Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Proposed Addition to Ornery Culture

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Proposed Addition to Ornery Culture
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg Davidson wrote
quote:
I personally believe that honesty, intellectual consistency and accuracy are higher values in on-line (or in-person) discussion - if I am ever dishonest, intellectually inconsistent, or cite something as fact that is inaccurate, then I believe that I am morally obliged to apologize to those I have wronged. Please let me know (any of you) when you think I have failed to meet these standards, because I really do believe it is more important to adhere to those standards than it is to "win" an argument here.
I strongly agree with this. I think these principles are what makes discussions with other people educational, rewarding, and enlightening.

The worst experiences I have had at Ornery are when these principles are violated.

Does anyone have a reason why they should not be followed? I'm not talking about banning people who do not follow them to the letter, but agreeing as a community that they are ideals that everyone should attempt to follow, and those who do not should be reminded of the fact.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um... do you think anybody here would disagree with those principles?
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that the following is a pretty tough standard:

quote:
if I am ever dishonest, intellectually inconsistent, or cite something as fact that is inaccurate, then I believe that I am morally obliged to apologize to those I have wronged
Remember, by this standard a violation doesn't get satisfied with just a sarcastic use of the word "Sorry", it needs to be a sincere apology by one who recognizes that they have misled others or at least wasted their time.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have seen evidence of posters who refuse to change their position when confronted with hard facts, or use drastically different definitions of words in two different arguments, to allow them to defend their ideas. Others refuse to provide sources, and when the source in context contradicts their point, they ignore it and repeat the original quote. Some just plain make stuff up to prove their point. Greg's quote came from a thread where he felt the need to lay this out. In fact, the next sentence is
quote:
I also recognize that not everyone shares this set of beliefs - as a matter of fact, I'd be curious if any of you believe in some or all of this.
Some people like arguing even if they know they are wrong. Some people just like messing with those of us who take the truth seriously, and are trying to learn more of it.

I am heartened that you are surprised that people would disagree, but I think they do.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some people like arguing even if they know they are wrong.
Hmm.

I don't think that there is much of this going on. Or, at least, it would be better to simply qualify this by saying that some people like to trick others, or that some people don't mind being deliberately dishonest in certain cases.

I LOVE to argue. And I sometimes argue in favor of a position that I believe is a weaker position. But in such cases, it's not that "I know that it's wrong," it's that I believe it has strengths that can be demonstrated to be correct in contrast with certain flaws in the opposing position which, overall, I actually might believe to be "more right," or "less wrong."

Tricking people and playing devil's advocate are drastically different things. And honestly acknowledging--and advocating for the recognition of--the validity of flaws in a position that one recognizes as mostly correct certainly shouldn't be conflated with trickery...

[ September 03, 2012, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In any case, overall, I'm not sure the declaration of such values has, well, much value.

It isn't really so much that some people are just lying liars, it's usually just an issue of perspective and bias--people are proceeding from divergent definitions of the "correct" configuration of value sets, and they can't understand how something that appears to them to be an outright lie, is actually an obvious truth from a different perspective.

And, while I'm at it, I actually like some folks who don't pride themselves on intellectual consistency as an absolute discursive value. It often means that they are intellectually flexible enough to recognize it when they are wrong about something, when someone who has constructed a rigid, cohesive, fully consistent paradigm might not be capable of recognizing the weight a single new variable might have if it conflicts with the way their mind has declared a certain type of logical interconnectivity works...

[ September 03, 2012, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP,

I agree that there is not much of this going on. But I can specifically remember people stating a hard fact, which had been proven wrong. When confronted, they would come up with more and more absurd arguments, all batted down, until they just disappeared without ever acknowledging their repeated falsehoods.

I am fine with devil's advocacy, and pointing out weaknesses in generally right conclusions. But people here sometimes just plain ignore facts and repeat lies over and over. It happens.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if I say 2+2=5, or eating babies is admirable, then that is just my divergent definition of the correct configuration of value sets?

If that means anything but "wrong", then I disagree vehemently.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
V:

I get where you're coming from, but I do tend to think that most of the errors that you refer to are based in errors of understanding rather than intentional lies.

You ever really, really think that you were right about something, only to later realize that you were really, really wrong?

That's what I tend to think about when I come across someone who just can't seem to acknowledge it when a clear fact or truth has been incontrovertibly established. Sometimes I find myself reading some particularly bad example here at Ornery (no names, but you can guess) and, by really stretching my imagination, I can actually get a flash of the internal logic that they're using, and how it seems to be true to them. I can't quite keep a grasp on truly foreign perspectives, and I can't always use the limited insight to connect and explain all of the flaws I see them insistently defending, but it makes me confident that they are actually using a framework that makes their errors appear to be correct to them. (And, I've also found that getting a good grasp on the framework is the most efficient way to change a mind and correct errors.)

Don't get me wrong: I believe that there are lying liars out there who are conscious that they lie (in fact, I don't think that there is anyone at Ornery who has more stridently argued that dishonesty is a fundamental component of human communication than me...). But I just think that a lot of the instances of people calling out others as such here at Ornery are actually based on incompatible perspectives.

[ September 03, 2012, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I actually like some folks who don't pride themselves on intellectual consistency as an absolute discursive value
Intellectual consistency does not mean never changing your beliefs, opinions, or understanding of facts, it means using the same principles when considering arguments both in favor and against your current point of view.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, that discursive value is something I can heartily agree with--but I'm not sure that it's the only thing "intellectual consistency" can be interpreted to mean...

To me, intellectual consistency has more to do with the structural symmetry of one's ideas--the way concepts logically cohere. It means that if I come to understand basic principles about the way you organize the hierarchies of related values, I can accurately predict how a wide range of disparate variables fit into your schema. It means that I won't be able to demonstrate instances of internal contradictions in your arguments. It means that you've applied your logic to constructs far and wide, and there aren't gaps or wrinkles in your logical pattern. It doesn't necessarily mean that one is prone to applying the same discursive principles to diverse sets of logic, on the contrary, it often implies that one is rigidly wedded to a specific type of logic, and can't examine things that don't conform to their internal logic open-mindedly...

I might be over-conflating the idea with "logical consistency" but I'm not aware of a distinct dictum of "intellectual consistency," so the ideas have substantial overlap to my ear.

[ September 04, 2012, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*...I'm not aware of a distinct dictum of (what) "intellectual consistency" (is supposed to mean), so...*
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sp, I agree with what you are saying - I just wanted to make it clear I had not thought of intellectual consistency as a foolish consistency to dogma regardless of whether you discover flaws in the core assumptions, logical structure, or supporting facts.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP,

I hear what you are saying and agree. I think almost universally in face-to-face discussions, and with few exceptions on Ornery, I really try to see other people's views. I am often devil's advocate myself. I see the value of that.

And there have been times where I have been sure of myself, but someone presents an opposing argument that creates a crack in my confidence. I then take the time to listen carefully, present backup arguments, and rethink. Sometimes after rebalancing the arguments, I have not changed my mind, but I always acknowledge the points against my view, and how they weakened my initial confidence. And sometimes I change my mind. When I do, I admit it, so that the record is clear, and my disproved points are no longer undetermined, but rather agreed to be wrong.

The people I am talking about do none of that. I can give examples, but I think you know who I am talking about. They waste a lot of time, and spread a lot of untruth. I wouldn't (shouldn't) call them liars. I should say they refuse to admit the truth when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to any objective person. But reading the record, it seems like there is a legitimate argument when there is in fact none. There is no benefit to that type of behavior.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think those are great principles to live by, velcro.

I don't think much of enforcing them as "rules," simply because enforcement would be unavoidably biased.

Enough to show through argument that someone's arguments are inconsistent.

No need to ban or brand those we see as perps.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
So if I say 2+2=5, or eating babies is admirable, then that is just my divergent definition of the correct configuration of value sets?

If that means anything but "wrong", then I disagree vehemently.

You need to read Aris' sci-fi story on baby eating.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's Eliezer Yudkowsky's story: Three Worlds Collide

but I think velcro may already be aware of it, and that's why he used the baby-eating example.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"There oughta be a law." Seriously? If you think someone behaves that way, just don't enter into a discussion with them. What is it about people that they constantly feel the need to create rules without context that can be used as bludgeons even in cases that might be exceptional?
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think some of the people here who are intellectually inconsistent aren't really aware of it most of the time.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Chillax. Someone on this thread said
quote:
I'm not talking about banning people who do not follow them to the letter, but agreeing as a community that they are ideals that everyone should attempt to follow, and those who do not should be reminded of the fact.
Oh, wait, that was me in the OP.

I don't think the ideals should "be used as bludgeons even in cases that might be exceptional"
I don't appreciate these words being put in my mouth.

What I am saying is when PosterX just flat out lies, and if we agree that it is bad form to lie, we politely point out that it is bad form.

quote:
Enough to show through argument that someone's arguments are inconsistent.
zelcro: 2+2=5
Pete:Actually no, if you count ** and then **, you get to 4, not 5.
zelcro : blah blah blah 2+2=5
.....
Pete: I have addressed your 74 different ways of proving that 2+2=5, and have disproved them all.
zelcro: no, you are still wrong, 2+2=5.

A reader would have to follow all 74 different ways to verify the truth for herself, because zelcro never acknowledged the truth. He seems like a pretty smart guy, so there must be something to his sticking to his argument so long. A reader might just scan the whole thing, and come away with some doubts, which have no basis. She is being misled because someone is actively trying to mislead her by refusing to admit error. I have trouble standing by and watching this.

For many situations, there is a standard beyond which any reasonable person would agree that the point has been proven. It is not at all rare for posters here to ignore proof exceeding that standard. It is not a matter of intelligence, or actual doubt about the facts or logic. It is pure stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge error, and it obscures the true facts and conclusions of important discussions. I think that should be treated the same as motive questioning, mocking, ad hominem attacks, and other bad behaviors that are officially frowned upon. Not necessarily by banning, but by reminders that it is bad behavior. I am trying to find a way to minimize this problem in its most egregious cases. Other than peer pressure, I don't know of any way to do it that is not authoritarian.

Does anyone have a reason not to agree to this as an ideal?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am amused by and consequently approve of the concept of Marquess of Queensberry rules for forum argument.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is no polite way to say someone is lying.

One can however say, as Gulliver's horse people, that someone has said the thing which is not.

The trouble is with accusations of lying is that none of us knows everything. Tom, for example, has repeatedly expressed extreme difficulty believing that any male would strike up a conversation with a stranger on the bus without having intentions of boning them. And yet it happens.

[ September 04, 2012, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's fascinating, Pete, hearing you mischaracterize my actual statements.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair some of your statements are prone to mischaracterization. I took away a similar impression from that conversation. [Razz]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, when someone says the thing that is not, and it is just that black and white, we should point it out.
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find He Who Must Not Be Named to be massively entertaining. Both his arguments, and the incredulous (every time, the same tone of surprised confusion) replies.

He's really not hurting anyone. Anyone falling "victim" to his posts very likely agreed with him coming in.

[ September 05, 2012, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: djquag1 ]

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Double post, meant to edit typo in previous.

[ September 05, 2012, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: djquag1 ]

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete:
The trouble is with accusations of lying is that none of us knows everything. Tom, for example, has repeatedly expressed extreme difficulty believing that any male would strike up a conversation with a stranger on the bus without having intentions of boning them. And yet it happens.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It's fascinating, Pete, hearing you mischaracterize my actual statements.

quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
To be fair some of your statements are prone to mischaracterization. I took away a similar impression from that conversation. [Razz]

Excellent example of what I was talking about. Tom could have called me a liar, but didn't, which is good, because I wasn't lying. I could reply that Tom's lying, but I won't, because it's perfectly plausible that Tom might have meant one thing and yet said something that I, DW, and perhaps others interpreted as something different. Or he might have said something and misremembered it. In all likelihood, no one is lying here, but 7 years ago, an Ornery conversation along these lines would likely have ended up in different parties calling each other liars. I don't want it to go back there. There are things and people I miss about Old Ornery, but IMO overall, the good old days weren't all that good.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I for one would like a little less "you're lying, and I'm going pretend I can nail your feet to the floor until you admit it" on the forum. [Wink]
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is no polite way to say someone is lying.
I beg to differ. Your statement expresses a noble sentiment, but it simply isn't a true statement.

[Wink]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
There is no polite way to say someone is lying.
I beg to differ. Your statement expresses a noble sentiment, but it simply isn't a true statement.

[Wink]

Na', that's just 'you are wrong.' [Wink]
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
There is no polite way to say someone is lying.
I beg to differ. Your statement expresses a noble sentiment, but it simply isn't a true statement.

[Wink]

[Big Grin]

Perhaps. Or perhaps differing concepts of politeness exist, one in which the statement is true, and one in which the statement is false [Razz]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
There is no polite way to say someone is lying.
I beg to differ. Your statement expresses a noble sentiment, but it simply isn't a true statement.

[Wink]

"You are a liar, a cheat, and I disagree with what you have to say; but I would defend to the death your right to say it."
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, now you've got me curious if my own statement could be disproved.

How about: "I know that you're an honest person at heart, and would only tell such a bald-faced lie if someone were holding your firstborn at gunpoint, or maybe if you'd misplaced your meds. I have called 9-11 and dispatched a swat team and an ambulance to your location. Hang in there, buddy. It's going to be OK."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Back to baby-eating. No, I hadn't read the Yudowsky, but I really like it.

Here's what I was thinking of.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does "He who must not be named"'s name begins with a G and then follows with a single digit number?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Check the Mod Edits thread, bottom of page 2. Mod specifically identified an Ornery poster who must not be named.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL.
ROTFL
[Big Grin]

and seriously ...

I hadn't read the Yudowsky either, but I really like it too.

Finally, all that talk about 2+2 and seeing many of the people from the old Objective truth thread pop up again brings up old memories.

I like they way and the tone in which that thread ended. I do not have much to add to what we already said at the time and I certainly would not want to be accused of necromancy. But if we have new members that did not read it (or old members who forgot), I think it might give them some perspective.

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1