It is currently Thu Aug 28, 2014 4:04 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:22 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
On the 17th of August, visiting scholar at Cassius University, Dr. Tarski (no relation to Alfred) made brief mention of an apologetic strategy which he brilliantly summarized as the following:

Tarski wrote:
“Kuhn therefore Nephi”.


At the gentle coaxing of the august Dean Robbers, the B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies Dr. Scratch, and my undergraduate advisor Professor EA, I am here today to provide a case study of this specific mopologetic tactic, which I have dubbed, “The Kuhnian Shift”.

The Kuhnian Shift (hereafter: TKS) is a Mopologetic phenomena that is utilized by Internet Mormons [1] to resolve particularly hopeless conflicts with the Natural Sciences, it stands is direct relation to how some Mopologists have attempted to use Post Modernism as a means of understanding their faith [2]. As with most Mopologetic strategies, TKS is borne out of desperation, and is almost never used in any sort of responsible manner.

TKS has it’s origins in a 1962 publication entitled, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by historian of science, Thomas Kuhn. While actual impact upon Philosophy of Science and Natural Sciences by Kuhn’s ‘Scientific Revolutions’ is almost negligible, the book was wildly popular in the broader humanities, where it became one of the most cited works in the 20th century, along side Lenin and Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism [3].

Kuhn’s ‘Scientific Revolutions’ pushed a bold new thesis (at the time) that the advancement of the Natural Science wasn’t the slow and steady accumulation of knowledge that results in a better understanding of physical reality, but rather a series of scientific revolutions that replaced the dominant paradigm with a new paradigm. To Kuhn, a paradigm is a web or matrix of assumptions and values that scientists presuppose. In a more broader sense, a paradigm can be understood as your worldview, though Kuhn meant the term in a much more narrow focus.

An important idea to Kuhn’s thesis is the concept of theory-dependence of observation, which asserts that when two scientists observe a phenomena, the observation they make isn’t neutral, but entirely based upon which theories the scientists hold. Coupled with the theory-dependence of observation, was Kuhn’s own anti-realist position and skepticism of Truth. What this means is that Kuhn did not see science as an enterprise that could explain the unobservable, because the unobservable did not exist. It’s important to understand that Kuhn didn’t see this as a limit of science, but as a rejection of Metaphysics [4].

I’m sure it has become clear to many of you now why this work was such a hit in the early 60s, and how tempting it was for many in the Social Sciences to see Natural Science and it’s reputation for results and progress, to be thought of as subservient to fields like Sociology and Anthropology. The Achilles heel to this part of Kuhn’s thesis is that he bases this idea of scientific revolutions as paradigm shifts on experiments conducted by gestalt psychology in the late 40s and early 50s at Harvard [5]. Kuhn seems to merely assume that all of one’s perceptual experience and reaction is influenced by whatever theories a person holds, based on research that was conducted in a much limited scope with just playing cards. He provides no solid argument for this assumption, which probably explains why he later rejects this idea (this becomes important later).

The explanation and description of Kuhn’s ‘Scientific Revolutions’ is bit more than a caricature of Kuhn’s thought, but it is incomplete and doesn’t tell the entire story. It is with this incomplete picture of Kuhn that allows for Kuhn’s ideas to be abused by opportunistic mopologists, and has enabled mopologists like Kevin Christensen to make ample use of TKS.

In the conclusion of his survey of Margaret Baker’s published works, Kevin Christensen’s rhetorical strategy is to attempt a coup de grace against empirical evidence contra FARM’s pet Book of Mormon geography theories, and the broader academic indifference to Book of Mormon Archeology with a well crafted TKS:

Christensen wrote:
A few years ago I wrote a long article called "Paradigms Crossed" in which I showed how Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions illuminates the structure of the debates about the Book of Mormon.3 Critics and defenders of the book quite obviously have different methods, problem fields, and standards of solution. We work in different paradigms.


Kevin Christensen introduces Kuhn at the end here, because he doesn’t want to characterize the dispute over Book of Mormon Archeology in the grave terms as it actually exists, but wants his audience to understand it as merely friction when two different paradigms come together head to head over the same observations. In the next paragraph he goes on to complete TKS:

Christensen wrote:
In paradigm debates, the key questions are not those which ask "is the paradigm true?" but "which paradigm is better? Which problems are more significant to have solved? Which paradigm should we adopt in approaching the problems that we have not yet solved?" There can be no asking which is better without a comparison. Simply observing that an opponent has made assumptions that conflict with yours is not enough.


TKS has been engaged. Here the Mopologist is trying to shift away from questions about “Is this true?” to questions about “Is this better?”. Here, the utility of a belief is more important than the truth of a belief. Attention has been shifted to more pragmatic concerns, which are made more appealing with emotional concerns. In this case, Kevin Christensen has used TKS as an opener for this:

Christensen wrote:
Kuhn describes how scientists make comparisons and make a tentative faith decision based on values, rather than rules, which means that conclusions among individuals will differ. This is fine, since it distributes risks. The most significant values that Kuhn observes are accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, simplicity and aesthetics, fruitfulness, and future promise. I have long been impressed that Alma 32 describes exactly that same process: we experiment on key issues, and find mind-expanding enlightenment. We discover just how delicious the gospel can be, we learn things that we never would have seen had we not tried the experiments, and we taste through personal testimony the brightest of all future promises.


I’d like my audience to make note that Kuhn never characterizes any scientific decision as a, “…a tentative faith decision…”, which he conveniently weaseled into his summary of Kuhn. TKS allowed Kevin Christensen to utilize Alma 32 and bring empirical science into the realm of faith and religion, where matters of utility and preference are given priority over truth.

An irony of the Mopologetic use of TKS is that it has failed to produce desired results in experimentation. In one comprehensive study, Philosophers taking Kuhn’s approach lived with a group of Scientists studying malaria, the data was so disappointing that the book published about the study did nothing to advance the ideas that Kevin Christensen now assumes above [6].

Even more damaging to Kevin Christensen’s enterprise is the fact Kuhn later modified these ideas. As Kuhn matured as a philosopher, he relied more heavily upon a Philosophy of Language concept known as incommensurability (explained below). It appears that Kevin Christensen is not familiar with the 2nd edition of Kuhn’s book, because we see in it*, a footnote from Kuhn that refers to a paper he published after the 1st edition that clearly shows his linguistic interests, and his eventual rejection of anti-realism and adoption of some Kantian views [7]. Kuhn even repudiated how sociologists of science were using his work [8].

Incommensurability is the enduring and key component to Kuhn’s ideas on paradigms, and the lack of any mention of it betrays a certain ignorance of Kuhn’s overall project. What incommensurability provides, is the framework that Kuhn needs to show that different paradigms employ different “languages” [9] and that while it’s possible to translate from one paradigm to another paradigm, there will always be things lost in said translation. It is this linguistic turn that Kuhn develops, and favors over his prior psychological evidence. When incommensurability becomes more developed, the pragmatic concerns for the paradigm fall to the way side, since Kuhn’s anti-realism begins to fade.

As we see in Kevin Christensen, the Mopologists interest in Kuhn’s work and it’s implications (does a Mormon really want to be a skeptic about Truth?) are only important in that it enables him or her to perform TKS, and draw attention away from disconfirming evidence. Philosophy of Language is “post-Kripke”, and Casual theories of Reference dominate the field, a robust defense of Kuhn’s incommensurability would have to take a lot of material on, which would be beyond the capability of most Mopologists.

In closing, TKS is a red herring, deployed by the Mopologist as a smoke screen to get his audience to ignore disconfirming evidence. The employment of TKS never accurately represents Kuhn’s project, nor does the Mopologist care about the changing subtleties that always occur in a scholar’s thought, much less the implications of adopting Kuhn’s views, which appear prime facie, to stand in stark contrast to LDS Theology.

I’d like to thank Dean Robbers, Dr. Scratch, and Professor EA for their help and guidance in this brief essay.

[1] I’m in Dr. Shade’s debt for this helpful distinction

[2] See Runtu’s series http://runtu.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/postmodernism-and-mormonism-part-1/here.

[3]See 1st fotnote

[4] For those of you who follow my online shenanigans, this line of thought is often espoused by MD&D’s eminent Philosopher, M. Bukowski.

[5] see Bruner, J. and Postman, L., 1949, “On the Perception of incongruity: A paradigm”, Journal of Personality, 18: 206–23

[6] M. Charlesworth et al. Life Among the Scientists (Geelong 1989).

[7] T. S. Kuhn 1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edition) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, page 192, footnote 12.

[8] T. S. Kuhn 1974 “Second Thoughts on Paradigms” in F. Suppe 1974 The Structure of Scientific Theories Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 459-482

[9] I put “languages” in scare quotes, because I decided not to get into a long digression about the Philosophy of Language, and the topic of Sense and Reference and it’s importance in Philosophy of Science.

*- an edit made, Kevin pointed out he was using the 2nd edition of Kuhn's book.

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Last edited by MrStakhanovite on Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:57 pm
Posts: 4212
Location: Lakeside
Thank you for an interesting, well written and informative post.

This is one that will get copied to my library for future reference and use (with proper attribution, of course).

Well done.

_________________
“But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.”—Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Vol 6, Page 32


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:46 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:38 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Egbert Bratt Grandin Chair of Textual Criticism at Cassius University
You have inspired me to create my own Mopologetic Case Study: Critical Biblical Scholarship edition. I'm hoping for a grant from Cassius to become a visiting scholar, complete with funding.

Edited to remove unnecessary insults.


Last edited by Aristotle Smith on Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:52 pm 
Stak,

Is "Mopologetic" or any of it's versions a constructive word?

I know you believe (as I do) that the term "cult" does very little to further the discussion. What do you think "Mopologetic" does?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18039
No working examples of TKS? Just like there are no examples of the elusive Internet vs. Chapel Mormon dichotomy. I think this can all be chalked up to one delusion or another on the part of LDS "critics".

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:02 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
Simon Belmont wrote:
What do you think "Mopologetic" does?


Calling a spade a spade. It helps sort the Hamblins from the Bokovoys.

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:03 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
bcspace wrote:
No working examples of TKS? Just like there are no examples of the elusive Internet vs. Chapel Mormon dichotomy. I think this can all be chalked up to one delusion or another on the part of LDS "critics".


Hi BCSpace.

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:04 pm 
MrStakhanovite wrote:
Calling a spade a spade. It helps sort the Hamblins from the Bokovoys.


Sorry to keep derailing, but I have another question if you don't mind.

"Spade" is an actual word. "Mopologetics" is not. It is an epithet made up by a few posters here that has, unfortunately, caught on. Why encourage it, in your opinion?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:12 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
Simon Belmont wrote:
"Spade" is an actual word. "Mopologetics" is not.


semantics is arbitrary, every word is 'made up' by someone. You don't get to decide what is a word and what is not a word.


Simon Belmont wrote:
"It is an epithet made up by a few posters here that has, unfortunately, caught on.


If Mopologetics is an epithet, than it’s ipso-facto a word, BTW


Simon Belmont wrote:
Why encourage it, in your opinion?


Because it allows me to refer to all the terribleness in Mormon Apologetics, without having to qualify it every time.

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:19 am
Posts: 2467
Very well done, Stak. No one could have argued this better.

edited to add: It also had me laughing my ass off.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:14 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
DrW and Morely,

Thanks for the compliments! I appreciate them.

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:16 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
Aristotle Smith wrote:
You have inspired me to create my own Mopologetic Case Study: Critical Biblical Scholarship edition. I'm hoping for a grant from Cassius to become a visiting scholar, complete with funding.


I hope this gets pushed through and the project sees the light of day.

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:24 pm 
MrStakhanovite wrote:
semantics is arbitrary, every word is 'made up' by someone. You don't get to decide what is a word and what is not a word.


Well yes, words evolve over time (and usually long periods of time with the exception of Xerox). I don't make the decision about what is and is not a word, I was just wondering why you bought into it. That's all.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:34 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:12 pm
Posts: 5788
Location: Cave
Thanks for sharing your paper Mr. Stak. The apologists love Thomas Kuhn (much more than he would have loved them). I request for your next paper, you deal with this flip of the Kuhn Switch* by Gee:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=1&id=171

Mr. Stak wrote:
What this means is that Kuhn did not see science as an enterprise that could explain the unobservable, because the unobservable did not exist.


Mr. Stak wrote:
paradigm can be understood as your worldview, though Kuhn meant the term in a much more narrow focus.


Indeed, indeed. Niether Mopologists nor Mormons in general can have a "paradigm" in the way Kuhn meant it, though they do have one in the Stephen Covey sense of the word. In fact, Mopologetics runs explicitly contrary to Kuhn, since Kuhn argued that scientists should work within the paradigm. If mesoamerican research has a paradigm, then the LTG is heresy, a complete waste of time and hurtful to science. The institution is key for Kuhn, he's like a socialist when contrasted with Richard Feynman, whose rhetorical excess painted the academy as bunch of blustering false priests, ever in danger of being overturned by the underdog in "free market" competition.

Mopologists wish only to scrape the cream from the top of sociology of knowledge approaches to science. They want the relativism, so their stupid-ass psuedoscience can be appear legitimate. But these are not otherwise theories that help the cause of the marginalized revolutionary. If Paul Feyerabend could question the legitimacy of Galileo's free thinking, you bet your ass that FARMS's ain't worth a s***.





*basically an "eject" button


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:47 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
Gee wrote:
Egyptology has only recently begun to feel the impact of Thomas Kuhn's work on the hard sciences.


LOL!

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:54 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 9973
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Is there any way to alert Kevin Christensen himself to this thread?

_________________
"Apparently it takes LDS Inc. about 5 to 10 years to forget how much it hurt the last time it shot itself in the foot."

--Brother of Jerry, Recovery from Mormonism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18039
Quote:
No working examples of TKS? Just like there are no examples of the elusive Internet vs. Chapel Mormon dichotomy. I think this can all be chalked up to one delusion or another on the part of LDS "critics".

Quote:
Hi BCSpace.


Hi Stak. Pseudo-intellectual pursuits the highlight of your day again?

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:23 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
bcspace wrote:
Hi Stak. Pseudo-intellectual pursuits the highlight of your day again?


Yeah, I usually start off with navel gazing in the morning, then I read the liberal media looking for mormon related stories, so I can engage in yellow journalism and presentism. Due to my overwhelming introversion, I then get high, read wikipedia, and troll mormon forums.

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18039
Quote:
Yeah, I usually start off with navel gazing in the morning, then I read the liberal media looking for mormon related stories, so I can engage in yellow journalism and presentism. Due to my overwhelming introversion, I then get high, read wikipedia, and troll mormon forums.


Just as I thought.
;)

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:15 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 6607
For most when I've seen the Kuhnian shift, it's had virtually nothing to do with Kuhn. The name is just brought up because it has a certain slightly esoteric academic-sounding cache'.

Rather, it's just an example of the hoary apologetic that current science unfriendly to faith has the capacity to be upturned and replaced by new scientific knowledge friendly to it. In other words, it's a variation on the classic, "problem of induction; therefore I can believe almost anything I want" gambit that is used by cranks and fringe theorists the world over.

Indeed, in John Baez's infamous and semi-seriousphysics crackpot index, you'll see variations of this all over the place, including claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a paradigm shift or comparing your views to people who have a reputation for being scientific revolutionaries.

You see, regardless of whether Kuhn overstated the revolutionary nature of scientific progress, the vast, vast majority of fringe ideas are just bad ideas. Just because scientific understanding has the capacity to change down the road, that alone isn't justification for believing something that hasn't obtained that justification nor reason to think science is going to change in any particular direction. We still are bound to believe what is reasonable now.

Regarding the Kevin Christenson types, I think Stak has it wrong. He is very much interested in the incommensurability that Kuhn offers. It's meant to insulate criticism of the Mormon apologetics from mainstream science, though at the cost of something equivalent to epistemic relativism. Fundamental objections to that aside, I think Gad's point is the right one to bring up. Kuhn faults a person for not engaging in "puzzle-solving" within the dominant paradigm. People can't just imagine themselves to be in a hermetically sealed alternative paradigm and call it a day. He's no friend of the crank.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mopologetic Case Study: The Kuhnian Shift
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:04 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
EAllusion wrote:
Regarding the Kevin Christenson types, I think Stak has it wrong. He is very much interested in the incommensurability that Kuhn offers. It's meant to insulate criticism of the Mormon apologetics from mainstream science, though at the cost of something equivalent to epistemic relativism. Fundamental objections to that aside, I think Gad's point is the right one to bring up. Kuhn faults a person for not engaging in "puzzle-solving" within the dominant paradigm. People can't just imagine themselves to be in a hermetically sealed alternative paradigm and call it a day. He's no friend of the crank.


But Professor, why would somebody who is interested in advancing the truth claims of a Church be interested in epistemic relativism?

Image

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: annie, beastie, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 12 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