It is currently Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:07 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:52 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7038
Location: Cassius University
As we all know by now, the new flagship journal of the Maxwell Institute will be known as, The Mormon Studies Review. It will, reportedly, focus on serious scholarship that has wide-ranging applicability. Whereas the old Review--per its former Editor-in Chief--was devoted mainly to apologetics, and sought to have a wide, "popular" appeal, the new Review seems to be aimed at gaining wider credibility. Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, the new Mormon Studies Review will start over with a completely new numbering system. It will not be, "Vol. 23, No. 1," in other words; it will be "Vol. 1, Issue 1."

Of great interest to students of Mopologetics, though, is the fact that the Review, which was indeed called the Mormon Studies Review for Vol. 23, Issue 1, has now be re-named the FARMS Review. In other words, the entire, "classic-FARMS" corpus of publications, has bee "demoted" back to its original, rather unfortunate name. A disclaimer on the MI website explains things nicely:

Quote:
For twenty-three years the FARMS Review published review essays to help serious readers make informed choices and judgments about books and other publications on topics related to the Latter-day Saint religious tradition. It also published substantial freestanding essays that made further contributions to the field of Mormon studies. It will be superseded by the new Mormon Studies Review.


Well, I suppose that's one way of putting it. Of course, in doing this, the Maxwell Institute is ensuring that future generations of 4H students and various hog and soil researchers will stumble upon this site, only to find page upon page of polemical invective. Then again, you never know when an alfalfa scientist will find use in the fact that, according to "Text and Context," argument ad hominem is actually a legitimate form of civil analysis and argumentation. Maybe the trash-talk about some authors' "lack of credentials" will inspire new forms of crop rotation.

Regardless, in spite of everything, I'm sure the "classic-FARMS" crew is pleased that the MI leadership was kind enough to restore their old journal's original name.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 3942
Location: La Mancha
Doctor Scratch wrote:
...Of course, in doing this, the Maxwell Institute is ensuring that future generations of 4H students and various hog and soil researchers will stumble upon this site, only to find page upon page of polemical invective....

Snort.

_________________
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:23 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: Cave
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Of course, in doing this, the Maxwell Institute is ensuring that future generations of 4H students and various hog and soil researchers will stumble upon this site, only to find page upon page of...


...horse manure of the kind that will grow their corn ten miles high. God's blessings come in mysterious ways.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:19 pm 
The Outcast

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am
Posts: 17063
Smart move by Bradford. Put all of the OMIDs' stink under that old banner, put all those screeds in the "FARMS Review" bin for posterity. And clean the slate for a new beginning, with "Mormon Studies Review" only containing issues that aptly fit within that description.

This is another nail in the coffin of Mopolegetics.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:32 am 
Stake High Council

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:17 pm
Posts: 555
Confused. So there will be new articles published in a journal called FARMS going forward? Or this is just a reclassification of old material?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:10 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:08 pm
Posts: 2310
Location: We Have Always Been At War with Eastasia
sock puppet wrote:
Smart move by Bradford.

He's a smart cookie.

Makes me wonder why Dan & Ham made the mistake of hiring him oh, so many years ago.

_________________
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:13 am 
Apostle

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am
Posts: 788
Doctor Scratch wrote:
As we all know by now, the new flagship journal of the Maxwell Institute will be known as, The Mormon Studies Review. It will, reportedly, focus on serious scholarship that has wide-ranging applicability. Whereas the old Review--per its former Editor-in Chief--was devoted mainly to apologetics, and sought to have a wide, "popular" appeal, the new Review seems to be aimed at gaining wider credibility. Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, the new Mormon Studies Review will start over with a completely new numbering system. It will not be, "Vol. 23, No. 1," in other words; it will be "Vol. 1, Issue 1."

Of great interest to students of Mopologetics, though, is the fact that the Review, which was indeed called the Mormon Studies Review for Vol. 23, Issue 1, has now be re-named the FARMS Review. In other words, the entire, "classic-FARMS" corpus of publications, has been "demoted" back to its original, rather unfortunate name.

Mr. Smoot asks some penetrating and, I believe, unanswerable questions here:

Smoot wrote:
I may be mistaken, but wasn’t the Mormon Studies Review first published back in 2011, under the editorship of Daniel C. Peterson? If so, then what precisely do you mean by MSR being a "new journal" and Professor Fluhman as its "inaugural editor"?

Smoot wrote:
So, with regard to the print copy of the "Mormon Studies Review", as it reads on the cover, sitting on my bookshelf right now: when/if I cite articles from it, should I cite it as "FARMS Review" or "Mormon Studies Review"?

Smoot wrote:
When I download a PDF file of any of the articles appearing in the 23/1 edition of the FARMS Review/Mormon Studies Review, on the top right hand corner it reads: "Mormon Studies Review 23.1". So…what’s a fellow to do? Seems to me like all of this has some potential of creating unnecessary confusion.

Indeed. Mr. Smoot has it exactly right. The inability of The New Maxwell Institute to answer these vital questions is extremely telling. They should simply admit the following realities -- a reality that everyone already knows:

--They would rather create bibliographic anarchy than publicly affirm the historicity of the original Mormon Studies Review.

--They have no idention of doing apologetics in the form of defending the truth of this couplet: "As Interpreter is, FARMS once was. As FARMS is, Interpreter may someday become." Such truth claims should be bracketed so we can have discussions with non-Mormon scholars and those embarrassed by the editorial achievements of Dr. Peterson.

--They would rather write papers for the choir director in Panguitch than the deacons quorum adviser in Ephraim.


Last edited by Tom on Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:16 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4140
Location: Des Plaines, IL
lulu wrote:
Makes me wonder why Dan & Ham made the mistake of hiring him oh, so many years ago.

They didn't. He was put in by other officials in the BYU administration.

I was told that part of the reason he was chosen was because he wasn't particularly partial to any one faction within the MI over the other. But the person who told me this was, admittedly, a friend of his and very sympathetic to Bradford.

_________________
"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: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:10 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:53 pm
Posts: 3388
I think we all know where this will eventually lead.

At some point in the near future, the old FARM's articles will be entirely removed. Eventually, all of DCP's hard work will be relegated to a footnote of the long gone era of Mopologetics.

The Church will be much better off for Gerald Bradford's courageous actions.

_________________
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2012


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:11 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7038
Location: Cassius University
Tom wrote:
Indeed. Mr. Smoot has it exactly right. The inability of The New Maxwell Institute to answer these vital questions is extremely telling. They should simply admit the following realities -- a reality that everyone already knows:

--They would rather create bibliographic anarchy than publicly affirm the historicity of the original Mormon Studies Review.


Yeah, that's an interesting point. My guess is that they will retroactively re-name that first issue of the Mormon Studies Review. It's now going to be called FARMS Review 23.1.

Quote:
--They would rather write papers for the choir director in Panguitch than the deacons quorum adviser in Ephraim.


This has never made a whole lot of sense to me. Why do they imagine that their novella-length, heavily footnoted attack pieces were palatable to a lay audience? Prior to being outsted from the MI, they typically argued that they were legitimate scholars, doing legitimate academic work: "Look at us! We participated in the Yale conference!" Now, though, they've cooked up this thing about how they always meant to serve the "humble sister in Parowan," which is bizarre, to say the least. They seem to want to brand the "new" MI as a kind of elitist Ivory Tower, but what does that say about them, then? That they aren't truly "scholarly"?

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 19192
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Now, though, they've cooked up this thing about how they always meant to serve the "humble sister in Parowan," which is bizarre, to say the least. They seem to want to brand the "new" MI as a kind of elitist Ivory Tower, but what does that say about them, then? That they aren't truly "scholarly"?


I thought that was a particularly humorous switcheroo they pulled there. Frankly, I think the people who usually read the FARMS stuff are a handful of geeks who are smart enough to be interested in such things, but not learned enough to identify the liberal dose of BS intermixed. All the sister in Parowan wanted to know was that some Ph.D. at BYU had the question covered.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:41 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7038
Location: Cassius University
Kishkumen wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Now, though, they've cooked up this thing about how they always meant to serve the "humble sister in Parowan," which is bizarre, to say the least. They seem to want to brand the "new" MI as a kind of elitist Ivory Tower, but what does that say about them, then? That they aren't truly "scholarly"?


I thought that was a particularly humorous switcheroo they pulled there. Frankly, I think the people who usually read the FARMS stuff are a handful of geeks who are smart enough to be interested in such things, but not learned enough to identify the liberal dose of BS intermixed. All the sister in Parowan wanted to know was that some Ph.D. at BYU had the question covered.


I guess it's worth pointing out that pseudoscholarship can only really ever have a lay audience. So, maybe it's more accurate to say that the Mopologists are now being more honest about their intended readership?

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:45 am
Posts: 8381
Location: somewhere else
Kishkumen wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Now, though, they've cooked up this thing about how they always meant to serve the "humble sister in Parowan," which is bizarre, to say the least. They seem to want to brand the "new" MI as a kind of elitist Ivory Tower, but what does that say about them, then? That they aren't truly "scholarly"?


I thought that was a particularly humorous switcheroo they pulled there. Frankly, I think the people who usually read the FARMS stuff are a handful of geeks who are smart enough to be interested in such things, but not learned enough to identify the liberal dose of BS intermixed. All the sister in Parowan wanted to know was that some Ph.D. at BYU had the question covered.


Hey, don't short change that sister in Parowan. She may have had a library card and an Amazon wishlist the length of your arm. She may have been a crack autodidact or a person yearning for a good reading list and an archival guide. She may have been a lot of things given the resources necessary to imagine and explore.

In other words, don't forget who it was who called Sandra Tanner a "housewife" as a term of disparagement or Fawn Brodie "Ma'am," "Mrs. Brodie" "good woman," and dismissed her discussion of Emma Smith as "our author allows free rein to her woman's intuition." (hint: the first example isn't Nibley)

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:53 am 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: Cave
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Prior to being outsted from the MI, they typically argued that they were legitimate scholars, doing legitimate academic work: "Look at us! We participated in the Yale conference!"


Yeah, but it went beyond this. Recall that anyone without a Ph.D. was not qualified to question "the scholars" at FARMS.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:08 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7038
Location: Cassius University
Blixa wrote:
Hey, don't short change that sister in Parowan. She may have had a library card and an Amazon wishlist the length of your arm. She may have been a crack autodidact or a person yearning for a good reading list and an archival guide. She may have been a lot of things given the resources necessary to imagine and explore.

In other words, don't forget who it was who called Sandra Tanner a "housewife" as a term of disparagement or Fawn Brodie "Ma'am," "Mrs. Brodie" "good woman," and dismissed her discussion of Emma Smith as "our author allows free rein to her woman's intuition." (hint: the first example isn't Nibley)


Don't get me wrong--I have nothing against the humble sister in Parowan. Rather, I find it dubious that the Mopologists are envisioning her as their legitimate audience. Besides, we've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that the Mopologists actually have a lot of contempt for their readers: the kinds of sloppiness found in, say, "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism," for example, are pretty indicative of this. In other words, I don't think the FARMS authors really felt that they were serving the "humble sister in Parowan" in the sense that they were helping to enlighten or educate her; rather, they felt that they were helping her to understand why the people at RfM should be hated, or why Grant Palmer is a "scumbag," why she should avoid books published by Signature, etc.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Last edited by Doctor Scratch on Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:15 pm 
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
I think we all know where this will eventually lead.

At some point in the near future, the old FARM's articles will be entirely removed. Eventually, all of DCP's hard work will be relegated to a footnote of the long gone era of Mopologetics.

The Church will be much better off for Gerald Bradford's courageous actions.

Removed from where?

Are you saying that the FARMS articles will be permanently deleted?

I don't think that will happen. If MI was concerned about prior FARMS articles being archived, I think the deletion would have happened a long time ago.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:36 pm 
Apostle

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am
Posts: 788
I note that the late Elder Maxwell's prophetic remarks regarding the apostasy of FARMS/NAMIRS are getting quite a bit of play (here, here, and here).


Last edited by Tom on Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:36 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:45 am
Posts: 8381
Location: somewhere else
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Blixa wrote:
Hey, don't short change that sister in Parowan. She may have had a library card and an Amazon wishlist the length of your arm. She may have been a crack autodidact or a person yearning for a good reading list and an archival guide. She may have been a lot of things given the resources necessary to imagine and explore.

In other words, don't forget who it was who called Sandra Tanner a "housewife" as a term of disparagement or Fawn Brodie "Ma'am," "Mrs. Brodie" "good woman," and dismissed her discussion of Emma Smith as "our author allows free rein to her woman's intuition." (hint: the first example isn't Nibley)


Don't get me wrong--I have nothing against the humble sister in Parowan. Rather, I find it dubious that the Mopologists are envisioning her as their legitimate audience. Besides, we've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that the Mopologists actually have a lot of contempt for their readers: the kinds of sloppiness found in, say, "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism," for example, are pretty indicative of this. In other words, I don't think the FARMS authors really felt that they were serving the "humble sister in Parowan" in the sense that they were helping to enlighten or educate her; rather, they felt that they were helping her to understand why the people at RfM should be hated, or why Grant Palmer is a "scumbag," why she should read books published by Signature, etc.


Oh no doubt. But, the reference to a person's female gender to indicate their "lesser understanding" is part and parcel of classic Mopologetic rhetoric. I just didn't want Kish to unintentionally reproduce it. Bad scholarship (to put it kindly) is contempt for one's audience.

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:16 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 19192
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Blixa wrote:
Hey, don't short change that sister in Parowan. She may have had a library card and an Amazon wishlist the length of your arm. She may have been a crack autodidact or a person yearning for a good reading list and an archival guide. She may have been a lot of things given the resources necessary to imagine and explore.

In other words, don't forget who it was who called Sandra Tanner a "housewife" as a term of disparagement or Fawn Brodie "Ma'am," "Mrs. Brodie" "good woman," and dismissed her discussion of Emma Smith as "our author allows free rein to her woman's intuition." (hint: the first example isn't Nibley)


I would have reacted exactly the same way if he had written "brother in Parowan."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:08 pm
Posts: 2310
Location: We Have Always Been At War with Eastasia
MsJack wrote:
lulu wrote:
Makes me wonder why Dan & Ham made the mistake of hiring him oh, so many years ago.

They didn't. He was put in by other officials in the BYU administration.

I was told that part of the reason he was chosen was because he wasn't particularly partial to any one faction within the MI over the other. But the person who told me this was, admittedly, a friend of his and very sympathetic to Bradford.


Oh, that's news to me. I thought DCP had hired Bradford as part of the independent FARMS and then Bradford just came over to BYU as part of the move.

_________________
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A "New," Old Name for the FARMS Review
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:45 am
Posts: 8381
Location: somewhere else
Kishkumen wrote:
Blixa wrote:
Hey, don't short change that sister in Parowan. She may have had a library card and an Amazon wishlist the length of your arm. She may have been a crack autodidact or a person yearning for a good reading list and an archival guide. She may have been a lot of things given the resources necessary to imagine and explore.

In other words, don't forget who it was who called Sandra Tanner a "housewife" as a term of disparagement or Fawn Brodie "Ma'am," "Mrs. Brodie" "good woman," and dismissed her discussion of Emma Smith as "our author allows free rein to her woman's intuition." (hint: the first example isn't Nibley)


I would have reacted exactly the same way if he had written "brother in Parowan."


Good. Because the original "sister in Parowan" trope is an instance of contempt for an audience. Actual respect for an audience, or for students in general, consists of giving them the chance to understand (possibly difficult because unfamiliar) scholarship. "Mormontology" is paternalistic protection. Mormon Studies, on the other hand, recognizes that members have always been hungry for and capable of learning. The archives are full of examples of humble and everyday members capable of, and wanting a chance to, learn.

I treat my students as adults who are capable of learning and of meeting the challenges of learning. I never imagine my students as "children" who need to be protected from "hard" concepts or difficult ideas. I am not their parents, I am their teacher. I hope they can not only master my expertise but also surpass it.

Sure, I have criticisms of Joseph Smith. But I also have things I admire in him: I admire his ambition, which I see as partly spiritual and partly intellectual, but always creative. I could ask no less of my students be they believers or not.

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 44 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