Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 56 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
Sorry.. ..they won't let me experiment and cut peoples brains out to see what they really think and how personal perception really works.
I was sort of at that point with Rev K anyhow, so unless someone has something interesting to say I will leave you all to it.


Fascinating! The Reverend measures the book by its cover. You rip the pages out.

This is the ego on religion and science. blush

Guess no one reads anymore... wink


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

What level do you put yourself at when measuring the worth of mankind?


As it's semi intelligent I will answer that one.

I don't put myself anywhere, I actually put everyone on the same level as I do animals.

I don't care if people have my point of view or perception, on this forum Bill S, Bill, Rede, PMB, Rev K would all have radically different views on most things to myself but I interact fine with them.

So what changes with my interaction with Paul, Newton and yourself, why do I interact so differently, well it's the stupidity factor ... I don't do stupid well.

Newton is just certifiable, Paul has his little GOD vs Science war going on and then we have you.

Clearly you have some intelligence because of the way you argue but the problem is when you look at your responses they are usually vacuous or simple contradictions. You will no doubt argue that smile

However at the end of the day I have made it quite clear I find your line of responses vacuous, inciting and quite stupid and annoying. Fine that is just my personal view it may not be scientifically justifiable. Rev K has also made it blatantly clear he dislikes conversations with you, I haven't asked but I suspect for the same reason ... so lets just blunt it down we find you piss us off for whatever reason, maybe we have issues.

So we have now made it quite clear to you that we do not enjoy conversations with you and really would prefer you don't converse with us.

However that is not good enough for you, you have a right to keep replying and trying to interact with us and make responses more and more annoying so that we have to react, it's usually called the forum pest. In the real world we would have the option of moving to exclude the pest but we don't on a public forum, free speech and all that.

So now we have the Mexican standoff we have made it clear we find you a pest but you want to exercise your freedom of speech right to annoy the crap out of everyone. I have no issue with that but I also have the same freedom of speech right.

So it's nothing deep and meaningful and worth getting into the psycho babel about, you piss me off and I would prefer not to talk to you but for some reason you feel compelled to be present in the conversation because it has the word EGO in the title. I can't stop you getting involved but I don't have to be civil either as the only two people involved in the conversation currently view you as nothing more than a serial pest.

Last edited by Orac; 01/16/14 03:36 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
ORAC, I will just quote you the famous words of one of the plays of Shakespeare:

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/thine-own-self-true



Polonius:
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!

Laertes:
Most humbly do I take my leave, my lord.

Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 7882


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac


I don't care if people have my point of view or perception, on this forum..So what changes with my interaction with Paul, Newton and yourself, why do I interact so differently, well it's the stupidity factor ... I don't do stupid well.

The above is a contradiction. Or in your words contrary or contrarian. You do care.. or stupid wouldn't be the excuse to delude yourself of caring what something looks like.
Besides.. in your previous posts all your testimonies are to the point of caring about what you engage in.
Originally Posted By: Orac

.. and then we have you.
Different than all others and the animals. Equality does not present itself in your judgments as the action of choice, and the emotional investment. As you said previously, you have me categorized and boxed.
Originally Posted By: Orac
the problem is when you look at your responses they are usually vacuous or simple contradictions. You will no doubt argue that smile

Well I won't argue the idea that you do not want to see things the way I will. Your way, is by choice.

I challenge the single perception of thought, or the assumptions that are made in what I have said.
Often, people who don't comprehend reality outside of the box of measure get frustrated when something doesn't fit in the standard system of measure. You are all about standards, as is the reverend. He likes to precede his words with title, pomp, and circumstance.
Problem is.. stupid people by the reverends and your definition falls into the category of non-compliance with self prescribed standards. (at least in the examples given in the complaints)
Originally Posted By: Orac

However at the end of the day I have made it quite clear I find your line of responses vacuous, inciting and quite stupid and annoying. Fine that is just my personal view it may not be scientifically justifiable.

Which is contrary to what you stand for as the authoritative point of any value system. This would be the point of our conversations. You condemn religion and these conversations regarding self empowerment because they are built on the irrationality of individual perceptions.

The rev just put his plug in for "to thine own self be true" yet in these arguments you make toward rationality of the individual sense of perception you would argue that if they (insert opinion or subject) do not follow the authoritative guidelines stamped with the approval of said authority they are false truths. You use this approach with all those you come into conflict with.

The reverend would appeal to science to back his sense of values up, and to achieve a degree of reverence for his effort. He basically seeks to grease his way thru the sphinctered orifice of authoritative and totalitarian personal review.


Originally Posted By: Orac
Rev K has also made it blatantly clear he dislikes conversations with you, I haven't asked but I suspect for the same reason ...

He might agree with you, but he does have his own reasons. Even you have come to loggerheads with the rev.


Originally Posted By: Orac
so lets just blunt it down we find you piss us off for whatever reason, maybe we have issues.

That would be closer to the truth.
However, your science and the rev's preaching has made reference to the facts that support the idea that we as individuals are making our own choices, and the power of the mind is not driven by what is outside of us, but rather within our own internal programs.
The rev's testimony to hypnosis is the supportive idea when he suggests that an individuals mind can accept whatever it wants to see as reality. It's not so much the ideas that someone else wants to present as reality that decides for us what is real, but whether we accept its validity.


Originally Posted By: Orac

So we have now made it quite clear to you that we do not enjoy conversations with you and really would prefer you don't converse with us. In the real world we would have the option of moving to exclude the pest but we don't on a public forum, free speech and all that.
But you do have the right and the will to ignore what is in front of you, and even more to the point, you have the will to overcome the psychological attachments to those things you accept as having power over sensibility and choice. What you call pest another may call god.
Obviously its not me since I don't inflict such suffering on others any more than it is the object in the room that controls a persons feelings or thoughts.

What is it that draws you toward the conflicting thought?

You have the ability to comprehend yourself. Yet in your previous post, the scientific way and the method of choice to understand what drives you to do what you do as the self prescribed method, would be to take your brain out of your head and cut it up.
For all the assumptions you make about psychological conditioning, that is your truth in understanding and the pathway to knowledge and wisdom..., the deconstruction of any known thing.
At least that is what you present as an argument.
Originally Posted By: Orac

..you.. interact with us and make responses more and more annoying so that we have to react..

Do you listen to yourself?
Really?
I have that much power over you and your choices? You and the reverend?
He (the rev) goes on and on about how he has me on ignore in personal preferences, yet his actions show that his preference is to respond to my posts.
He uses that childish kind of approach that kids often use when they say to each other "I'm not listening to you" But responds to everything I write, even if it is indirectly. Maybe he's just out of control like yourself and victim to circumstance.

Originally Posted By: Orac
In the real world we would have the option of moving to exclude the pest but we don't on a public forum, free speech and all that.
again this is the real world and you have free will to understand and choose to accept or reject. Any attachments that would reveal as personal stresses would be psychological. Science might subscribe to the idea that you are predisposed genetically to react, but I won't agree that the world or what's in it, has control over you. Science contradicts itself when it says genetically we are predisposed, and then when it's convenient, such as when it comes to medicine and healing, that we have an influence on whether we are healthy or sick.

Originally Posted By: Orac

So now we have the Mexican standoff we have made it clear we find you a pest but you want to exercise your freedom of speech right to annoy the crap out of everyone. I have no issue with that but I also have the same freedom of speech right.
And freedom of will to make choices.
Challenges in life often inspire intelligent people to rise above a situation. Less intelligent people clash with a challenge and try to remove it, because the challenge is seen as nothing more than an annoyance.


Originally Posted By: Orac

So it's nothing deep and meaningful and worth getting into the psycho babel about,
that's babble

Originally Posted By: Orac
you piss me off
An affliction of supreme proportions...

Originally Posted By: Orac
and I would prefer not to talk to you
Then don't. If that is your preference why would you compromise?

Originally Posted By: Orac
but for some reason you feel compelled to be present in the conversation because it has the word EGO in the title.
Well, all the conflict within your sense of reason and the idea of being such a victim is all about the ego.


Originally Posted By: Orac
I can't stop you getting involved but I don't have to be civil either

You don't have to be anything. You choose to be what you want. Nothing makes you do this, it is all in your choices to see the world as you see it.

You choose to be other than civil, because you believe something or someone has power over you, and causes you to be the way you are. This is ego.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
See your basic behaviour in the post you know you piss us off we find you a pain in the arse and we have told you that or are you to thick and stupid to register that. Why you piss us off isn't important maybe it's our problem maybe it's yours who gives a [censored], only in your feeble dropkick mind is that even important.

You are aware of that yet you feel you must comment back to us because you are a piece of trolling bacteria just like I labelled you.

That is basically all your bullshit posts are about the same old bullshit to troll a response.

TROLLING TROLLING TROLLING

Last edited by Orac; 01/17/14 01:23 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Rev K just ignore the troll because he will no doubt continue his anti-social trolling and I will refrain from flaming him back out of respect for you smile

However his behaviour got me thinking why when there is no authority does behaviour break down in your view and has this always been the case thru history.

As you know I come from a very regulated upbringing and country so I find the sort of anti-social behaviour and trolling very foreign to me, they would have been put against the wall and shot so to speak.

So it leads to the question .....

I wonder if as we make the individual more self sufficient and independent they feel they don't need others and so you see a rise in anti-social behaviour or do you think it was always there just suppressed by authority and as we give more individual freedom it surfaces?

Last edited by Orac; 01/17/14 01:52 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
I come from a very regulated upbringing and country so I find the sort of anti-social behaviour and trolling very foreign to me, they would have been put against the wall and shot so to speak.

So it leads to the question .....

I wonder if as we make the individual more self sufficient and independent they feel they don't need others and so you see a rise in anti-social behaviour or do you think it was always there just suppressed by authority and as we give more individual freedom it surfaces?

As long as you're not putting them against the wall and shooting them, you are possibly allowing them to feel they can express themselves outside of the demands that previously denied them the right to think for themselves or express themselves.

You seem to think that others need to be told what to do as a basic need in social behavior, and the need for those others is to be regulated, censored and programmed...?? frown

In the U.S.A. such an idea of freedom of expression or the debate of an issue, is not seen as antisocial. It might be seen as outside of socialistic dictates of suppressed behavior. So maybe the definition of social behavior as it applies to socialism doesn't fit in the west.

The need to have everyone think and act in accord with your wishes, or you and another, is a bit on the extreme side of normal social behavior as it is known where I come from.

I know you just hate it when I address your posts, but then, if you want certain rights and freedoms, yer gonna have to allow others to share them unless you want to start your own country and own the rights of your subjects and the subject of belief of those subjects. wink

Oh and by the way, I don't think the reverend minds you flaming me. He's made a habit out of throwing his own flaming remarks in the ad-hominems he used in referring to my participation in the subjects he frequents. He's even tried to appeal to the moderators to have me banned from the forum.

But like the rev says.. to thine own self be true.. or maybe he meant that for everyone but me? blush


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
ORAC, AND TO ALL WHO CHOOSE TO BE WHO YOU ARE

To the many close and distant friends that I have on FaceBook, who wished me well on my 84th birthday, January 14, I recently wrote a THANKS-FILLED response similar to the following:

My goal in life is to wear out as graciously as possible while being as useful as possible, in as many helpful ways as possible, to global earth, and to as many people--friend or foe--as possible. In other words, in this process I choose and WILL: to wear out, not just to rust out! THREE things come to mind:

1. Science assures us that, somatically speaking, nature recycles all things--including our bodies (somas) and the like. However, we also have brain-based minds, souls. What of them?

2. As a child, because of traumatic deaths in the family, I became a self-aware EGO, with a psyche or mind of my own, by the time I was not quite three.

Modern science now speaks of the brain as if it has a mind of its own. A recent book bears the title, "The BRAIN that changes ITSELF--Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of BRAIN SCIENCE" by Dr. Norman Doidge, MD. (A native of Toronto) For details, just simply do a Google-search. My grand daughter--a graduate in psychology--gave it to me, for Xmas.

In summary, the book is about us as PSYCHOSOMATIC BEINGS.

3. But, IMO, we are PNEUMA-PSYCHOSOMATIC...that is, spiritual beings, who happen to have a mind and a body--a psyche and a soma, which are evolving into being integrated.

Understanding INTEGRAL THEORY, based on the work of Ken Wilber, is crucial here. Again I suggest you do a google search on the work of Ken Wilber.

Wilber's work is focused on the belief that we are spiritual beings in the process of evolving, somatically, psychologically and pneumatologically--that is, physically, mentally and spiritually.

We have many things in common with our our animal friends and relatives, but there are differences. Animals--even if they have to die, or eat each other, in the process--have no choice. Nature drives them, at all costs, to obey their instinctual drives to survive and pass on the species.

We human beings however, have the option of harnessing and using our willpower to do that which is good. Once this choice is made, will takes over and conscience comes to the fore. This moves us to stop seeking revenge and remains victims of negative emotions.

Thus we are empowered, as needed, to change directions, modify and even over-ride dangerous instincts and destructive habits. How? By harnessing the team of good will and a sensitive, and guilt-free conscience. Both will then work to empower us to be in control of how we live our lives and prepare us to die--that is, transcend the limitations of life--peacefully, without regrets, in harmony with what is and in tune with self.




G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
ORAC, COUNT THIS AS AN EXPERIMENT IN COMMUNICATION

in my last post, the last but one paragraph goes like this. Please ignore it. The look at revised version of what I should have said:
Quote:
We human beings however, have the option of harnessing and using our willpower to do that which is good. Once this choice is made, will takes over and conscience comes to the fore. This moves us to stop seeking revenge and remain victims of negative emotions.
Now, guided by my suggestion and you having the WILL (agreed?) to accept my suggestion, you can, mentally and actually, get rid of it and place it with this revised version:

As an evolutionist, I agree that, before story telling and history were invented, we happened to be animal-like beings who later evolved to be more human-like than animal-like.

Science tells us that it all came to pass that, because we happened to have larger brains, that is, larger relative to the size of our bodies, we soon became more rational than the animals who--subject to the law of natural selection--had no choice but to remain trapped by their instincts.

Gifted with this BIGGER brain, we evolved the ability to dominate, outwit--without feelings like guilt, shame and the like --to domesticate, kill and eat other animals, including much larger animals.

At this point, maybe there were spoken words, but none of our ancestors had evolved enough to invent writing and keep a record what was happening. The great invention of story telling and history came later.

THE FIRST SCIENTIST. See Genesis 3: 6 cool

The next giant step was, I suspect, taken by ... Dare I say it? THE FIRST SCIENTIST was our first mother, who was amazed and awe struck at the miracle of giving birth to male and female offspring.

xxxxxxxMORE WORK TO DO ON THIS, LATER...my boss and motherly wife wants my attention, OK! laugh

ABOUT The evolution of self-awareness, of conscience. This evolved into the greater awareness and knowledge of good and evil within what we call history--happenings, involving people moving within space and time.and then a social conscience--an AWARENESS of powers, real or imagined, beyond the physical ones. Thus entered the gods and what we now call religion and so on .....


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
THE FIRST SCIENTIST--OUR FIRST MOTHER

Genesis 3:6

Good News Translation (GNT)

6 The woman saw how beautiful the tree (of knowledge of good and evil) was and how good its fruit would be to eat, and she thought how wonderful it would be to become wise (she was curious). So she took some of the fruit and ate it.

Then she gave some to her husband, and he also ate it.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
THE FIRST SCIENTIST--OUR FIRST MOTHER

Genesis 3:6

Good News Translation (GNT)

6 The woman saw how beautiful the tree (of knowledge of good and evil) was and how good its fruit would be to eat, and she thought how wonderful it would be to become wise (she was curious). So she took some of the fruit and ate it.

Then she gave some to her husband, and he also ate it.


The symbolism above refers to the ego and its emergence as the senses were turned outward. (Religion then condemns women for causing the downfall of man.)
The feminine represents the outward senses and the masculine the absolute. The cross is another symbol of the masculine and the feminine. The vertical staff represents the absolute or the father (masculine God in stillness and silence) or the infinite potential. The horizontal staff represents the outward movement (Feminine God in action) or potential reflected as the manifest universe.

Religion tries to make the bible literal when a lot of its meanings are symbolic.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
ORAC, I quote a recent comment made by TT to you,
Quote:
Oh and by the way, I don't think the reverend minds you flaming me. He's made a habit out of throwing his own flaming remarks in the ad-hominems he used in referring to my participation in the subjects he frequents. He's even tried to appeal to the moderators to have me banned from the forum.
Orac, I know you are aware that I do not enjoy FLAMING anyone, personally. However, I do understand your feelings of frustration with the exceptionally bad SYNTAX--arrangement of words to form sentences, clauses, or phrases; sentence structure--in the posts by TT to you and others (Remember? We lost Ellis because of her frustration with meaningless posts.)--the kind to which you refer.

NB: About the words through which I put a strike-through. Generally speaking, the syntax of this sentence is OK. But it is filled with totally false statements.

What I asked the moderators to do was to apply the rules set up by them, for the enjoyment of all: Send posts that are long and filled with awful and meaningless SYNTAX to that far-away galaxy they mention in the rules.

BTW, I just checked the PRIVATE MESSAGES I wrote way back to moderators and others, including TT and Orac. I said ZERO about banning posters.

Last edited by Revlgking; 01/18/14 08:06 PM. Reason: Always helpful

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Religion tries to make the bible literal when a lot of its meanings are symbolic.


On the subject of translation; many years ago, when writing something in Latin, I tried to distinguish between "I am" and "it is I". The best I could come up with was "Ego sum" for both.

Any linguist with any thoughts?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Quote:
Religion tries to make the bible literal when a lot of its meanings are symbolic.


Where is Paul to address this heresy laugh

I never forget the reaction from him when I made the suggestion because I thought everyone took it as symbolic, I had never met a fundamentalist. Funny enough since being in the States now I have met quite a few smile


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: Orac
ROFL nice try TT smile

Perhaps (I will) start a thread on the garbage and we can discuss it, but I am not going to derail Rev's thread to have a dropkick contrarian argument with you.
Good move, Orac! About your comment earlier in which you wondered about my religion and what it teaches about repentance.

The United Church of Canada? It is denomination of religion that is very open to all individuals with sincerely held beliefs, including atheism, as long as all teachings and practices are within the laws of the land.

Sorry cannibals, no human sacrifices or cannibalism, as being part of any religion, or belief system allowed, eh!--no matter how sincere you cannibals are smile

Me? Keep in mind that I am a panentheist. I believe that what science calls measurable reality is the field of science.

PANENTHEISM & UNITHEISM are similar

As a unitheist, I accept the role of all the sciences in understanding the laws of nature and the function of the material, imminent and measurable cosmos/universe within the space/time continuum.

However, I hold that it IS possible that this cosmos/universe, physical in form exists within that which is infinite, eternal and transcendent Being--S.P.I.R.I.T.U.A.L Being or G.O.D--in which things can come and go mysteriously, in which we live, move and have our physical being, for now.

BTW, there is an open group for unitheists, on faceBook, to which I belong. Feel free to take a look. https://www.facebook.com/groups/unitheism/ and/or
http://www.unitheist.org/

Untheists, or panentheists simply believe in doing that which is god-like--as good as possible--to the echos and our fellow human beings, no matter who they are.

If we make mistakes and, for whatever reason, do harm we are simply expected to apologize for it and then move on with the resolve to do better from then on. We do not need to grovel and repent before some imaginary god up there, or create one in in our mind. That, IMO, is useless and a waste of time.

Remind me, Orac: How were you raised? Did you tell me you were raised in a place where there was no religion, in Russia? What about now, in the USA? Are you now an atheist, or a what? Do you do your best to be a god-like, honest and friendly person?

ROFL? Orac, may I ask: What, BTW, does this acronym mean?





Last edited by Revlgking; 02/02/14 12:44 AM. Reason: Always helpful

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Orac, I just found what ROFL means: It means, Rolling On the Floor, Laughing laugh I found it in, Wiktionary. Here is is:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ROFL laugh


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5