Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa")
Pages
| Author | Topic: Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 05:20
Profile
Homepage
quote:Congrats, Stillness. For all of the content of this post, you are now the second would-be evangelist to earn this sacred medal, and the fourth person overall:  I'm sure that Synergy, Kel, and Drew will/have explain(ed) why. -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 06:16
Profile
*Holds award* “First I’d like to that God. None of this would be possible without him. And I can’t forget you Ma. You always said I was a genius even when they said I was average. I wanna give a shout out to my homies back in Detroit… Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 06:19
Profile
Logic is good, but it should be used properly. When my mother says something I’m thinking 1) she’s not insane or otherwise mentally imbalanced, 2) She has always wanted the best for me and worked toward that end and stuck by my side through thick and thin. That is the way my logic works. For most (but not all) those are true. So if your mother says something the question is not, “what does she have to gain from me?” or “is she crazy?” The question becomes how qualified is she to assess a situation and report it accurately. This process is not any kind of fallacy. It’s good logic. It has nothing to do with establishing scientific truth. That’s why I said, “would you think twice?” not “would you write your thesis on Bigfoot?” Healthy skepticism is good, but like with everything there is balance and extremes on either end are unhealthy. But, never mind sasquatch. I didn’t mean it to be taken very seriously, although the responses were sorta informative. Some insects are unhealthy or dangerous and deadly. Also constantly carrying a broom and sweeping would be quite restrictive. I would not adhere to your religion because it’s not very practical. That is one of the reasons the Bible is convincing to me, because what it teaches is practical. Without the other reasons I gave, one would not be very convincing. The interesting thing is that the biblical prophets sometimes mess up well after they receive their messages even after they are pillars of faith among God’s people and sometimes multiple times. There’s never any sugarcoating of the failures of powerful kings, prophets, or the nations of the penmen. That I find uncommon now and in the past. ------- Synergy, I do think the Bible was influenced by the ancient cultures, but I don’t know what you mean by “evolved.” The influence comes from God dealing with them on their level. It doesn’t change the value to us now though. If it was only good for them and not for us I’d be on your side. As it stands it works for people regardless of the era in which they live. And how many people believe or accept a thing does not have any bearing on reality, unless you’re measuring popular opinion. Jesus and his disciples after him foretold an apostasy during which time most would not hold to correct teachings. When they wrote and spoke the words of Jesus and his apostles were regarded as God’s word. When I look back at the history of the Church I can see the apostasy clearly. It did everything it was not supposed to do. So people not believing in the Bible presents no hurdle to me accepting it. In fact, I’d be amazed if they did. Why would you assume mosaic law stemmed from Hammurabi’s code instead of the coming from the same source – that is a codifying of practices and laws of the Semetic peoples which came from Noah? That being said the mosaic is morally cleaner. For example a thief could be punished with death while Hebrew law required compensation. Hammurabi made class distinctions, Moses did not. Hamurabi also did weird stuff like kill the son of a builder if someone’s son was killed by falling off of a roof he built. Also I’m pretty sure that the mosaic law is unique in that it governs not just actions but the feelings that lead up to them. You could abide by the law as far as anyone could see, but be a criminal if you don’t love God in your heart, secretly want your neighbor’s wife, or hold a grudge against a fellow believer. quote:http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1650 “Three times as many people--110 million--fell victim to war in this century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899.” quote: quote: Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 06:41
Profile
Homepage
quote:There's at least one other question: how qualified you are to assess that she is not in fact insane or lying. If what she says sounds reasonable to you even though everybody around you disagrees, it might be time to start questioning both her sanity and your own. quote:It's not his religion as such, unless he's actually a Jain monk and has been keeping it a secret from all of us. Of course, given how little knowledge of pretty much anything you've evidenced in the past, it doesn't surprise me that you weren't aware he was referring to an actual religion and not a hypothetical example. quote:If practicality and credibility are so closely linked, then why are you so suspicious of scientists? The Bible didn't put Neil Armstrong on the moon. quote:Why is the latter "morally cleaner" than the former? quote:Citing sources doesn't mean much when the source you cite is itself just a bunch of unsourced claims. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 06:54
Profile
Homepage
 -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 07:20
Profile
Stillness, it wasn't clear to me how much weight you gave to your purported biological justification of your male supremacist theories, of which you have only revealed a small part. It now seems that it's mainly from your religious faith anyway. Well, in that case I'll state that you have not proven that the Flysing Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, and that His Divine Substance is pure white flour, hence...wait, I can't be bothered. You have claimed that our age is wicked because: 1. Warfare is more lethal. 2. There are more divorces. Regarding 1: This has already been answered. Better technology has given us better weapons, but also better healthcare. Overall, lifespans are longer (and more interesting in my view). "Hard numbers" from earlier ages aren't very hard at all. Colonialism by Christian European countries is sometimes regarded as history's greatest genocide - I've seen speculative figures of up to 1 billion premature deaths overall. Since WWII, Europe is a pretty peaceful place. Sweden has had peace for a couple of centuries. I'm not complaining. Regarding 2: Why bother preserving miserable marriages? Who cares about the institution of marriage anyway? Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 07:44
Profile
I see your point about truth and accept it. Logic does not always lead to truth even when applied properly. We all try to do the best we can, though. Each one has to decide what he will believe and why he will believe it. And I’m not “so suspicious of scientists” - at least not anymore than I’m suspicious of anyone. I’m skeptical of everything until it has been proven or at least makes sense. For example, if my mother had been prone to lying and other people were outside at the same time and saw nothing I’d have doubts. If my mother was as I said, there were reports of animals acting strange, garbage cans had been turned over all over the neighborhood, other people had reported seeing something similar, etc. I would give serious consideration to what she said, even if was convinced beforehand that there was no Bigfoot. It’s morally cleaner in my opinion. I don’t want someone killed because he’s starving and steals a loaf of bread. I would like him to compensate, though. Although I realize that in reality the things our parents do affect us, I don’t want punishment for a crime my father commits to fall on me. I want to be judged based on my actions. I also don’t think punishment for a crime should be lessened because a person belongs to a higher class. How do you feel about it, Thuryl? quote:So you think it’s wrong? If so, what part? The figures from the past century? The previous 1900? Both? Alex, I don’t believe males are “supreme.” You missed my point. I also addressed the point about advanced weaponry. The reasons don’t change the facts. And I’m not talking about Europe this moment, I’m talking about the world over the past hundred years. By the way, because of technology and globalization, wars and conflicts elsewhere have an impact on everyone, even if you’re not bothered by people you don’t know dying by the thousands. Marriage and family are central to stable societies. People who care about healthy civilization care about them unless they’re ignorant of that fact. And a marriage may be miserable because you don’t know how to make it work. If you can make it fulfilling and successful as opposed to abandoning it everyone will be better off – mates, children, society. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 07:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:So morality is all about how someone feels about something now? You may not like those rules, but there's a logic to them. Someone who's starving and steals bread is going to need more bread in future, and in a society where food is scarce enough that people are stealing to survive, one person stealing bread means other people will starve instead. If the thief were capable of compensating the victim for the theft, they would have bought the bread in the first place. Execution is a permanent solution: the dead don't need to eat. The builder is being made to experience the same consequence his actions visited upon the victim: the loss of a son. The builder's son isn't being punished; he's just collateral damage. People of a higher social class will tend to have more wealth and education, which means they have more opportunities in life and therefore better prospects of rehabilitation. It's reasonable to give a person with better prospects of rehabilitation a less severe sentence. quote:I didn't say I think the figures are wrong and I didn't say I think they're right; even a stopped clock is right twice a day. All I said was they're not from a reliable source, and you'll have to do better if you want to convince me one way or the other. A reference to a peer-reviewed historical journal would be a good start. My expectation is that there will be much less certainty about both figures than you would have us believe. [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 08:20: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 08:20
Profile
So you arbitrarily pick 1900-present, I pick 1950-present. I'm more interested in the present and future, you see. Modern wars tend to be in places where there are dictatorships and/or religious superstition stands in the way of technological and economic progress. Since your case is for the good old days, we should compare modern families to archaic families, not some ideal vision. Archaic families were much more based on economic necessity and coercion. Many people have relationships without being married here. In the wonderful societies of Somalia and Afghanistan, they have "family values". Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 08:23
Profile
Homepage
The forums are acting funny again; the front page says the last post in this thread is by Alex, but his post is nowhere to be seen. I'm posting this in the hope that it'll make his post show up. EDIT: Success! [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 08:24: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 09:06
Profile
quote:We all have morality and it varies from person to person, so in that sense it is based on how we feel. So the question comes down to what do you feel is best when examining two seperate standards - a question you did not answer. I'm not really out to convince you at this point Thuryl. If you think as many people die now as in the past or in the same percentages then go ahead. Alex, I picked the past 100 years, in particular starting with WW1 because of the powerful effect it had and the decline in morals ever since. The past 50 have had their share of bloodshed as well though. If there were no wars or even if the western world was peaceful and the rest of the world was headed in that direction, I'd be agreeing with you. As it stands, the country I live in (supposedly the front line in the advance of frredom and peace) has declared an unending "war on terror" which has already caused deaths reportedly in the 100's of thousands. I am not comforted by that. Nor am I hopeful that humanity can have success in pursuing global peace, especially anytime soon. It's not negativity, but a realistic look at where we are and where we've come from. Oh, and I’m not advocating Islamic, African, or archaic values. I’m advocating biblical ones. So you have to compare families that have them to families that do not. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 09:48
Profile
quote:I dunno whether this adds anything new to it, but I feel compelled to write it anyway: Religion is an organization revolving around faith, which necessarily aren\t spiritual at all. Now, neither simple theism or atheism really need an organization around them: if someone just lacks faith or believes in inexistence of something (in my opinion, there\s a clear distinction), then s\he clearly does not belong to any religion at all. Same can be said about someone who simply believes that God of sorts exists, but doesn\t practice any excess mumbo jumbo. On the other hand, both theism AND atheism can easily form into religion. On the theist side we have lots of examples, so I really don\t have to there. For the atheist side, I think communist China and Hitler\s Germany make passable examples. This actually has something to do with the topic, so don't come whining to me about some fancy forum debate theories. First, China. I suppose everyone remembers the claim that religion is opium to people. Thus, in China, all sorts of religions have been outlawed, and the party has enforced this by executing well/known religious figures they find problematic. Although atheism isn\t the crux of communism (and they certainly can\t completely eradicate religion: for pities\ sake, they have 1 300 000 000 people there to control!), I think combined with the way communism works there it fills all requirements for religion. Hitler is even more intresting. I read an article about him a month or so ago from a Historia magazine. Here\s the main issue summed up: although Hitler admired some rituals of the christian church, he despised it\s humane message. Thus, Hitler began to warp and control religion to better suit his goals. For example, he ordered several people to literally create a nazi bible, with all references to jews removed and some other things were also *slightly* adjusted. For example, commandments of Do not steal and Do not kill were replaced with Respect your Fuhrer and Keep the blood pure. This was just the first milestone, though: Hitler\s goal was a country completely without religion. Of course, the national sosialistic party with all its aryan BS filled that role quite nicely. As my father adequetly put, the SS had no God but a god none the less. The point I\m trying to make> simple atheism can form to religion as easily as theism. And, when formed into a religion, atheism is potentially just as hazardous as any other ideology. This is not really a point that needs to be made here on spidweb, but I\ve run to multiple atheists that are (in my opinion) overtly hostile towards all religion and all faith. And once you start making sentiments like Religion is the source of all evil and Faith must be removed from mankind, you\re on your way towards an atheist mythology and atheist fundamentalism. Too far. I apologize that my keyboard was not working correctly during the time I was writing this. It should be legible enough to understand, but still. [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 09:50: Message edited by: Frozen Feet ] -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 09:55
Profile
"Biblical values" is a pretty valueless designation though, is it not? Were I to compare statistics on things such as incidences of teen pregnancy and domestic violence between, say, New England versus the "Bible Belt" where all those mega churches are, I'm pretty certain I'd find more in the latter than the former, "godless" though New England may be. I imagine your response would be that those people in the Bible Belt aren't really living by Biblical values. My response to that is: then almost no one is as you define them, and no one ever has. Frozen Feet, I think nationalism, though similar, is still pretty distinct from religion. Atheism for example doesn't have any sort of priesthood, nor does it conduct services to affirm among its members that there's no god. To the extent that it is an organized movement in the U.S., it pretty much exists for the sole purpose of maintaining separation of church and state as articulated in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:05: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 10:03
Profile
Unmarried people don't get pregnant and people don't beat one another if they apply biblical values. We've been through this. EDIT: You almost pegged me right. And I would say that your statement about no one living by biblical values is somewhat true. Which I why I said somewhere early on that "to the extent you apply biblical values you benefit." There are some people that do try very hard though. Others don't try at all. Then you have people everywhere in between. [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:09: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 10:07
Profile
quote:Italicized for emphasis. EDIT: In fact, I could make the argument that societal decay comes not from any decline in religion at all so much as the fact that people these days are generally better off financially, and that any "moral behavior" on their part before had more to do with a lack of resources than a loss of the church. Consider that AIDS transmission is down in Zimbabwe because men no longer have the resources to keep mistresses. Similarly, people living hand-to-mouth don't have the leisure time or money to "sin." I don't think you can argue that the quality of life, as a whole, isn't vastly better than it ever has been, unless you're just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:22: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 10:22
Profile
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. from dictionary.com. I would say atheism fits this definition. Some do have folks like Dawkins or scientists in general that they rally around as sort of a priesthood. They also can have humanistic morality. They only lack belief in superhuman agencies, which does not exclude atheism from the definition "religion" above. Even if you have a definition that would exclude atheism, the point is that they behave as the religious do in many ways. Even when they lack devotion to gods, they still have "higher" aspirations. It goes toward the argument that it's part of our nature. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 10:29
Profile
Atheism doesn't claim any moral code. Rather, atheists assert that morality is a human construction. I don't understand how this is at all useful to the discussion though. While I'm willing to agree that assertive atheism is just as much of a belief as theism, this doesn't address where most of the contentions in this thread come from, which is rather that there is no proof to establish the existence of god(s) either way. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 10:32
Profile
Homepage
quote:I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "best"? You can't mean morally best, because then you'd already need to have decided upon a moral system in order to answer the question. And if you're making morality subordinate to some other kind of standard by which you're judging it, why not just use that standard in the first place and dispense with morality altogether? quote:As I've already pointed out, the percentage of people who eventually die of something is, and always has been, 100%. I don't really see how you expect to refute that. quote:Atheism is a belief concerning the nature of the universe (but not its cause or purpose); "set" implies that a religion must consist of more than one belief. quote:Who gets to decide what counts as a higher aspiration? Is the aspiration to earn a PhD in physics higher or lower than the aspiration to become the world's greatest basketball player? [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:46: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 11:17
Profile
We all have a sense of right and wrong. That sense allows you to measure the moral standing of an action or belief based upon your own, or even to adjust your own when another appeals to you more. It's by that sense that I said the code through Moses is more moral than Hammurabi's. What you're really probably getting at (if you're not trolling) is absolute morality, which I believe is hardwired into us, but can be redirected by personal decision and societal pressure. That's really what I'm appealing to. We all hate injustice, at least when we feel the bad effects of it. So when we compare a code that allows someone license to commit crime if they are a noble to one that applies punishment universally we generally don't like the former as much. If we're a noble, we may like it, but still we recognize it's not as morally sound. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 11:48
Profile
quote:You never answered that argument, Stillness, which you should if you are arguing that A) the world is in worse shape now than in the past and that B) this is because of a decline in the practice of your personal definition of "Christianity". EDIT: Also, AFTER you've responded to the above argument, respond to this: You say Jainism isn't practical. It's practical to the insects, to be sure. Jains believe that each and every life is equal and sacred, insects included. Nobody likes to die, insects included. Why can you kill an insect, but not a human? Just because you're a human? Why can you kill an insect to keep him from killing a human, but you can't kill a human to keep him from killing an insect? Insects are generally small and short-lived enough that one of them will rarely kill more than one or two people, even disregarding those that don't kill at all. A human will likely kill an enormous number of insects during his or her lifetime, however. [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:58: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 13:34
Profile
Homepage
Your "sense of right and wrong" can only functio by applying your moral code, so you can't use it to judge any moral code. In fact, we are all wholly unable to provide disinterested judgment of various moral codes. Of course Mosaic law seems more "right" than the Code of Hammurabi. We're living in a culture built up in many layers over Mosaic law. Utilitarianism is the only possible filter through which one could even attempt to judge morality, but it's not one I'd choose: as Thuryl has pointed out, it leads to uncomfortable conclusions. You keep claiming that religion provides stable marriages and stable marriages provide stable civilization. I'm unconvinced. Stable relationships are good, but marriage is unnecessary. It's also quite possible that amicable separation/divorce is fine if handled well. And finally, your claim that Biblical values are good works to an extent, but by the same reasoning secular humanist values are even better. People wouldn't hit each other (without good reason) if everyone were secularly moral, and people wouldn't discriminate based on gender or sexuality. —Alorael, whose innate sense of right and wrong tells him that all religions have many elements of good moral guidance wrapped around a core that is fundamentally amoral and its best and evil at its very frequent worst. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 13:49
Profile
quote:That's only if you assume that Thuryl's "solutions" actually offer the most practical benefit, which isn't necessarily true. I can say routinely killing five out of every six babies is a very efficient way to get the human population is under control, but that doesn't mean it offers the most utility. Emotional benefits are no less a part of utility than statistical benefits. People tend to assume that logic is cold and cruel. However, it seems to me that any attempts to find logical solutions that fail to take into account the fact that humans have and are affected by emotions would be misguided. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 16:03
Profile
Well, to the extent that the aim of utilitarianism is to maximize happiness, absolutely. Pareto efficiency - w00t! Never thought we'd be bringing Bentham into it. [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 16:04: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 17:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:Pareto efficiency has little to do with utilitarianism. Of course, if someone can be made better off without anyone being made worse off, utilitarianism dictates that it should be done, but the fact that a system is Pareto-efficient does not itself mean that it's optimal from a utilitarian perspective. Within a single system, it's possible for there to be multiple Pareto-efficient states with different net utility. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 17:19
Profile
Homepage
It might be optimal to condition everyone to accept as right and good Thuryl's callous suggestions. Maybe the benefit of doing so would exceed the cost. It's not possible to be a strict utilitarian, though. We've all got pre-existing morals. It's not feasible to work out what would be best in the absence of morals, and it's not really feasible to work out whether it would be best to quash morals. —Alorael, who thinks of himself as a loose utilitiarian. Given a number of options, the one with highest utility should be chosen. It's not always necessary or even good (useful?) to find the optimal choice, just a good one. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |