It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:37 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:46 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm
Posts: 13030
Quote:
Are these hints that the MI is still going ahead with plans to publish things authored by this toxic scumbag?


No it is just further evidence of his delusion. He has always maintained a safe distance from reality.

Quote:
Could we really be so fortunate? Oh, I do hope so! I can’t imagine anything that would more effectively destroy what little reputation for professional scholarship they have left.

So let’s keep our fingers crossed!


They won't publish him, but it is interesting that Dan Peterson remains as one of his fans. Will's disgusting antics over the past year don't seem to have had any impact on Dan's view of William. I know he has completely dropped other people like a bad habit, for doing far, far less than Schryver has.

I was reading an old exchange on ZLMB last week. Dan said Brent Metcalfe commented at a FAIR conference how he wished the critics and apologists would be more friendly and cordial towards one another, or something to that effect. He said he agreed with him, but quickly put Metcalfe on his ignore list. Why?

Did he do something crazy like call Emma Smith a ____? Did he accuse his critics of sodomy? No, nothing so innocuous as that. Instead, Metcalfe dared to offer criticism of Dan's close associate, John Gee. So now, Dan no longer addresses anything Brent Metcalfe says. They have no chance of being friends anymore. Likewise, he absolutely refuses to address anything I have to say, other to than to keep reminding everyone he doesn't want anything to do with me. Why? Apparently, because he thinks my spiritual deficiency and apostate demeanor is contagious, or whatever.

But Will Schryver can call women whores, so long as he's using scripture to do it. He can also invoke images of some of the most disgusting sex acts, and that's fine by Dan. He likes Will and he won't let any of this get in the way of their friendship. He wishes Will would get published soon. It is enough to make me wonder if Dan is deluded as well. Publishing Will is only going to throw his behavior into the spotlight again, which is always going to be bad news for Mormonism. Does Dan not understand this?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:13 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:58 am
Posts: 1072
Kevin Graham wrote:

But Will Schryver can call women whores, so long as he's using scripture to do it. He can also invoke images of some of the most disgusting sex acts, and that's fine by Dan. He likes Will and he won't let any of this get in the way of their friendship.



Perhaps Dan P. doesn't mind when females are demeaned. I have seen him argue in favor of polygamy ..with an argument that some women benefit by it. Then he cited one women who I believe was a doctor and who freely chose polygamy. I do find that men on the internet who are motivated to present Smith in a favorable light..ignore and argue in favor of the sort of polygamy which J. Smith started and encouraged. It was exploitative and abusive of women and had nothing to do with increasing the numbers... when daughters and other men's wives were being used for sex and encouraged to be exchanged among each other. Religion was it appears much like for Warren Jeff...an excuse to get extramarital sex particularly with young females and simply to use them, using religion to do so. So perhaps it's not surprising that Dan doesn't find Will's excessive vulgar comments to women offensive.

I don't intend this as a derail..but like I said it's not surprising to me that Dan P. wouldn't mind Will's vulgarity against women.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:06 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 7173
Kevin Graham, meet Marg.

Marg, meet Kevin Graham.

I wish you much joy together.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:20 pm 
High Priest

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:28 pm
Posts: 380
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Kevin Graham, meet Marg.

Marg, meet Kevin Graham.

I wish you much joy together.


And matchmaking skills as well? Is there no end to your amazing talents, DCP?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:32 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:58 am
Posts: 1072
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Kevin Graham, meet Marg.

Marg, meet Kevin Graham.

I wish you much joy together.


It was Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon that you cited ..to illustrate what a wonderful system polygamy can be for women, wasn't it? And I seem to remember that it was part of a discussion in which you also were arguing in favor of burgas for women in some societies ..that many women in those societies appreciate and like wearing burgas. What a liberal progressive thinking man you are. Unfortunately with your 7,000 + posts I don't have the time to track down that thread with those posts.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:00 pm 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4318
Location: Des Plaines, IL
marg wrote:
And I seem to remember that it was part of a discussion in which you also were arguing in favor of burgas for women in some societies ..that many women in those societies appreciate and like wearing burgas. What a liberal progressive thinking man you are.

"I've made it clear in numerous venues for many years that I find the burka an abomination." - Daniel Peterson, (4/10/2009)

I, too, am baffled by Dan's apparent indifference to William's treatment of women. But that doesn't make him a burka-apologist.

_________________
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:05 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 7173
I've seen Will Schryver's treatment of women. I've met and spoken with his wife more than once, and have met one of his daughters. And he's met my burqa-clad wife several times, as well.

It was perfectly horrific, of course.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
And matchmaking skills as well? Is there no end to your amazing talents, DCP?

I'm also a pretty good shot with a rifle.

(Quick! Somebody fetch smelling salts for poor Scratch!)

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:22 pm 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4318
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Daniel Peterson wrote:
I've seen Will Schryver's treatment of women. I've spoken with his wife more than once, and with one of his daughters [SNIP] It was perfectly horrific, of course.

So, in your view, Dan, is this an appropriate thing to say about a woman's body in a public discussion forum?

William Schryver wrote:
(Kimberly does remain somewhat famous [among a small circle of otherwise respected academics] on account of my descriptions of her having once squeezed her then more voluptuous spirit tabernacle into a slinky black three-sizes-too-small dress at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City, which I attended. One wouldn't have believed it possible to carry melons in a pair of thimbles suspended from a thread, but miracles happen almost every day in this jaded world of cynical disbelievers.)

Did he use similar metaphors for the bodies of his wife and daughters ("melons carried in a pair of thimbles") around complete strangers when you observed the family?

Thanks in advance.

_________________
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:25 pm 
High Priest

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:28 pm
Posts: 380
Daniel Peterson wrote:
I've seen Will Schryver's treatment of women. I've spoken with his wife more than once, and with one of his daughters. And he's met my burqa-clad wife several times, as well.

It was perfectly horrific, of course.


You seem to repeat the fact that you have met his wife as though that were somehow some sort of defense for his misogyny. It's not. And there is a more troubling implication that concerns me here, which is the idea that you would be able to tell if a woman is in a bad relationship just by casual meetings and ordinary interaction. Please let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with Will's relationship with his wife or daughter. All I am suggesting is that you stop implying that you know that there couldn't possibly be just because you have met them. You don't know that. It would not be possible.

Again, because I know there will be those who skim over this and miss the point I am making, I am not making any comment at all about the relationship Will has with his wife or his daughter.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: More Schryver derail: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:51 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 7173
Dad of a Mormon wrote:
You seem to repeat the fact that you have met his wife as though that were somehow some sort of defense for his misogyny.

I'm aware of no real evidence for misogyny on his part.

MsJack alluded to my supposed serenity about Will Schryver's alleged mistreatment of women. It's a perfectly cogent response to such a comment to reply that I've seen none.

I'm also completely at peace with my wife's serial murders: I've seen none, and there's no evidence for them.

It's true: I seldom get very upset about bad events that I don't believe have occurred, or about misbehavior that I don't believe happened.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
And there is a more troubling implication that concerns me here, which is the idea that you would be able to tell if a woman is in a bad relationship just by casual meetings and ordinary interaction.

I have no reason to believe that Mrs. Schryver is in a bad relationship with her husband, nor that the younger Ms. Schryver is in any sense being abused by her father, and I've seen nothing to suggest that they are.

I've seen absolutely nothing, in my discussions with Will Schryver, his wife, or his daughter, that would give rise to even the faintest suspicion of misogyny or abuse.

Of course, anybody can suspect anybody -- including you and Mr. Graham -- on the basis of nothing.

I'm not interested in another Schryverthread.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:12 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:58 am
Posts: 1072
Ms Jack,

I had not seen that quote. This is my reference

viewtopic.php?p=191950#p191950

it started with the above post in which Ajax comments; “In my experience, Islamic women in their full covering and dress don't strike me as depressed or abused.

And TD responds in her post focusing on the burka:

Would YOU like living this way? (Not being able to leave your home without a full black cover where you peek out of the black netting of your mask)? Where you have virtually no rights? Where you can't drive a car? Have to walk behind women and girls as an inferior being? “

And then DCP responds to Ajax:

I've met plenty of such Muslim women myself.

There are, obviously, many oppressed women in the Islamic world. But there are many who willingly and happily choose for themselves to adopt traditional Islamic garb. I know several of them, and I know some of them reasonably well
.”

I realize “traditional Islamic garb” can mean hijab though at the time when DCP said "traditional Islamic garb" I certainly was not thinking that given the context of the discussion previously in which TD devoted a whole post to Ajax discussing the burka …and as well Ajax had said a “full covering and dress”. There was no mention or critical comments by DCP of the burka in support of TD's points...that was an obvious opportunity he had to voice such critical comment of the subjugation of women with the burka..but he didn't.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:29 pm 
High Priest

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:28 pm
Posts: 380
Daniel Peterson wrote:

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
And there is a more troubling implication that concerns me here, which is the idea that you would be able to tell if a woman is in a bad relationship just by casual meetings and ordinary interaction.

I have no reason to believe that Mrs. Schryver is in a bad relationship with her husband, nor that the younger Ms. Schryver is in any sense being abused by her father, and I've seen nothing to suggest that they are.

I've seen absolutely nothing, in my discussions with Will Schryver, his wife, or his daughter, that would give rise to even the faintest suspicion of misogyny or abuse.

Of course, anybody can suspect anybody -- including you and Mr. Graham -- on the basis of nothing.

I'm not interested in another Schryverthread.


I'm not sure how you could have missed it, because I emphasized it twice. I'm not saying anything negative at all about Will and his relationship with his wife or daughter. I stated that twice in my original post and yet you, oblivious to the point I was making, choose to make a defense of Will as though the accusation of misconduct toward his family was an issue on the table. It isn't. Again, because you apparently didn't comprehend my point the first time, my only issue is that you seem to think that if you have had friendly interactions with someone's wife or family that this means there is no possibility of them having problems at home. That was my point, and I think I went to great lengths to make sure that my comments weren't misunderstood.

I will state it once again so that hopefully you will not make the same mistake you made the last time: I am not making any comment whatsoever about Will's relationships with his family. None. Please do not make the same mistake again.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:31 pm 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4318
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Daniel Peterson wrote:
MsJack alluded to my supposed serenity about Will Schryver's alleged mistreatment of women. It's a perfectly cogent response to such a comment to reply that I've seen none.

Okay, Dan. So you haven't seen William Schryver mistreat any women. From my perspective, that leaves only two possibilities:

(1) You have not carefully examined any of the links where William's behavior has been documented.

(2) You don't believe applying derogatory labels to women like "____" and "whore" or making lewd and unwelcome comments about their sexuality, their bodies, and their appearance counts as "mistreatment of women."

They're certainly both possibilities, but if (1) is the case, I'm not sure why you're belittling the charge with cutesy anecdotes of having met the Schryvers in real life.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
I'm not interested in another Schryverthread.

Nor was I. But the people who like to transform topics into "Schryverthreads" just won't stop being interested in me.

_________________
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:45 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 7173
Dad of a Mormon wrote:
I'm not sure how you could have missed it, because I emphasized it twice.

I didn't miss it.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
I'm not saying anything negative at all about Will and his relationship with his wife or daughter. I stated that twice in my original post and yet you, oblivious to the point I was making, choose to make a defense of Will as though the accusation of misconduct toward his family was an issue on the table. It isn't.

I didn't think it was, I didn't make a defense of Will as if it was, and I wasn't oblivious to the point you were making.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
Again, because you apparently didn't comprehend my point the first time,

I comprehended it fully.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
my only issue is that you seem to think that if you have had friendly interactions with someone's wife or family that this means there is no possibility of them having problems at home.

I think absolutely nothing of the kind.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
That was my point,

It wasn't relevant to anything I believe or said.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
and I think I went to great lengths to make sure that my comments weren't misunderstood.

I didn't misunderstand them.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
I will state it once again so that hopefully you will not make the same mistake you made the last time:

I made no mistake the last time.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
I am not making any comment whatsoever about Will's relationships with his family. None.

Good. You would have no justification whatever for doing so.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
Please do not make the same mistake again.

I didn't make it a first time.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:00 pm 
abstract
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am
Posts: 3054
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Many non-Wills (including some on this board) are non-ignoramuses. But, alas, several non-Wills on this very board are ignoramuses.

As you like to resort to childish name-calling and bask in your own ignorance Dr. Peterson, let me remind you that your supposed "scholarly" knowledge of Mormon history avoids subjects you can't spin. Are you going to take a stance on this, or will you continue to plead ignorance?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16989&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21
Daniel Peterson wrote:
My answer would be that, off the top of my head, I didn't know, and that I would have to do some checking on the matter.

In the meantime, I suggest Don Bradley as the most current authority on the Kinderhook episode. He may be speaking on the topic at the FAIR conference in August, and you're certainly welcome to attend his presentation.

Best wishes.

_________________
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:05 pm 
High Priest

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:28 pm
Posts: 380
Maybe you can clarify why your friendly interactions with Will's family have any relevance to the charge that Will exhibited misogynistic behavior elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Dad of a Mormon wrote:
Maybe you can clarify why your friendly interactions with Will's family have any relevance to the charge that Will exhibited misogynistic behavior elsewhere.


What part of "I'm not interested in another Schryverthread" did you and Thews not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:26 pm 
High Priest

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:28 pm
Posts: 380
wenglund wrote:
Dad of a Mormon wrote:
Maybe you can clarify why your friendly interactions with Will's family have any relevance to the charge that Will exhibited misogynistic behavior elsewhere.


What part of "I'm not interested in another Schryverthread" did you and Thews not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


The part where he chose to participate in this thread by commenting on his friendly interactions with Will's family. What part of the fact that he did, by his own volition, participate in a "Schryverthread" do you not understand?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:27 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 7173
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I've seen no serious evidence that Will Schryver is a misogynist.

I'll repeat that: I've seen no serious evidence that Will Schryver is a misogynist.

None.

Perhaps you folks should reprise a few hundred of the posts that were devoted to that endlessly fascinating subject here a few months back. They didn't convince me then, and they probably won't convince me now (particularly since I won't even read them this time), but they certainly revved up several among the dozen or so critics who regularly post here. Got the old adrenaline pumping.

I think that the next Two-Minutes' Schryver-Hate is scheduled for tomorrow morning at 8 AM, though. (I'll be busy.)

I fully understand that the consensus among the sensitive, gentle souls here (including Some Schmo and Polygamy Porter and Joey and Joseph and MrDimWC4Me and Chip) is that Will Schryver is doubleplusungood. That's fine. As the Qur’an says, Lakum diinukum wa liyy diini.

thews wrote:
As you like to resort to childish name-calling

I was having a little fun -- do you know that term? fun? -- with a word (ignoramus) that a previous poster, a critic, had used on this thread. It's not my word. I didn't use it first on this thread, and I seldom use it anywhere else, either.

thews wrote:
and bask in your own ignorance Dr. Peterson,

I'll say I do!

Basking in my own ignorance is one of my very favorite activities, and -- I'm still trying to be modest here -- I think, if I may say so, that I've developed quite a remarkable reputation for it. Ignorance is my middle name!

thews wrote:
let me remind you that your supposed "scholarly" knowledge of Mormon history avoids subjects you can't spin.

My knowledge avoids potholes, Angela Lansbury, liver, and coconut, too. My knowledge has a will of its own, and can be pretty contrary.

thews wrote:
Are you going to take a stance on this, or will you continue to plead ignorance?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16989&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21
Daniel Peterson wrote:
My answer would be that, off the top of my head, I didn't know, and that I would have to do some checking on the matter.

In the meantime, I suggest Don Bradley as the most current authority on the Kinderhook episode. He may be speaking on the topic at the FAIR conference in August, and you're certainly welcome to attend his presentation.

I still suggest that you ask Don Bradley, who is the most current authority on the Kinderhook episode. He spoke on the topic at the FAIR conference in August, and is a poster here on this very board. (I hope you were able to attend his presentation.)

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:48 pm 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4318
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I've seen no serious evidence that Will Schryver is a misogynist.

I'll repeat that: I've seen no serious evidence that Will Schryver is a misogynist.

None.

Perhaps you folks should reprise a few hundred of the posts that were devoted to that endlessly fascinating subject here a few months back. They didn't convince me then, and they probably won't convince me now

Thanks, Dan.

That's all that I needed to hear.

_________________
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:52 pm 
MsJack wrote:
Thanks, Dan.

That's all that I needed to hear.


Not to prolong the Schryver-bashing, but people will say a lot of things on Internet message boards that don't match their real life personalities.

For example, I am a jerk to most critics here. If I met them in real life, there is no way I would be unkind. It's not who I am. It's far too easy to be unkind to faceless nameless screennames on the Internet.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group