar to which, Rodgers takes a very careful note of.

    Now, we start section 3.6, on the Infinite Sets.

    "It seemed as though the infinite were beyond the grasp of logical inquiry. What was missing was the language that would give a precise description of this very massive concept. Thanks to Georg Cantor and the other mathematical pioneers who developed axiomatic foundations for set theory, we can now work with infinite sets in a logical manner and even construct infinite numbers that make as much sense as finite numbers." P.284

    This obviously requires much further thorough explanation. I myself do not find the idea of how there are 'many levels of infinity' some countable, and some not so, to be plausible, as the two concepts could simply be demarcated as countable and not countable. Countable is finite, and non-countable is infinite. Cantor made discoveries with regard to how we ought to manipulate very large mathematical figures and how to express them, but he did not figure out how to deal with the non-countable, or non-expressive, of course that would be non-sense to say that he did. This of course is not a matter of purely mathematical concepts, but words we ought to use to convey them.

    I argue that infinite ought to be reserved strictly for the large beyond our understanding, the non-countable, as otherwise confusion is incurred, as we have witnessed above.

    In any case, lets continue with the exegesis of Rodgers.

    "A proper subset of an infinite set can have the same size as the original set." P.288

    "A set is infinite if and only if it has a proper subset of the same size."

    "A set S that has the same size as the set N of natural numbers is called countably infinite. We use the term countable to cover both finite sets and countably infinite sets. The set (5,8,7) is a countable set that is finite, whereas the set (3,6,9) is a countable set that is infinite. A set that is not countable is called uncountable. The term uncountable represents a higher level of infinity, a level beyond the size of the natural numbers." P.289

    It is not clear to me what pattern is represented by the symbol (5,8,7) or the 3,6,9, yet the suggestion here appears to be that the latter being infinite and the former being finite is that the latter leads to higher numbers than the former. Yet, apparently, not high enough to be considered uncountable. It is still puzzling to me why it is regarded as infinite, and EXACTLY how high must a value be in order to be considered infinite. This is not clearly explained.


    Thus, your point is very interesting and deserving mention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    [(You had said "an entity that is unbounded (which is infinite by definition) will occupy all things, simply because there is nothing to prevent it from doing so.", yet here we see two infinite sets coexisting right next to each other, and they do not "occupy" each other!).
    Under this definition of infinite, we simply have to very large sets. Yet, if we had the infinite of the 'higher levels' of infinity, such a thing would not be countable. Precisely because it occupies all possible things.

    Thus, what we have in the end is that the universe has always existed, as I have explained to nocapszy in this post, and this represents the uncountable, the infinite, or as Rodgers says, the 'higher levels of infinity' and the 'infallible cause of all created things'.

    Certainly the phraseology of 'created things' is inexact. The thing that is all things necessarily contains all created things. What is 'created', has been concocted from the material provided by the entity that is all things. For example, if the clay is our whole world, I could create an entity which resembles a human body made of clay and a car. But these entities are not separable from clay itself.

    Thus, this is not creation, as creation implies an innovation of a wholly new entity. What we have here is a concoction of an entity, the material for which has already inhered within the original set. This is precisely the explanation for the existence of our known world. It was not a creation, it did not come afresh, it is a rearrangement of materials that have always existed.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #164
    Senior Member Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    246

    Default

    Simply stated, if you believe in God, you cannot believe in God because God cannot exist without the infinite principle of the universe. And then if God does exist he is not truly God because God is infinte not finite.
    This world is mine - in time.

  5. #165
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer View Post
    Simply stated, if you believe in God, you cannot believe in God because God cannot exist without the infinite principle of the universe..
    Yes, the kind of a God that is described in the Old Testament is infinite, yet this is an incoherent notion. Because to be infinite and to be the whole universe mean the same thing. If he is 'infinite' in a figurative sense, only very great, but not everything, he could not be the first principle of the universe. This also contravenes a fundamental tenet of Christian theology because it requires him to be the first principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer View Post
    And then if God does exist he is not truly God because God is infinte not finite.
    Yes, again, nothing that is infinite exists in our world. It is simply impossible. Yet if there is a thing reminiscent of God in our world, it is finite (as being finite is a requirement for existence in our world), but in that case the being in question would not be the God of the Old Testament, but only a being reminiscent of the God in the Old Testament. As you adequately stated, 'he is not truly God because God is infinite and not finite', and he is not truly God for a number of other reasons, some mentioned in this thread.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #166
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    OK; it seems your argument hinges on the term "uncountable". At first, it appears "uncountable" meant that the total number of integers had no end. But then you said "3, 6, 9" was countable. You can count them (this set would be of the multiples of 3, while 5, 8, 7 has no order, and therefore no logical pattern to continue the set). But the entire set of multiples of 3 has no end. Because after 9, it's 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, etc). You can begin "counting" them, but never count a total number. It is just like the set of even numbers (multiples of 2), or the set of all numbers (multiples of 1). All of these infinite sets coexist on the same number line.

    Thus, clearly, as stated in the opening paragraph, a finite set is one that has one to one relations with natural numbers. Basically, one that could be expressed in terms of basic numbers, like 4,5,6,7, and so on. No question here, these numbers as entities in themselves are finite, and perhaps the entire collection of such numbers will be as well.
    How? If that is so, you could give us "the last number"; the end of the set, then.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  7. #167
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    If God has always existed, he is all that has existed. What has always existed has no beginning, which also means it has no end.
    How does not having a beginning prove the absence of an end? Perhaps you'd like to explain that to me. All you've said so far is that this is how it is. You really obviously don't understand math...

    It's on this axiom that the rest of your argument is balanced, and a wobbly one it is.
    we fukin won boys

  8. #168
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    How? If that is so, you could give us "the last number"; the end of the set, then.
    Number 5, in itself is finite. If I have 5 apples, the number of entities is finite. An exception to this is an irrational number, (could not be written as a fraction) 3.6777777777 for instance..where the 7 goes on with no end.

    A series that never ends is infinite. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7....(and on forever) Yet, a set that does end, no matter at how high of a number ought to be called finite.

    Thus, as for the use of the word uncountable, the only reason something would be uncountable is if it is too great to be counted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    How does not having a beginning prove the absence of an end? Perhaps you'd like to explain that to me. All you've said so far is that this is how it is. You really obviously don't understand math...

    It's on this axiom that the rest of your argument is balanced, and a wobbly one it is.
    Having no end means having no limits. Having a beginning means having limits. This is an incoherent statement as it posits to both have limits and not to have limits.


    On a more down to earth level, I wonder if you can think of any entity in the universe that does have a beginning, but does not have an end. Does have an end, but does not have a beginning. Or has no end or beginning?

    In short anything that does not have both a beginning and an end.

    Bottom line is, an entity either does have limits or is finite, or does not, and therefore is infinite.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #169
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    so you don't believe in God because there is no logical reason to do so?
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  10. #170
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Number 5, in itself is finite. If I have 5 apples, the number of entities is finite. An exception to this is an irrational number, (could not be written as a fraction) 3.6777777777 for instance..where the 7 goes on with no end.
    Er... except that it can be written as a fration, and it would would be an infinite number of digits not an infinite value -- it doesn't mean that the quantity continues to grow...

    A series that never ends is infinite. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7....(and on forever) Yet, a set that does end, no matter at how high of a number ought to be called finite.
    And yet you didn't draw an ellipsis before the 1.

    Out of curiosity, what comes before 1? What comes before that?
    Or did you accidentally prove my point that you can have one end and still be infinite? As long as there isn't a second end, it's still infinite. Unless you want to get into semi-finite, which I doubt, being against shades of gray as you are.

    Seriously... enough with the math. You really don't know what you're talking about. You've not only misapplied terms, but have breached appropriate context and interpreted patterns incorrectly.

    Thus, as for the use of the word uncountable, the only reason something would be uncountable is if it is too great to be counted.



    Having no end means having no limits.
    If that's so, why didn't you say that in the beginning? Why use the synonym to convey a concept which is more accurately described using the other word?

    Know what? I'm not even going to wait for you to walk into that trap. You did it because english semantics and sentence structure doesn't allow you to. It would sound senseless to write that way. So instead, you have to revise the sentence inserting new words and removing the ones that don't fit your position. This lexicon displacement provides illusory proof.

    Having a beginning means having limits.
    It means having a limit, while still not being really truly confined. We have a starting point, but no ending point. Who says you can't? You do. You're the only one, and you have no reason to say so.


    On a more down to earth level, I wonder if you can think of any entity in the universe that does have a beginning, but does not have an end.
    In fact I can. We call them black holes. Endless gravitational strength.

    Your turn -- I've asked for this more than once, and you've not done it.
    Does have an end, but does not have a beginning. Or has no end or beginning?
    It has a beginning, but it doesn't have an end. Read up on black holes. They're really neato!

    And by the way, that's a pretty slanted request. Not really fair at all. Suppose the universe is the only thing which has a beginning and no end. Then I'd only be able to use it as an example, but I have no way of showing you the beginning. However for me to turn it around on you, asking you to provide me with evidence of infinity, would automatically require you to use the entire universe. Of course I can't go out in a space ship and find the end to prove you wrong. You're asking me to give you a concrete example from which we can extrapolate analogy, where your side would be impossible to find an analog of. There is only the identity object.

    You're a cheater Bluedawg. I see through your ploy.


    Bottom line is, an entity either does have limits or is finite, or does not, and therefore is infinite.
    Incorrect. If this was the case, there would be no need for a ray, in mathematics. The concept would prove utterly useless, and therefore wouldn't be used ever, and maybe not even invented.
    we fukin won boys

Similar Threads

  1. Why Do People Believe in Ghosts?
    By Tellenbach in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-19-2014, 09:16 AM
  2. Do you believe in a God?
    By ADISCIPLE in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 05-28-2009, 08:51 AM
  3. Do you believe in hope without despair?
    By Zrenn in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 09:45 PM
  4. Do you believe in natural rights?
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-26-2008, 01:27 PM
  5. Do you believe in a higher power?
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 08:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO