Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Three Paradoxes of Time

  1. #1 Three Paradoxes of Time 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

    If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

    I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Three Paradoxes of Time 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

    If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

    I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.
    The second literal paradox:

    How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Three Paradoxes of Time 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

    If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

    I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.
    The second literal paradox:

    How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?
    The third, and final paradox is more complicated, at least, i feel.

    Since time is not synonymous with movement from a mathematical sense, how can it exist without someone to measure it?

    Viola! Have a go, its fun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    How can we ever have time if we never take time?





    Mmmmmm.

    Like we all lve in a Matrix and I'm the Merilvingian, right?

    Time is but a tool in a shed, so too perception, so also space...............this shed of reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    How can we ever have time if we never take time?





    Mmmmmm.

    Like we all lve in a Matrix and I'm the Merilvingian, right?

    Time is but a tool in a shed, so too perception, so also space...............this shed of reality.
    This is a qoutation i have just realized was very similar... but moving on, can you answer the paradox?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Space, time, and perception are mutually exclusive concepts, yet work as one as our way of understanding reality.








    Mutually exclusive things are mutually exclusive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Space, time, and perception are mutually exclusive concepts, yet work as one as our way of understanding reality.








    Mutually exclusive things are mutually exclusive.
    I don't feel that addresses the paradoxes i gave. Feel to explain that a bit better?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Three mutually exclusive things, A B and C. A does not define or experience B and vice versa, and likewise with all the other combinations. Yet they DO work together in explaining the "whole", reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Three mutually exclusive things, A B and C. A does not define or experience B and vice versa, and likewise with all the other combinations. Yet they DO work together in explaining the "whole", reality.
    I cannot understand your point, because it is not very clear. Please keep trying. I am sure eventually we will cox the truth behind what logic you inexorably hold, perhaps?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    To claify my point I would need to present a thoery on how arbitrary-constructs of "space" "time" and "perception" can work together to describe in our mind as n image the actual construction of reality.



    That would clarify my point. It would be a big theory, it would take a LOT of explaining, because it would be NEW by virtue of the fact that space and time have a third memeber of their science family, "perception".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    To claify my point I would need to present a thoery on how arbitrary-constructs of "space" "time" and "perception" can work together to describe in our mind as n image the actual construction of reality.



    That would clarify my point. It would be a big theory, it would take a LOT of explaining, because it would be NEW by virtue of the fact that space and time have a third memeber of their science family, "perception".
    You don't need to prove the first. Surely our very existences prove it already?

    The second paragraph seems to be totally under your own perspective of what you comparatively believe in, which again, is not completely scientific, but just a hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Exactly.






    Eventually the universal truth will be known, and who those people are who were instinctively drawn to it in this time where presumably (as the scientific community "believes") the truth of the grand theory cannot be yet found. These people drawn instinctively to the theory of the universal truth will be known by their words, their works, which is why I urge caution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I cannot understand your point, because it is not very clear. Please keep trying. I am sure eventually we will cox the truth behind what logic you inexorably hold, perhaps?
    Good luck with that. :?

    theQuestIsNotOver has already spoken about her theory and the forum members treatment of it. Well, her last post was written as if such a "theory" does not exist yet, but it does and has met no favour on these forums, mostly because nobody can ever figure out what she is saying. Just keep that in mind. Maybe she'll PM you a link to it, but I would advise you that this thread could quickly turn into a discussion of her thoughts instead of yours.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Exactly.






    Eventually the universal truth will be known, and who those people are who were instinctively drawn to it in this time where presumably (as the scientific community "believes") the truth of the grand theory cannot be yet found.
    What makes you so sure that the universe will even allow us to understand its complexities, because, i simply do not beleive the universe will allow us to reduce its complex nature(s) so easily, if it even desires it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Greetings, Kalster.





    I am serious about my term "instinct". You people can find this theory yourselves by asking the right questions, step by step. I will not quick link anyone, and if I do, I hope you speak a foreign language.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Greetings, Kalster.





    I am serious about my term "instinct". You people can find this theory yourselves by asking the right questions, step by step. I will not quick link anyone, and if I do, I hope you speak a foreign language.
    Kalster...???? Was this meant for another post, because i can assure you, and truthfully say, i am not him/her.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I cannot understand your point, because it is not very clear. Please keep trying. I am sure eventually we will cox the truth behind what logic you inexorably hold, perhaps?
    Good luck with that. :?

    theQuestIsNotOver has already spoken about her theory and the forum members treatment of it. Well, her last post was written as if such a "theory" does not exist yet, but it does and has met no favour on these forums, mostly because nobody can ever figure out what she is saying. Just keep that in mind. Maybe she'll PM you a link to it, but I would advise you that this thread could quickly turn into a discussion of her thoughts instead of yours.






    My statement was meant for that bigoted summary of my efforts.

    I must go now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I cannot understand your point, because it is not very clear. Please keep trying. I am sure eventually we will cox the truth behind what logic you inexorably hold, perhaps?
    Good luck with that. :?

    theQuestIsNotOver has already spoken about her theory and the forum members treatment of it. Well, her last post was written as if such a "theory" does not exist yet, but it does and has met no favour on these forums, mostly because nobody can ever figure out what she is saying. Just keep that in mind. Maybe she'll PM you a link to it, but I would advise you that this thread could quickly turn into a discussion of her thoughts instead of yours.







    My statement was meant for that bigoted summary of my efforts.

    I must go now.
    You think i am a biggot now? Trace back all the posts we have made, and i can assure you, i have given quite reasonable resonses, unless you disagree somehow?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    You think i am a biggot now? Trace back all the posts we have made, and i can assure you, i have given quite reasonable resonses, unless you disagree somehow?
    Her response was to my post on the previous page and directed at me. I just gave some friendly advice to you, but you can make up your own mind of course.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You think i am a biggot now? Trace back all the posts we have made, and i can assure you, i have given quite reasonable resonses, unless you disagree somehow?
    Her response was to my post on the previous page and directed at me. I just gave some friendly advice to you, but you can make up your own mind of course.
    That is so contradictory to the point i am now suspecting myself that ''yourself and her'' could be the same people... correct me here, but you never directed any comments to me until now in this thread, but supposing you had...

    ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Three Paradoxes of Time 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

    If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

    I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.
    Ok, i will give an answer to this paradox since no one so far has wished to reply to it coherently.

    The truth is, is that we have more than just one sense, that being five and posibly six. So hence, we sense a time passing without the physical need of holding anything. It may even be considered the ''biological clock,'' one of several clocks we have in the body.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Three Paradoxes of Time 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

    If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

    I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.
    The second literal paradox:

    How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?
    Time is not physical, hence time cannot be taken.

    Therefore this paradox is now resolved.... which leaves the last, which i will not answer until someone gives a sample, or a possibility.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Three Paradoxes of Time 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

    If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

    I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.
    The second literal paradox:

    How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?
    Time is not physical, hence time cannot be taken.

    Therefore this paradox is now resolved.... which leaves the last, which i will not answer until someone gives a sample, or a possibility.
    Is there really no one here who wants to take a stab at the last?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

    We don't. It is our objective explanation and subjective experience of time that we sense, you do not sense time itself, you notice things that are happening over periods of time, you notice that things take time to accomplish. You feel how you feel and think how you think, you are influenced by time(or at least influenced by forces over a period of time), but you do not feel or think time. You measure it using rythm. We know it exists because we see it's effects.

    to quote Einstein "...time is what you measure with a clock." or a moon or a star or a drum, or a heart beet, or a step

    How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?

    My argument against the same as above but for a different reason. We don't. You don't have time, you don't possess it. "I have time" is a figure of speak that doesn't mean "I am in possession of time" it generally means "I don't have plans"
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Since time is not synonymous with movement from a mathematical sense, how can it exist without someone to measure it?

    You don't create something by measuring it, you must first have something to measure and then make a ruler or a clock to measure with.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Three Paradoxes of Time 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

    If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

    I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.
    The same way we can sense sounds and sense light, yet not touch them. Next question
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Three Paradoxes of Time 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

    If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

    I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.
    The same way we can sense sounds and sense light, yet not touch them. Next question
    Ah very good. You can find the second if you search on from that post, but i have already given answers, so don't cheat

    Muscly, i'll get to you soon enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Since time is not synonymous with movement from a mathematical sense, how can it exist without someone to measure it?

    You don't create something by measuring it, you must first have something to measure and then make a ruler or a clock to measure with.
    I don't agree with this part,

    You don't create something by measuring it

    I say i don't agree, because we have actually shown the act of measuring can and does create things. This is the Observer Effect of QM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

    We don't. It is our objective explanation and subjective experience of time that we sense, you do not sense time itself, you notice things that are happening over periods of time, you notice that things take time to accomplish. You feel how you feel and think how you think, you are influenced by time(or at least influenced by forces over a period of time), but you do not feel or think time. You measure it using rythm. We know it exists because we see it's effects.

    to quote Einstein "...time is what you measure with a clock." or a moon or a star or a drum, or a heart beet, or a step

    How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?

    My argument against the same as above but for a different reason. We don't. You don't have time, you don't possess it. "I have time" is a figure of speak that doesn't mean "I am in possession of time" it generally means "I don't have plans"
    But i do agree with this 100%.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I say i don't agree, because we have actually shown the act of measuring can and does create things. This is the Observer Effect of QM.
    But isn't this effect not an effect of the act of observing, but an effect of our machines that we use to observe with?

    We use electron microscopes to view particles, by shooting electrons at particles we effect the particle. We don't CREATE anything except potential, since quantum mechanics only deals with statistics. Potential is not an actual thing, it is another way of measuring things.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I say i don't agree, because we have actually shown the act of measuring can and does create things. This is the Observer Effect of QM.
    But isn't this effect not an effect of the act of observing, but an effect of our machines that we use to observe with?

    We use electron microscopes to view particles, by shooting electrons at particles we effect the particle. We don't CREATE anything except potential, since quantum mechanics only deals with statistics. Potential is not an actual thing, it is another way of measuring things.
    It's an outdated argument now however to say the machine is what causes. May i ask that you go to Doctor Fred Alan Wolfs webpage and contact him via e-mail asking him about the ''microscope arguement'' because i feel he could give a better insight into the reason why we don't normally use this arguement?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    There were actually two arguments. The first one was about the electron effecting the particles we are observing.

    The second was that we don't CREATE anything by measuring it, though we may CHANGE it.

    I'd be happy to get in touch with Fred, so please leave the URL to his sight. I'm a bit skeptical if there aren't any sources other than this one guy. I'm even more skeptical because you cannot explain it. It's a pretty simple argument, and should be just as simple to prove wrong.

    Do the electrons not effect other particles in a way to cause such an effect? If not, then there you go, argument disproved. I'm assuming that's what it is right? The electrons either don't effect the particles at all, or effect them in some way not related to the Observer Effect.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I've been watching his videos and so far there is no science at all, just rhetoric and descriptions of things. Generalizations and over simplifications.

    If this guy is the bearer of the only proof against the above argument, and if it is a less-than-scientific explanation, anything like his videos, I am sorry, but you will need to stand on the shoulders of a different giant because he seems more like an inflated balloon or a stilt walker than a scientist.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    There were actually two arguments. The first one was about the electron effecting the particles we are observing.

    The second was that we don't CREATE anything by measuring it, though we may CHANGE it.

    I'd be happy to get in touch with Fred, so please leave the URL to his sight. I'm a bit skeptical if there aren't any sources other than this one guy. I'm even more skeptical because you cannot explain it. It's a pretty simple argument, and should be just as simple to prove wrong.

    Do the electrons not effect other particles in a way to cause such an effect? If not, then there you go, argument disproved. I'm assuming that's what it is right? The electrons either don't effect the particles at all, or effect them in some way not related to the Observer Effect.
    His video's most of the time are not directed at a scientific audience., If you however direct to him a scientific question, he will respond with a scientific answer.

    http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Mind to tell me what doctor wolf says... I cannot remember his arguement now, but i am sure interested to here it again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    He says we "change" (which was my argument against your claim that we "create")
    possibilities by observing.

    We don't create anything, we don't change anyTHING, we change possibilities. Since possibilities are a form of measurement, it seems that we are only changing our measurements, not the THINGS that we are measuring.

    Since this is a paraphrasing, I will pass it by him to see what he thinks.

    I am also seeing what he thinks about this opinion "observation changes the observer not the observed"
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    He says we "change" (which was my argument against your claim that we "create")
    possibilities by observing.

    We don't create anything, we don't change anyTHING, we change possibilities. Since possibilities are a form of measurement, it seems that we are only changing our measurements, not the THINGS that we are measuring.
    Well, sure.

    But we change virtual possibilities into real actualities. This is a type of ''creation'' in my eyes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    He says we "change" (which was my argument against your claim that we "create")
    possibilities by observing.

    We don't create anything, we don't change anyTHING, we change possibilities.Since possibilities are a form of measurement, it seems that we are only changing our measurements, not the THINGS that we are measuring.
    Well, sure.

    But we change virtual possibilities into real actualities. This is a type of ''creation'' in my eyes.
    Plus where i have bolded seems to be contradictory.

    p.s Sorry to be a nag, but i don't understand what you mean here either:

    ''Since possibilities are a form of measurement, it seems that we are only changing our measurements, not the THINGS that we are measuring.''

    You either change the measurements condition, or you don't alter the thing at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    But we change virtual possibilities into real actualities. This is a type of ''creation'' in my eyes.
    Fred agrees with this statement but this does not support your argument.
    I will explain but first to clarify my view
    we don't change anyTHING, we change possibilities
    This is not contradictory, I'll explain.

    "Possibility" is a concept, not a material thing. Although the word "thing" can be used to mean "idea" I, both for the sake of clarity and holding onto what little usefulness there is left in out ridiculously ambiguous language, use "thing" to represent "material object" and "idea" to represent "mental concept."

    The observer theory and 2-slit experiment seem to show that we change possibility into actuality, but this is not the same as saying "we create an electron by observing it," according to the experiment we change what the electron does, but the electron is there whether or not we observe it, as is time, it just seems to act differently.

    Time is still a measurement, the universe moves through time. An electron is not a measurement, an electron moves through the universe. What makes you think they act the same under observation?

    I can observe what I am typing right now but if I did not observe it, that does not mean I would have typed an infinit number of things. Not all things act like quantum mechanics that is why they are "quantum mechanics" and not "universal mechanics"
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •