Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 101

Thread: A Wiki science Journal?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
    Posts
    199
    Indeed, Ken,

    There is a historical parallel here. Anyone with a little history background is aware that when the Gutenberg Press was invented, the reproduction of the Bible in a variety of languages other than Latin allowed the common man to read and understand the content in detail for the first time. This had a huge impact. The religious ramifications of the reproducible text shook the Christian world to the core.
    What is less talked about and probably more significant, is that within a very short span of time, countless practical pamphlets were published, "How to thatch a roof", "How to make shoes" etc.,
    The upshot of this was that within mere decades, the closely guarded secrets handed down within families or guilds became common knowledge. If one could see a graph of technological advancement during those decades, (and I don't know if any exist) I believe you would see a dramatic climb in the dispersion, discovery and use of technology. Within a very short period, most of the guilds had become extinct.

    So who knows? Might not the Web do to the 'guilds' of science what the Guttenberg Press wrought in our past?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    6,926
    Oops. I edited this post because it was not relevant to this conversation. I thought I posted in the FLT neutrino thread.

    Original text -" I wonder if someone else conducts this experiment will they build their devices with the ability to make slight changes to the apparatus so they can detect where errors are being introduced? "

    My apologies.
    Solfe

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You're only given one little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it." Robin Williams.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    It may well be-- I always marvel at how much time people are willing to spend on Wiki articles, with no compensation or recognition at all! But then, look at how much time we spend on these forums. I guess it just means that people will do what they are interested in doing, regardless of whether it brings them fame and fortune. But if I'm writing a scientific article, I think of it more as work than as fun, so I want some compensation for it-- generally in the form of professional recognition. This may just be the way the scientific community is currently organized-- it might be changing.
    I agree with you but then I hope that more than making complex formula to prove the validity of your work, I also hope that there are other scientists who are willing to explain things in a less scientific ways for ordinary people to understand.

    It is becoming exclusive only for few 'elite' people who think they're are the only one authorized to learn how things in the Universe work, they're ISOLATING THEMSELVES from the majority who are part of all walks of life. This is not an argument, this a request. Thanks

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    Indeed, Ken,

    There is a historical parallel here. Anyone with a little history background is aware that when the Gutenberg Press was invented, the reproduction of the Bible in a variety of languages other than Latin allowed the common man to read and understand the content in detail for the first time. This had a huge impact. The religious ramifications of the reproducible text shook the Christian world to the core.
    What is less talked about and probably more significant, is that within a very short span of time, countless practical pamphlets were published, "How to thatch a roof", "How to make shoes" etc.,
    The upshot of this was that within mere decades, the closely guarded secrets handed down within families or guilds became common knowledge. If one could see a graph of technological advancement during those decades, (and I don't know if any exist) I believe you would see a dramatic climb in the dispersion, discovery and use of technology. Within a very short period, most of the guilds had become extinct.

    So who knows? Might not the Web do to the 'guilds' of science what the Guttenberg Press wrought in our past?
    One 'Thumb Up' for you gfellow!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    So who knows? Might not the Web do to the 'guilds' of science what the Guttenberg Press wrought in our past?
    There are guilds of science?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by sirjon View Post
    It is becoming exclusive only for few 'elite' people who think they're are the only one authorized to learn how things in the Universe work ...
    Are there such people?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    257
    Saying this as a layperson, I think such an approach could work with a couple considerations.

    Most importantly, no anonymity for posting or editing. You have to be a verified real world person for that, and when you post a paper or make a response, your real world name is attached. This would accomplish a few things, most importantly keeping things a bit more civil and removing a number of spurious comments and spam. PhD or not, your interaction with the site can both build or destroy your reputation, just like in real science journals.

    That also accomplishes the other issue of having the credentials of each commentator attached. That way a certain amount of weight can be given in regard to a contributor's education or field of employment, in addition to their history on the journal and it's community.

    However, this also is nice in that it does allow you to draw on your accomplishments in that journal for reference. I think a really beautiful scenario would be a place where laypeople and professional science interact, but also where people with talents outside their specific credentials might be recognized, ideally with some way for this to lead to (or weigh in on the application for) scholarships in one manner or another.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by JCoyote View Post
    ...I think such an approach could work with a couple considerations.
    If you force people to agree with "considerations", then what of those who refuse?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,753
    Quote Originally Posted by sirjon View Post
    I agree with you but then I hope that more than making complex formula to prove the validity of your work, I also hope that there are other scientists who are willing to explain things in a less scientific ways for ordinary people to understand.

    It is becoming exclusive only for few 'elite' people who think they're are the only one authorized to learn how things in the Universe work, they're ISOLATING THEMSELVES from the majority who are part of all walks of life. This is not an argument, this a request. Thanks
    Funny, I dont remember being authorized to learn how the universe works. I just actually took the time to learn the relevant physics. Kinda how a surgeon takes the time to learn how to cut people up without being a serial killer. Yeah, I am comparing people who try to do physics without knowing any physics to serial killers. They will kill science, and the fact that they just want to make it better is not relevant.

    If you want to know science, take the time out to learn it.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    If you force people to agree with "considerations", then what of those who refuse?
    All social organization has certain rules and formula for how each instance works, be they explicitly created or emergent behaviors.

    If someone doesn't want to have to deal with the considerations required for a group to exist in a functional semi-harmonious state, they are free to go sit in their own corner. As a thinking individual one has the choice of whether or not to deal with a group, just as all the individuals of a group have a choice in the associations of the group overall. It's group dynamics. The choice is to find groups with acceptable dynamics for oneself or sit alone and grumble about it; both are perfectly acceptable choices, although one of them is usually a bit more productive (depending on the endeavor, of course).

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    Funny, I dont remember being authorized to learn how the universe works. I just actually took the time to learn the relevant physics. Kinda how a surgeon takes the time to learn how to cut people up without being a serial killer. Yeah, I am comparing people who try to do physics without knowing any physics to serial killers. They will kill science, and the fact that they just want to make it better is not relevant.

    If you want to know science, take the time out to learn it.
    Pleas don't feel offended. I may say that you're are specialized in that area but when I say 'authorized', it means that if an ordinary person w/ sound idea give a hypothesis on some matter regarding 'science', you don't even got a second chance to consider it but rather, give that familiar quotation " why take time to learn it".

    There's is such a story about this.

    A certain doctor went to a remote village for medical mission and he needed to ride a banca to cross the river. There, an ordinary 'boat man' rowing the banca and this doctor kept asking the guy if he finished his studies or even went to school. The boatman, felt shy to reply but said that they're too 'poor' to afford it and admitted he just finished grade 1 in elementary. The doctor kept saying that if the boatman really wanted to study, he must did the efforts to do it. He said, "Look at me, I'm as successful doctor, with flying colors, a 'known' person in the society".

    Then the 'boatman' turned to asked if the doctor knew "how to swim". The doctor replied that he was too busy in his work to learn such silly recreation, then he asked why. The boatman smiled and told the doctor, "you're too boastful displaying what you achieved in life but I'm sorry, the boat is sinking, I am not a 'learnt person' but I learned how to swim. Then he jumped out on the river.

    My point here is (and I don't mean to offend you), maybe there are certain facts in life that could also help you in your work, even its simple ideas you too think too boring to spend a time, but... why not also learn how to swim?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,753
    Quote Originally Posted by sirjon View Post
    Pleas don't feel offended. I may say that you're are specialized in that area but when I say 'authorized', it means that if an ordinary person w/ sound idea give a hypothesis on some matter regarding 'science', you don't even got a second chance to consider it but rather, give that familiar quotation " why take time to learn it".

    There's is such a story about this.

    A certain doctor went to a remote village for medical mission and he needed to ride a banca to cross the river. There, an ordinary 'boat man' rowing the banca and this doctor kept asking the guy if he finished his studies or even went to school. The boatman, felt shy to reply but said that they're too 'poor' to afford it and admitted he just finished grade 1 in elementary. The doctor kept saying that if the boatman really wanted to study, he must did the efforts to do it. He said, "Look at me, I'm as successful doctor, with flying colors, a 'known' person in the society".

    Then the 'boatman' turned to asked if the doctor knew "how to swim". The doctor replied that he was too busy in his work to learn such silly recreation, then he asked why. The boatman smiled and told the doctor, "you're too boastful displaying what you achieved in life but I'm sorry, the boat is sinking, I am not a 'learnt person' but I learned how to swim. Then he jumped out on the river.

    My point here is (and I don't mean to offend you), maybe there are certain facts in life that could also help you in your work, even its simple ideas you too think too boring to spend a time, but... why not also learn how to swim?
    And you make my point quite well.

    You completely miss the fact that what I said, using your analogy, is that if you want to swim, learn how first.

    If you want to be a physicist, learn physics.
    If you want to be a doctor, learn medicine.
    If you want to swim, learn to swim.
    If you want to be a boatman, learn a boat.
    If you want to be a plumber, learn plumbing.
    If you want be anything, learn it first.

    You make the assumption that I only know physics, and all I know is physics. Not true even in the slightest. I like to learn almost everything, and given a new idea, I check it out. I could, with nearly trivial ease, get degrees in Geology, Math, Chemistry, and History, using only what I have learned just because I wanted to learn something.

    What you completely miss is that nearly every new 'sound hypothesis' that you think the ordinary person has come up with is one that was identified, analyzed and found wanting. Frequently the idea is actually taught just to show how a wrong idea can be identified. 99.9% of the 'sound hypothesis' you are a fan of are 'been there, done that, got the t-shirt, the coffee mug and the free take-home game'.

    So, actually take the time out to learn the subject, if only to make sure that your idea is actually new, and not something that every junior class at university has brought up and discarded for 300 years.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    What you completely miss is that nearly every new 'sound hypothesis' that you think the ordinary person has come up with is one that was identified, analyzed and found wanting. Frequently the idea is actually taught just to show how a wrong idea can be identified. 99.9% of the 'sound hypothesis' you are a fan of are 'been there, done that, got the t-shirt, the coffee mug and the free take-home game'.

    So, actually take the time out to learn the subject, if only to make sure that your idea is actually new, and not something that every junior class at university has brought up and discarded for 300 years.
    Okay, there's no much to say if you think you got my message. Thank you, I'll take your advice. Have a good day.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,388
    Quote Originally Posted by sirjon View Post
    My point here is (and I don't mean to offend you), maybe there are certain facts in life that could also help you in your work, even its simple ideas you too think too boring to spend a time, but... why not also learn how to swim?
    Interesting anecdote.
    Let's turn that around, shall we?

    We're telling people, when they want to steer the boat of physics, that it's a good idea to learn how to swim its waters.
    Or even better, to use a map so the boat won't sink at all, 'cause those waters have piranhas.

    Most ATM'ers are people who'd go up to your fisherman and insist on steering his boat because they have a pond in their garden and have seen a postcard of the river and therefore knows better than him what to do.
    Oh, and the piranha? Obviously they don't exist, there can be no such fish. They know because they've looked carefully at their pond and nothing like them was in it.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by JCoyote View Post
    Saying this as a layperson, I think such an approach could work with a couple considerations.
    "...no anonymity for posting or editing..."
    "...credentials of each commentator attached..."
    JCoyte, those a brilliant suggestions.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by sirjon View Post
    There's is such a story about this.
    220px-Nasreddin.jpg

    I believe origins of the story can be ascribed to Nasreddin, also known as Mulla Nasrudin.

    "Nasrudin was ferrying a traveler across a lake. As they spoke on various subjects, Nasrudin made a minor grammatical error.
    The traveler remarked, “You who wears a turban and calls himself a Mulla-have you ever studied grammar?”
    “No,” Nasrudin admitted, “I have not covered that subject in depth.”
    “Well then,” the traveler replied,” you have wasted half of your life!“
    Several minutes later, Nasrudin turned to the traveler and asked, “Have you ever learned how to swim?”
    “No,” the traveler responded.
    “Well then,” Nasrudin replied, “you have wasted all your life-for there is a hole in the boat, and we are sinking!“


    I believe that sirjon's point is that there is a lot to be said for a well-rounded generalist education, in that it allows the individual to more readily grasp the universe as a whole.

    By the way, those not familiar with the tales and stories attributed to Nasreddin, I believe you will find their content amusing and in many cases, profound.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    I believe that sirjon's point is that there is a lot to be said for a well-rounded generalist education, in that it allows the individual to more readily grasp the universe as a whole.
    I can't disagree with that. However, it doesn't by itself equip you to, say, criticize the theory of relativity. (Although most of the critics of relativity who turn up here seem to have little education of any sort )

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    it doesn't by itself equip you to, say, criticize the theory of relativity.
    No argument there.
    The "B52's" song comes to mind, "Mesopotamia". They sing, "...before I talk, I should read a book..."

    ...and for many would-be theorists, in an online WikiSciJournal, the wheat would rapidly be separated from the chaff. It would also allow for established papers to be dynamically reviewed - in other words, there is never a last word. Could be quite lively, exciting and constructive.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,388
    Until it melts down from ATM'er outlasting TM'ers who'll leave in disgust.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,753
    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    220px-Nasreddin.jpg

    I believe origins of the story can be ascribed to Nasreddin, also known as Mulla Nasrudin.

    "Nasrudin was ferrying a traveler across a lake. As they spoke on various subjects, Nasrudin made a minor grammatical error.
    The traveler remarked, “You who wears a turban and calls himself a Mulla-have you ever studied grammar?”
    “No,” Nasrudin admitted, “I have not covered that subject in depth.”
    “Well then,” the traveler replied,” you have wasted half of your life!“
    Several minutes later, Nasrudin turned to the traveler and asked, “Have you ever learned how to swim?”
    “No,” the traveler responded.
    “Well then,” Nasrudin replied, “you have wasted all your life-for there is a hole in the boat, and we are sinking!“


    I believe that sirjon's point is that there is a lot to be said for a well-rounded generalist education, in that it allows the individual to more readily grasp the universe as a whole.

    By the way, those not familiar with the tales and stories attributed to Nasreddin, I believe you will find their content amusing and in many cases, profound.
    You seem to assume that someone who shows proficiency in one field must not be well rounded.
    You seem to assume that, as a group, specialists in a field arent well rounded as a whole.
    You seem to assume that only someone outside a field has the ability to 'think outside the box' of that field.
    You seem to assume that when an idea comes from outside a specialist in that field, the specialists are unable to incorporate the idea into their field.

    All of these assumptions are incorrect.

    You also completely miss that when an idea comes from outside a field, the specialist can generally confirm the idea or spot the flaw much quicker than the generalist.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Until it melts down from ATM'er outlasting TM'ers who'll leave in disgust.
    To stop that from happening, how about this:

    In a WikiSciJournal, ATM submissions would need to go through an initial screening process before they are submitted for comment.

    It seems to me the evaluated success or failure of an ATM submission ought to predicated upon the validity of data submitted, the observations they present.
    You don't cut the cake if you can't offer up a hither-to unobserved natural prediction to support your argument and/or a performable, repeatable laboratory experiment, or at least a proposal for one.
    If you don't have that, you're not ready.

    Thoughts?

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,753
    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    No argument there.
    The "B52's" song comes to mind, "Mesopotamia". They sing, "...before I talk, I should read a book..."

    ...and for many would-be theorists, in an online WikiSciJournal, the wheat would rapidly be separated from the chaff. It would also allow for established papers to be dynamically reviewed - in other words, there is never a last word. Could be quite lively, exciting and constructive.
    To paraphrase:

    'Show me the Wheat!'

    We have had an ATM section here for many years. Few of the ideas get past, 'No, here is where your idea contradicts reality'. Out of 7000 threads and a quarter million posts there has been no wheat.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,753
    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    To stop that from happening, how about this:

    In a WikiSciJournal, ATM submissions would need to go through an initial screening process before they are submitted for comment.

    It seems to me the evaluated success or failure of an ATM submission ought to predicated upon the validity of data submitted, the observations they present.
    You don't cut the cake if you can't offer up a hither-to unobserved natural prediction to support your argument and/or a performable, repeatable laboratory experiment, or at least a proposal for one.
    If you don't have that, you're not ready.

    Thoughts?
    Your evaluation process just got you down to zero submissions.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    Your evaluation process just got you down to zero submissions.
    Good.

    With those conditions in place, the main bulk of a proposed WikiSciJournal would be about the business of dry, non-ATM, everyday grind, falsifiable submissions that ought to make up the bulk of science.

    There are other intriguing aspects such a journal might be able to provide.

    How about the ability to review already published papers that have seemingly passed muster? In a dynamic process all papers will open to challenge, provided the challenger is able to submit verifiable data to that end?

    Many such challenges will be deemed invalid, no matter how attractive the argument may initially seem. In most instances, this will have the effect of bolstering the initial paper as future readers can search the database for false objections.

    In cases where the challenged paper really does want for valid data, that too will be brought to light.

    Thus, as a research tool, it would help scientists from wasting time pursuing false data and assumptions.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    ...I believe that sirjon's point is that there is a lot to be said for a well-rounded generalist education, in that it allows the individual to more readily grasp the universe as a whole.
    Thanks, gfellow. Same as, if you're willing to sell your science book (to make it bestseller), get rid of of those too heavy mathematical equations and try to touch the minds of the ordinary science fanatics. Ain't you become physicists or chemists w/PH.Degrees w/out being a science fanatics, in the first place?

    Good for you, you'd given the opportunity (and of course, I agree a lot of hardships to achieve such titles) but would be much better to share your works to the world or maybe, your training is too 'technical' to explain things in plain english? Try Stephen Hawkings approach and took the advice of friends that made his book, readers-friendly.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    How about the ability to review already published papers that have seemingly passed muster?
    If the paper has been peer reviewed, it would be a waste of time to "re-review" it.

    Thus, as a research tool, it would help scientists from wasting time pursuing false data and assumptions.
    You speak of wasting time, yet you want to "re-review" already peer reviewed papers?


    This wiki idea just keeps getting better and better.
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2011-Nov-21 at 07:13 PM. Reason: changed "saving" to "wasting"

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    You seem to assume that someone who shows proficiency in one field must not be well rounded.
    You seem to assume that...
    You seem to assume that...
    You seem to assume that...

    All of these assumptions are incorrect.

    You also completely miss that when an idea comes from outside a field, the specialist can generally confirm the idea or spot the flaw much quicker than the generalist.
    Ashes and sack cloth! Gosh! None of the above, just musing that stories ascribed to Nasreddin is a delight. No assumptions made, apologies!

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    ..."re-review" already peer reviewed papers?
    I don't have a strong opinion about this - but yes, why not? For the reasons given earlier in the thread, any member of the public - within prescribed parameters - should be able to rationally challenge published, peer reviewed papers. If a peer reviewed paper is in need of correction or is just outright wrong, how can that in any way do other than give us a clearer picture of our Universe?

    Would I have an interest in occupying my time in that manner? No. However, I can imagine it is a facet of an online science journal many scientists and laymen may find interesting and/or useful.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    Good.
    With those conditions in place, the main bulk of a proposed WikiSciJournal would be about the business of dry, non-ATM, everyday grind, falsifiable submissions that ought to make up the bulk of science.
    How is that any different from the existing scientific journals?



    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    Good.
    How about the ability to review already published papers that have seemingly passed muster? In a dynamic process all papers will open to challenge, provided the challenger is able to submit verifiable data to that end?

    Many such challenges will be deemed invalid, no matter how attractive the argument may initially seem. In most instances, this will have the effect of bolstering the initial paper as future readers can search the database for false objections.

    In cases where the challenged paper really does want for valid data, that too will be brought to light.
    And how is that different from what happens already with published, peer-reviewed papers?


    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    Good.
    Thus, as a research tool, it would help scientists from wasting time pursuing false data and assumptions.
    Scientists already use search engines for published papers with several options.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    5,892
    Quote Originally Posted by gfellow View Post
    By the way, those not familiar with the tales and stories attributed to Nasreddin, I believe you will find their content amusing and in many cases, profound.
    I loved reading the Nasreddin stories as a kid. Very similar to Aesop's fables, which I also loved.

Similar Threads

  1. A Wiki science Journal?
    By gfellow in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2011-Nov-17, 05:17 PM
  2. A request for a *good* sci-fi wiki
    By LotusExcelle in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-14, 04:07 AM
  3. The Wiki/Wikipedia Thread
    By mugaliens in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-14, 09:58 AM
  4. The-Moon Wiki
    By C18H27NO3 in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-29, 08:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: