It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:17 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:18 pm 
Neither one of you two addressed the words you quote with any sort of substance, instead you resort to ad hom. Harmony you should think twice before using the word "never" in ways in which is it unrealistic.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:41 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
marg wrote:
Neither one of you two addressed the words you quote with any sort of substance

I've written a book, entitled Offenders for a Word, which is partially devoted to arguing, at length, that the term cult, used as a pejorative, is essentially meaningless.

That's half of your claim.

Now for the other half:

I flatly deny that bishops "are chosen based on loyalty to the organization more than anything else," and I declare that you do not have and cannot be in possession of evidence to demonstrate your claim.

Direct denial of your claims is about as substantive as it's possible to be.

_________________

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

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:05 pm
Posts: 11828
Nothing like two old women beating the crap out of each other to provide comic relief.

_________________
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 13636
Location: Off the Deep End
The Nehor wrote:
Nothing like two old women beating the crap out of each other to provide comic relief.


Nehor,

I understand how much you value your position as resident Jack in the Box of this board however, might I point out to you that if gender and age related comments are the best you've got, you might wanna work on your catalog of non-constructive comments. I've known both of these "old women" for years and on their worst day, both are more intellectually vibrant than you on what you might consider your best.

It does not escape my attention that you made no mention of the "old guy" in these exchanges and why is that, eh?

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:14 am 
I'm sorry Daniel for possibly giving you the impression I would respond to you. There is no point, remember you don't talk with me. And I don't have a problem with that, as I have no interest in talking with you. That saves us both time.

This post is not for you to respond to. Infymus has this to say about garments and I agree with him:

Quote:
In all reality, garments in the LDS Church are an absolute control mechanism. It is another key in the Cult of Mormonism to bind a member to the church. If you can create a religion and require your members to wear special underwear, you will have a high level of power over those members.


And of course an organization exerts power and control over members when it can get them to reveal their private sex lives to those put into authority positions like Bishops in Mormon church. Bishops who have no need to know, nor expertise other than what the church/cult wants and teaches in order to control and manipulate. It exerts power and control when it can get members to feel guilty about not conforming to sexual practice dictates. When it can get members to feel guilty...about anything. Guilt is a natural feeling people have when they know they are doing something wrong, but it can also be unnecessarily inflictedand used in order to manipulate and control the vulnerable.

With regards to cults obviously there are degrees of how cultish an organization is and various factors which make an organization rightfully be viewed as having properties of a cult.

taken from http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cultinfo.html

Eight Conditions of Thought Reform

as presented in
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, by Robert Jay Lifton, M.D.; W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1963.

One condition

Quote:
The Cult of Confession:

Closely related to the demand for absolute purity is an obsession with personal confession. Confession is carried beyond its ordinary religious, legal, and therapeutic expressions to the point of becoming a cult in itself. (Page 425.)
Public confessional periods are used to get members to verbalize and discuss their innermost fears and anxieties as well as past imperfections.

The environment demands that personal boundaries are destroyed and that every thought, feeling, or action that does not conform with the group's rules be confessed.

Members have little or no privacy, physically or mentally.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:17 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9080
Quote:


And btw, if Ray can be a Bishop, Ray who admits to using prostitutes, who admits to drinking beer while he posts on the Net for his main entertainment in life, the same Ray who isn't the sharpest tool in the shed then it is apparent that anyone , strike that, any man with questionable morals and mental reasoning ability can be a Bishop.



Uh and btw Marg I think you just made an argument not based in facts. If I recall, Ray was an LDS bishop as a member in good standing. Ray's questionable behavior listed above happened after he was no longer an LDS bishop and indeed, when he was not even a member of the LDS Church. I think that little point is rather important.

As for Ray not being the sharpest tool in the shed, readers can decided that for themselves. But yea, there is not any intelligence test for someone to be asked to be an LDS bishop. Some are fairly bright, some not and of course some in between.

However, based on my immense experience with LDS bishops I can tell you most are fairly decent people who try hard to do a difficult job the best they can. And most genuinely care for the people they are asked to lead for a four to seven year period of their life.

In many ways it is a unique thing and the way it works has problems and advantages. But for those who serve as a bishop it can be one of the most rewarding experiences of their lives and one that cannot really be explained or understood unless one experiences it or something similar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9080
Quote:

To think that a church puts people like you in positions of authority over others, is telling of the flaws and weakness in the system. What standard of care did they use in choosing you?


This comment lacks any rational reasoning or critical thinking that marg seems the think she has more than most here. First, what Ray is or is not now may be very different from what he was in the 80s when a bishop.

Next, Marg makes this sweeping conclusion about the flaws of the LDS Church's selection of bishops based on her assessment of Ray that comes from a message board. One wonders how much one can really tell about someone on a message board. The interacting here is narrow and limited and often focused on heated debates and disagreements. So often one will see the worst in their opponents behavior especially when it becomes a heated argument.

Really Marg knows absolutely nothing about the way and LDS bishop is selected yet she uses her apprarent disdain of Ray to beat the LDS Church with. Way to go marg.

Now as one who is very familiar with the LDS Church process of selecting bishops I can tell you that it is a system that actually can be less than perfect. Wow. Imagine that. But in about 80% or more of the cases where a bishop is selected it ends up working quite well. It is actually a fairly careful and well thought out process in most cases.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9080
Quote:
Well, it goes something like this. A person serves a mission, has a temple recommend, pays tithing, etc., serves in callings, is usually raising a young family, and the stake president feels impressed that he should be the next bishop, but makes no move until he confides with his counselors, then they pray for confirmation.

It's not something you'd understand. But that's the way it works in the Church.


To add and modify, they do not have to have served a mission. And usually the SP, his counselors and the current bishop of the ward meet and discuss five or six candidates from the ward and go over their abilities, strengths and weaknesses. The SP and his counselors narrow it down, make a selection, pray about it. They then have to send the candidates name to the headquarters of the church for First Presidency approval. Once that is given the call is extended.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9080
marg wrote:
The point is people like Harmony are obeying rules of a cult, listening to the advice of Bishops who are chosen based on loyalty to the organization more than anything else. Her loyalty is not about having to believe in a God it's about obedience to a organization which has created their own rules and practices. So she wears garments she doesn't want to because to not do so would bother her husband a loyal obedient member. Her wearing of garments when she doesn't want is an indication which gives me reason to think she lacks high personal integrity to follow through on what's best for her, what makes sense, what's right and wrong. She obviously is quite obedient in appearance in real life, but on here likes to complain.


Amazing. Simply amazing. The point is you really don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to the LDS Church, selection of leaders and the reasons people make the choices they make. It is a complex issue for Harmony and others who makes choices that really are outside your infinite realm of experience and reasoning. You have no frame of reference here at all yet you question Harmony's integrity? You know nothing about the culture and life of a believer in the LDS church how may discover certain things about their belief's yet chose to modify their own inner belief system for numerous reasons yet still choose to participate. Since you lack experience in things of faith you really are not qualifies whatsoever to opine on this. To do so you have to have experiences it. Till than your sweeping conclusions meaningless really.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:53 am 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Marg, your dogmatism is in inverse proportion to your knowledge.

That's always been your M.O.

That's why I think interacting with you is a waste of time.

_________________

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

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:41 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18141
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
From the last few pages of this thread we can learn many things:

1. marg will go to any length, including quoting scripture, to take Daniel's place as the Biggest Stick with a Metal Point On It on this board. (Daniel, please give marg the trophy you've been displaying all these years. She's surpassed you.)

2. marg will convolute any argument in order to convict harmony of unnamed crimes against humanity, including being too stupid to leave an organization that marg, the Ultimate Label Giver, has labeled a cult.

3. Jason has once again shown his true colors as a gentleman and a Saint by putting marg in her real place, as an unfortunate slightly irrational woman with no understanding of her current subject and no desire to learn.

4. Daniel... bless his heart... :wink:

5. Jersey has once again set down Nehor with some acute observations.

6. Ray... gotta love him.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:11 am 
harmony wrote:
4. Daniel... bless his heart... :wink:


I know you've said he must love you, but it appears to be the other way around. Some people are easily impressed.

Harmony the LDS church is a choice you have made. And any problems you personally have as a result of it, are yours. You are responsible for your decisions, the church and those within are not responsible to please you or to change for you.

It does appear to me that you complain on here but in real life I think you are quite submissive.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:31 pm 
So Jason what do you think about Lifton's 8 conditions of thought reform? Do you see any connection with practices of the Church and those 8 conditions? Do you see it necessary or unnecessary that Bishops question individuals about their sex lives?..about intimate details of their lives generally? Do you think Bishops have adequate training to counsel people? Do you think that involving themselves in the personal lives in particular sex lives of members might be a technique by the church to destroy personal boundaries and serve to exert power and control over vulnerable members? What do you think is the purpose of having members who reach a certain level within the organization wear special underwear?


from http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cultinfo.html

Eight Conditions of Thought Reform

as presented in
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China, by Robert Jay Lifton, M.D.; W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1963.

One condition


Quote:
The Cult of Confession:

Closely related to the demand for absolute purity is an obsession with personal confession. Confession is carried beyond its ordinary religious, legal, and therapeutic expressions to the point of becoming a cult in itself. (Page 425.)
Public confessional periods are used to get members to verbalize and discuss their innermost fears and anxieties as well as past imperfections.

The environment demands that personal boundaries are destroyed and that every thought, feeling, or action that does not conform with the group's rules be confessed.

Members have little or no privacy, physically or mentally.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:00 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:05 pm
Posts: 11828
Jersey Girl wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
Nothing like two old women beating the crap out of each other to provide comic relief.


Nehor,

I understand how much you value your position as resident Jack in the Box of this board however, might I point out to you that if gender and age related comments are the best you've got, you might wanna work on your catalog of non-constructive comments. I've known both of these "old women" for years and on their worst day, both are more intellectually vibrant than you on what you might consider your best.

It does not escape my attention that you made no mention of the "old guy" in these exchanges and why is that, eh?


I was going to say 'cat fight' but I thought that might be more offensive.

_________________
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:25 pm 
Liz, you'll have to fix something. I responded to your post but ended up writing on your actual post, so the moderating functions are still working in my name.

Anyhow I ended up deleting your post.

This is my reply to your question about my connection to Mormonism:


On the internet someone I came across, I learned was Mormon, a TBM actually, to the extreme. The beliefs that Mormons had shocked me. There was something about that person, that I liked. I appreciated they were extremely intelligent and I couldn't understand how someone so intelligent could be so obviously brainwashed. They had generally high critical thinking skills. I believe the internet being new to them, opened their mind to different perspectives and to information they were unaware of with regards to history of Mormonism. They are no longer Mormon. That's not my doing, imo it was their exposure to a world they previously had no interaction with, and information they were unaware of and the process out of the church evolved. As I involved myself on the internet I became aware of how serious religion was to people's lives and indirectly to my own. So it was a Mormon first who made me appreciate how an intelligent mind can be manipulated and controlled. Ever since, religion in general from the big picture perspective with a sub focus on Mormonism which I use as an example of religion generally and critical thinking as it applies to religion has been an interest.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9080
Marg,

I will answer your questions but will also note that this is typical of your style. You change the target. I noted that you really no squat about the LDS Church, its culture, processes and what it means too be LDS or really a person of faith at all. When you have more knowledge about this other than what you seem to have gleaned on message boards that debate things LDS then perhaps your criticisms will have meaning. Right now they have little because you have no frame of reference.

Quote:
So Jason what do you think about Lifton's 8 conditions of thought reform?


I think the LDS Church has some light elements of those conditions as do most religious organizations to varying degrees. Many religions have stronger elements that are there listed early in their development and over time they out grow much of those conditions.


Quote:
Do you see any connection with practices of the Church and those 8 conditions?


To a certain extent there are some of those 8 conditions.
Quote:

Do you see it necessary or unnecessary that Bishops question individuals about their sex lives?


Why do you think bishops question individuals about their sex lives? Can you give me some real life examples? I know what bishops do and do not do for the most part and I see no detailed questioning by most bishops. I understand the reasoning behind this and know it has its roots in the idea of repentance and confession being part of this. It is not a unique LDS practice at all but common in Christianity.

Quote:
..about intimate details of their lives generally?


Do you have examples of this. Do you have experience with this? Do you really know what you are talking about? Because this has generally not been my experience at all.
Quote:
Do you think Bishops have adequate training to counsel people?


I think they have adequate training to counsel people in things that relate to their spiritual life, repentance, salvation as far as it is concerned in the LDS realm of things. I think they are no adequately trained to be therapist and most bishops will recognize that and send the person needing help to a professional.

Quote:
Do you think that involving themselves in the personal lives in particular sex lives of members might be a technique by the church to destroy personal boundaries and serve to exert power and control over vulnerable members?


Bishop do not get involved in personal lives unless the person is making a confession in that area of their life. And then most bishops keep it general and avoid specifics and are even taught to do so. I do not think anyone has planned it in such a way to be a malicios attempt to exert power and control. But that certainly can be a result.

Quote:
What do you think is the purpose of having members who reach a certain level within the organization wear special underwear?


Temple garments are to remind members of the covenants they make in the temple and to call their mind up to the spiritual aspect of that part of their lives.





Quote:
The Cult of Confession:

Closely related to the demand for absolute purity is an obsession with personal confession. Confession is carried beyond its ordinary religious, legal, and therapeutic expressions to the point of becoming a cult in itself. (Page 425.)
Public confessional periods are used to get members to verbalize and discuss their innermost fears and anxieties as well as past imperfections.

The environment demands that personal boundaries are destroyed and that every thought, feeling, or action that does not conform with the group's rules be confessed.

Members have little or no privacy, physically or mentally.



Based on my personal experience that does not describe the confessional experience in the LDS Church. When you have actually observed it then you will realize how silly it is to relate the above to it. As you have no experience with it we will let you plead ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:45 pm 
Jason Bourne wrote:
Based on my personal experience that does not describe the confessional experience in the LDS Church. When you have actually observed it then you will realize how silly it is to relate the above to it. As you have no experience with it we will let you plead ignorance.


DCP described his techniques:

Quote:
Here's how it generally goes for me in the relevant cases (which are seldom actually temple recommend interviews):

Interviewee: "Me and my boyfriend messed up."

Bishop: "What do you mean, 'messed up'?"

Interviewee: "Well, we were out on a date, and things got out of hand."

Bishop: "Sorry -- and I really hate to be asking such clinical questions -- but I need to know what happened."

Interviewee: "Well, we did some things we shouldn't have done."

Bishop: "Okay. Were your clothes on?"

Interviewee: "No."

Bishop: "Hmmm. Did you have sexual intercourse?"

Interviewee: "Well, sort of. I don't know. Maybe not. We, ummm, stopped. You know?"

And it goes on from there. Mister Scratch is seeking to portray me as some sort of ecclesiastical Peeping Tom, but, as always, he's wrong.


First Scratch doesn't need to portray him as a Peeping Tom, he portrays himself as such.

Second he doesn't need to know any person's private sex practices.

You have no idea how disgusting his description of his interview sounds. If I had teens I would never have allowed them to be subjected to something like this. As an example, I had a son who was bullied in school. In elementary school I wouldn't allow the psychologist at the time to counsel my son because after questioning her I appreciated how inept she was and that she blamed the victim more than the perpetrators so I asked for outside professional counseling. The same in high school when a vice principal indicated to me he lacked the ability to deal with bullying situations, I wouldn't allow him to address my son on that. Later Columbine occurred and the way schools dealt with bullying was very different, not only did they take it more seriously, but so did the police. Before Columbine there was a tendancy to deal with it, with the least amount of work possible and little done to stop perpetrators.

Just because someone claims authority does not mean they have the expertise, nor the best interests of those they question and counsel. In DCP's case his interest is not the individuals but perpetuation of a cult mentality. And to some extent he sounds like a peeping tom, as I'm sure many men are in the position of Bishop.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:56 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
marg wrote:
In DCP's case his interest is not the individuals but perpetuation of a cult mentality.

Once again, I suggest, based on my argument in Offenders for a Word, that marg cannot supply a coherent, useful, and substantive definition for the term cult that would justify her use of it here. Which means that her use of it here is, quite literally, meaningless.

And, once again, I point out that she does not have, because she cannot have, the evidence that would demonstrate that my real interest is in "perpetuation of a cult mentality" rather than in serving the individuals I've been called to serve.

marg wrote:
And to some extent he sounds like a peeping tom, as I'm sure many men are in the position of Bishop.

That's why I sought the position so shamelessly! And they're going to have to pry me from my office when the time is up.

Twenty-plus hours of uncompensated service each week is a small price to pay for the privilege!

_________________

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

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:54 pm 
I think the issue is not so much on what exactly is a definition of a cult, but whether or not an organization uses thought reform tactics common to cults as a means to manipulate and control members. And any organization which can get its members to wear ugly uncomfortable underwear to the point that members actually fear not obeying, and when there is no benefit or necessity to so so, and much better alternatives available..has got to be a cult. There is little other possible explanation, that can account for people doing the most ridiculous things and yet fear not doing them as well. That "underwear" issue speaks volumes about Mormonism. It speaks volumes about the human animal and how stupid it can be sometimes.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:59 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18141
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
There is little other possible explanation, that people can actually be manipulated and controlled mentally to fear not wearing sanctioned underwear.


The level of your misunderstanding is just astounding, marg.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:59 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
marg wrote:
I think the issue is not so much on what exactly is a definition of a cult, but whether or not an organization uses thought reform tactics common to cults as a means to manipulate and control members. And any organization which can get its members to wear ugly uncomfortable underwear to the point that members actually fear not obeying and doing so, and when there is no benefit or necessity to so so, and much better alternatives available..has got to be a cult. There is little other possible explanation, that people can actually be manipulated and controlled mentally to fear not wearing sanctioned underwear.

Unless and until you can define cult in a coherent way, none of the above means anything at all.

Consider this:

"I think the issue is not so much on what exactly is a definition of a fillogrobzuweerd, but whether or not an organization uses tactics common to fillogrobzuweerds as a means to accomplish its goals. And any organization which can get its members to do something of which I disapprove has got to be a fillogrobzuweerd. There is little other possible explanation, that people can actually be persuaded to do something of which I disapprove."

_________________

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

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 20 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:  
cron
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