If by "atheist" you mean holding all the opposite opinions of someone who doesn't believe in God, then sure, Tim's a bonafide "atheist"! Seriously, other than claiming to be one, what has he ever said that's remotely in line with typical atheist beliefs?
So you define "atheism" as a cult where everyone holds to the same views and positions?
Here and I thought an "atheist" is simply someone who "lacks a belief in gods." That's what atheists have been telling us on the internet for years.
So what's the litmus test of atheism? Agreeing with Richard Carrier? Just being a dick? (and if it's the latter, he's got that one covered, look at the history of people calling Tim "mean" and criticizing his habit of insulting people online).
But I'm surprised you think there's meant to be some kind of official "orthodoxy" amongst atheists.
And I'm not saying atheists can't have any atypical beliefs.
See above. All it takes to be an "atheist" is to lack a belief in God, right? Or are you disagreeing with that definition promoted so heavily by atheists online for the last several years?
But if like Garbage, they *only* hold atypical beliefs, then they are an atheist in name only.
So we're stereotyping atheists now? Are you an atheist yourself?
Does Tim believe God exists? Does he worship God? Is he a Christian, Muslim or practicing Jew? Is he a Hindu or a pagan who worships nature or something?
He's a non-believer in God, so he's an atheist (which matches his claim to be one), no matter what else he might say or do. If he believed God existed and claimed to be an atheist, then you might have a point. If you had proof that he was a Christian and his atheism was just "an act" to fool people, then you might have a point.
It's a huge jump from the assumption that all true atheists agree on certain things (apart from lacking belief in deities) that that amounts to being a secret Christian.
Especially when they always attack and slander fellow atheists (and then rabidly promote fringe theories which attempt to rewrite history and exonerate the Church for their role in bringing about the Dark Ages.)
Which atheists does he need to agree with to be considered a "True" atheist?
Who are the guardians of atheist "orthodoxy"?
You're agreeing then that "atheism" is an organized religion?
I think most internet archives don't go back much before 1996
*Message board* archives? Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you have any idea how much memory that takes up?!? (Rhetorical. You obviously don't.)
Fine, tell us how much memory
archive.org uses.
http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.phpWhat type of machinery is used in this Internet Archive?
Much of the Internet Archive is stored on hundreds of slightly modified x86 servers. The computers run on the Linux operating system. Each computer has 512Mb of memory and can hold just over 1 Terabyte of data on ATA disks. However we are developing a new way of storing our data on a smaller machine. Each machine will store 1 terabyte. For more information go to www.petabox.org.
I guess you're unfamiliar with the wayback machine. I guess you've never heard of Google cache. I guess you don't know that various message boards usually save their old stuff for years, even decades. Just because
IMDB.com doesn't store every message going back to when it was first founded (popular boards delete messages after 21 days of no replies), doesn't mean there's no trace of a person outside of this community. If you look up Tim O'Neil and his various handles online you'll see he's posted a lot of other places than here. That's pretty common. Very few people who use the internet regularly use only one name and confine themselves to only one forum.
So I darn well do know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand, make it even worse for yourself, by making wild accusations against people that you presume can't be proven OR disproven.
Click your imdb profile. Notice that posts on popular boards don't go back more than a year or so? That's why.
See above. We're talking about the internet itself here, not IMDB, as if that's the only place a person can post messages. Tim's got a website, he's got a blog. He posts in at LEAST two other forums outside this one that have no connection to IMDB. Let me see, off hand, I used to post semi-regularly in 6 or 7 other forums besides this one (and one of those forums was a bunch of forums that were combined into one after a few years).
Why in the F would anyone keep a fifteen year-old conversation up?
Go to
archive.org and ask them. Ask Google. Ask anybody why they would save anything. Every ubb or vbulletin or whatever software they're talking about saves stuff. Because people want to look up information. People want to have post counts to establish veteranship. People want to save info in case they need to track somebody down. They save memorable conversations and so forth. It's actually a big hassle to go through and remove stuff and leads to the unintended consequence of annoying people who wanted access to that information. So unless the amount of data they get is completely overwhelming and mostly spam, it's easier for most places to just leave it up.
One of the main forums I used to frequent has posts going back to 2003, that's 8 years ago (and it actually had stuff from '97 in there but that got wiped out in a server crash when the forums were upgraded if memory serves). A couple others go back to 2002. And that's without even touching the
archive.org site (which save stuff going back to the mid-90's).
Who in the F looks back at a post they made fifteen years ago to see if there are any new replies? Just *think* about exactly how stupid that is for a single second...
Fine then, please visit all those thousands of boards and tell people how stupid they are for not deleting all their old posts.
Why do you think that's so implausible in today's world? Where advertising companies pay individuals to walk around listening to a CD they are marketing while they give "rave reviews" about it everywhere they go (and so everyone can hear).
Lots of things are plausible. But without evidence, it's pointless. So you have faith in things without evidence?
Or online stores who pay apartment buildings to keep empty boxes (with their logos on the sides) outside by the doorman as an advertising ploy. Or film marketing firms who fabricate fake critics with "rave reviews" for their TV trailer blurbs. Or the same film marketing firms have their employees flood message boards with "rave reviews" for whatever film they are being paid to promote. Or book authors promoting fringe theories who troll website message boards under a plethora of nom de plumes all promoting the same blog in their signature which gives its only 5-star book review to 'God's Philosophers' by James "Intelligent Design" Hannam. Possible in today's world? Absolutely. Far-fetched? Not at all.
Without evidence, it's a conspiracy theory. Again, I might be an atheist, trying to make religious people look good (or bad, depending upon how you think my posts look to the outside world, lol).
You're just as much a "troll" as you think he is, since you keep arguing with him, so if that's your opinion, I'd just put him on ignore and stop giving him what he craves (right?).
If you've got evidence that Tim is being paid by some Church, please bring forth the evidence. I do love the personal attack on James Hannam. First of all, how do you know he's a believer in "Intelligent Design"? Second, how is that relevant to anything he writes as a historian?
That's like me pointing out that Robert M. Price is a comic book nerd who writes books about Cthulu. So why would you trust anything that "Robert 'Cthulu' Price" has to say on the New Testament?
And on top of all the above reasons to be suspicious,
Those aren't reasons to be suspicious. You simply stated that people exist in the world who promote things for purposes of advertising. That doesn't prove that any specific person is one of those people. Otherwise, again, I'm an atheist being paid to promote Catholicism, or a Catholic being paid by atheists to say what I say. Maybe Tim pays you to say what you say, to make himself look like an active debater.
The existence of conspiracies does not make something a conspiracy. Evidence must be brought forward. I think the only suspicion here is that you use specious logic against him, implying he's really been getting to you, and you consider him a threat or were personally offended in some way.
factor in that everywhere Garbage goes online he somehow gets tangled up in sock-puppet/fake-user scandals.
Ridiculous. YOU CREATED THAT ACCUSATION YOURSELF... based on... nothing.
Unless you have evidence he's fake, then it's just as useless as calling somebody a Nazi or a Sheep because they don't agree with you. It's one of the oldest internet insults next to calling somebody gay or a virgin who lives in their mom's basement.
Or how fake users falsely claiming to be renowned scholars like "DrSerafinaCuomo" from Birbeck College University of London come to both the Agora message boards and other message boards, only to sing the praises of Garbage's blog and make plagarized proclamations about how they are in perfect agreement with James "ID Wonder-boy" Hannam...
I'm not sure how the existence of a faker on the same board makes HIM fake.
What's your theory, that Tim is James Hannam? You obviously hate the guy, so maybe you DO think that...
I mean, seriously, it's Christians who ally themselves with and defend this sort of lying and deceitful behaviour that make the Christians in 'Agora' look like Good Samaritans!
Replace "Christians" with "Jews" and see why nobody takes you seriously.
And that's a stupid exaggeration anyway, as the Christians in Agora are mass murderers. You're accusing Tim of lying about being an atheist (or being paid off by Christians, I guess) and James Hanaam of being a bad person for believing (you allege, anyway, I don't know what his actual views are, since nobody's bothered to substantiate them here) in "Intelligent Design." I'm not sure how that compares to the caricatured Christians in "Agora."
If you think Tim is wrong to cite Hanaam, why is it okay for you to cite somebody like Carrier? If that's the beef, then why don't you dig up some more modern historians who agree with your side, and force Tim to either do the same or admit his view is "fringe" as you claim.
I can see why he enjoys responding to you though, refuting the goofy things you say is effortless. But hey, I defended him, so why don't you say I'm part of the conspiracy? I've even got a link to his blog in my sig. And I
loved Crocodile Dundee. C'mon, admit you believe it! ;)
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
13 years ago
So you define "atheism" as a cult where everyone holds to the same views and positions?
No. But feel free to have an imaginary debate with yourself.
So we're stereotyping atheists now?
No. But again, feel free to have a pretend argument with yourself.
It's a huge jump from the assumption that all true atheists agree on certain things (apart from lacking belief in deities) that that amounts to being a secret Christian.
Except that Garbage agrees with Christians on every single topic. And BTW- Why the F are you arguing for him? And how do you presume to know all this stuff about him?
You're agreeing then that "atheism" is an organized religion?
Apparently, you'd rather make stuff up to "refute". Therefore, I'm going to mostly ignore your ridiculous statements, accusations, and questions. Sorry.
So I darn well do know what I'm talking about.
I don't know about you, but I've been talking about message board archives... So are you claiming that
archive.org stores these? Do they have all of imdb's message boards archived going back to when the site began?
One of the main forums I used to frequent has posts going back to 2003, that's 8 years ago
Wonderful. So one forum goes back 8 years. Any of them go back 20 years?
Fine then, please visit all those thousands of boards and tell people how stupid they are for not deleting all their old posts.
You missed the point.
Lots of things are plausible. But without evidence, it's pointless. So you have faith in things without evidence?
With the exception of the book author scenario, everything I said there is a known fact. I wasn't listing hypothetical scenarios (except for the book author one).
First of all, how do you know he's a believer in "Intelligent Design"?
Just Google his name and Intelligent Design.
Second, how is that relevant to anything he writes as a historian?
It shows his fondness for fringe theories and his lack of critical thinking skills. Among other things.
That's like me pointing out that Robert M. Price is a comic book nerd who writes books about Cthulu. So why would you trust anything that "Robert 'Cthulu' Price" has to say on the New Testament?
No, it's obviously not. Seriously, can't you come up with any better rebuttals than this?
I think the only suspicion here is that you use specious logic against him, implying he's really been getting to you, and you consider him a threat or were personally offended in some way.
Okay. Thanks for sharing. But I don't really care what you think.
YOU CREATED THAT ACCUSATION YOURSELF... based on... nothing.
Google "Tim O'Neill" and "sock puppet". Three different websites on the first page. Then read about the "Frank Walton" stuff.
I'm not sure how the existence of a faker on the same board makes HIM fake.
For starters, he's the only one who quoted her fake/plagarized posts, something he did multiple times on his blog, on imdb, and on other message boards. That and the fake user praised his ridiculous blog. You do the math.
If you think Tim is wrong to cite Hanaam, why is it okay for you to cite somebody like Carrier?
I don't cite Carrier. I know nothing about the him except that Garbage despises the guy because he exposed numerous flaws in Hannam's fringe theory. That and Garbage was stalking him on his own blog.
I can see why he enjoys responding to you though, refuting the goofy things you say is effortless.
Yeah, I'm sure you think so. Unfortunately, everyone else can see that he certainly hasn't had much success doing so. As for you, you've done a wonderful job of misinterpreting what I say, missing the point, or creating wholly fabricated scenarios, to which you thoroughly "refute". But please let me know when you want to actually debate the topics being discussed. Thanks in advance!
reply
share
kurgan-10
13 years ago
Except that Garbage agrees with Christians on every single topic.
Clearly he disagrees with us on a great many topics, else he'd be a Christian. You'd be making a huge logical leap that because he doesn't believe anti-Christian conspiracy theories that therefore he agrees with Christians on "every single topic" or is a secret Christian himself!
It sounds like you've presumed the opposite... that a
true atheist is defined as a person who disagrees with Christians on every topic or attacks them at every opportunity (and would never think to contradict a fellow atheist in public!).
I'm way off base, right?
And BTW- Why the F are you arguing for him? And how do you presume to know all this stuff about him?
I see a dumb argument, and I can't help myself but refute it. It's a weakness of mine. ;)
I don't see a compelling case being made that he's a Christian pretending to be an atheist, which is what you're accusing him of. He who asserts must prove, especially when it's such a personal accusation against someone.
Apparently, you'd rather make stuff up to "refute". Therefore, I'm going to mostly ignore your ridiculous statements, accusations, and questions. Sorry.
You've made many ridiculous statements without me having to invent any.
Notice I'm not the one actually accusing people of being fake on here.
I don't know about you, but I've been talking about message board archives...
Well now you know we weren't talking about the IMDB board archives.
So are you claiming that archive.org stores these? Do they have all of imdb's message boards archived going back to when the site began?
It actually DOES archive imdb boards, though it doesn't go back that far (for example the Agora board goes back to August 2010). The Da Vinci Code board goes back to February 2006, but because of their policy of deleting threads, you can only really view the titles of those long removed posts.
Anyway, as has been explained to you, there's a digital "paper trail" for this guy going way back, we don't need to resort to conspiracy theories to explain his existence on these forums at imdb.
Wonderful. So one forum goes back 8 years. Any of them go back 20 years?
See his post.
You missed the point.
And your point is refuted in that there's evidence going back further. So it is possible to establish that somebody existed on the internet prior to this particular board's archive.
With the exception of the book author scenario, everything I said there is a known fact. I wasn't listing hypothetical scenarios (except for the book author one).
So you agree then that Tim O'Neill ("Da-Vinci-Code-Is-Garbage") is a real atheist who has been posting on the internet for many years prior to his appearance on this particular board?
Great, then we're done here.
Just Google his name and Intelligent Design.
How about
you do it and show us. It's not my duty to research this guy to confirm your accusations against him.
It shows his fondness for fringe theories and his lack of critical thinking skills. Among other things.
Is he a biologist? A geologist? A cosmological astrophysicist? Or any other field relevant to the study of evolutionary theory or the origins of the universe? If not, then he is not a "theorist" anymore than you or I are when we speculate about something outside our own field of expertise.
What matters is his work in his own field, which would be history. Is he a competent historian? By the same token, we would not look to Richard Dawkins as an expert theologian or religious historian, but as a scientist, since that's his field of expertise. Just because his views on religion are fringe, does not mean that he is an incomptent scientist. We have to evaluate his expert work in comparison with his peers.
You're going to have to realize that accepting someone's expertise in their field is not the same as a blanket endorsement of every little opinion, preference or prejudice that person has in every other area of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's like me pointing out that Robert M. Price is a comic book nerd who writes books about Cthulu. So why would you trust anything that "Robert 'Cthulu' Price" has to say on the New Testament?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it's obviously not. Seriously, can't you come up with any better rebuttals than this?
It's perfectly valid, because Robert M. Price IS a comic book nerd who writes books about the Cthulu mythos. It's his self-professed hobby. Therefore, using your logic, we shouldn't trust him, because his mind is filled with fantasy and he wastes vast amounts of time on stuff that many other people consider crap.
In reality of course none of his pet theories or hobbies are relevant when we examine his New Testament scholarship. It matters what he says as an expert in his field of expertise, compared to his peers in the field.
Even if he was the world's greatest NT scholar, that would not somehow prove that H.P. Lovecraft is a great writer or that comic books are objectively awesome. If we think his biblical theories have merit, we are not required to endorse his views on Spider-Man, for example.
Okay. Thanks for sharing. But I don't really care what you think.
You cared enough to reply... again. ;)
Google "Tim O'Neill" and "sock puppet". Three different websites on the first page. Then read about the "Frank Walton" stuff.
No, how about YOU dig up whatever "evidence" you think makes your case and present it here. What are you afraid of?
It's not my job to try to DISPROVE your oddball assertions and conspiracy theories. Go ahead. If it's such powerful stuff, surely you'll shut him down in a hurry (isn't that your goal?).
This is no time to be lazy. He who asserts [hint: that's you here] must prove.
For starters, he's the only one who quoted her fake/plagarized posts,
That doesn't prove a thing. Actually I sent people messages guiding them to the thread (when I thought it was real). I also sent a message, if memory serves, to the person's account. So why not say I was in on the "scam" too?
The most obviously explanation is that this person appeared to be the genuine article and appeared to be on Tim's side, so he quoted them. No conspiracy needed to explain that.
something he did multiple times on his blog, on imdb, and on other message boards. That and the fake user praised his ridiculous blog. You do the math.
It doesn't prove he created the fake or was in cahoots with whomever did. If you have better proof than this, please bring it forward.
Falling for a scam doesn't make you the scammer, does it?
I don't cite Carrier. I know nothing about the him except that Garbage despises the guy because he exposed numerous flaws in Hannam's fringe theory. That and Garbage was stalking him on his own blog.
Okay, so you've got nothing. You simply dismiss Hannam because you think his affiliation (allegedly, since you've yet to establish this with any evidence)
with the "Intelligent Design" camp means we can ignore whatever historical scholarship he's ever done.
It's terrible that you are unaware of ANY scholars that support your theory. How can you determine what is "fringe" and what isn't, if all you know is Hannam? (presuming you even know his work and haven't just dismissed it because of supposed ties to "Intelligent Design").
Yeah, I'm sure you think so. Unfortunately, everyone else can see that he certainly hasn't had much success doing so.
Who for example? Why aren't they speaking up? Anyway, it doesn't matter how many conspiracy nuts agree with you. The truth is the truth, and we establish that by arguments based on evidence, not wishful thinking or innuendo.
As for you, you've done a wonderful job of misinterpreting what I say, missing the point,
You clearly misunderstood what we were talking about regarding internet archives, so we're not solely to blame. I was also mistaken in presuming that you'd actually looked at both sides of this "controversy."
or creating wholly fabricated scenarios,
Projection... you asserted that Tim O'Neil was a faker. Apparently you think he's an imposter and created the fake Serafina account to support himself. Are those "real" or "fabricated" scenarios?
Or are you going to say that you kept it vague, so you really weren't saying anything, just implying it?
to which you thoroughly "refute". But please let me know when you want to actually debate the topics being discussed. Thanks in advance!
Okay, you can start by providing a list of modern historical scholars who agree that the Christians destroyed a "daughter library" of the Great Library of Alexandria in the Serapeum around the time of the events covered by the film. Once you've given us their names, we can begin discussing the works in which they make those claims, and the evidence they present to make their case.
If your retort is to assert that scholars can't be trusted because of their religious beliefs, or because the person presenting the material might be a secret imposter, then we'll just go back over this again, and again, and until you get it, or annoy everyone so much that you end up on all the ignore lists.
Good luck.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
13 years ago
It sounds like you've presumed the opposite... that a true atheist is defined as a person who disagrees with Christians on every topic or attacks them at every opportunity (and would never think to contradict a fellow atheist in public!).
I'm way off base, right?
Yes. And once again, you are perfectly content to ignore what I actually say and make up your own scenarios. Seriously, stop wasting my time.
I don't see a compelling case being made that he's a Christian pretending to be an atheist, which is what you're accusing him of.
That's wonderful, but unfortunately no one really cares much what you think.
He who asserts must prove, especially when it's such a personal accusation against someone.
We're all anonymous online! Hello!
Well now you know we weren't talking about the IMDB board archives.
And neither am I. Can you actually read?
So it is possible to establish that somebody existed on the internet prior to this particular board's archive.
No, it doesn't. All it establishes is that they have the same screen names. Once again: We're all anonymous online! Your "proof" doesn't prove anything!
How about you do it and show us. It's not my duty to research this guy to confirm your accusations against him.
Google is your b!tch. Not me.
It's perfectly valid, because Robert M. Price IS a comic book nerd who writes books about the Cthulu mythos.[blah-blah-blah]
No, it's clearly not the same thing. Writing fiction is clearly not the same as scholarly works. Your not comparing apples to apples. Seriously, why aren't these kinds of things obvious to you?
He who asserts [hint: that's you here] must prove.
Once again: We're all anonymous online! Hello!
Actually I sent people messages guiding them to the thread (when I thought it was real). I also sent a message, if memory serves, to the person's account.
Links please.
It doesn't prove he created the fake or was in cahoots with whomever did.
Well, since everyone is anonymous online, all it means is that he's the number one suspect. And unfortunately, there aren't any other suspects.
You simply dismiss Hannam because you think his affiliation (allegedly, since you've yet to establish this with any evidence) with the "Intelligent Design" camp means we can ignore whatever historical scholarship he's ever done.
So you still can't find his article defending the Fine-Tuning argument? What a pity.
It's terrible that you are unaware of ANY scholars that support your theory.
WTF are you talking about?
The truth is the truth, and we establish that by arguments based on evidence, not wishful thinking or innuendo.
Thanks for the laugh! That's pretty funny coming from someone like you!
You clearly misunderstood what we were talking about regarding internet archives
We? Do you have other personalities or something? Regardless, the conversation Garbage and I were having was about internet forums and message boards. Sorry.
Okay, you can start by providing a list of modern historical scholars who agree that the Christians destroyed a "daughter library" of the Great Library of Alexandria in the Serapeum around the time of the events covered by the film. Once you've given us their names, we can begin discussing the works in which they make those claims, and the evidence they present to make their case.
Sure, knock yourself out:
* Jean-Yves Empereur, a French Egyptologist, archaeologist, as well as the director of the Center for Alexandrian Studies and author of 'Alexandria Rediscovered'.
* Roy Macleod, Professor of History at the University of Sydney, educated at Harvard and Cambridge as well as the editor of 'The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World'.
* Robert Barnes, Senior Lecturer in Classics at the Australian National University and one of the contributing writers in 'The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World'.
* Bojana Mojsov, historian and archaeologist for the National Museum and Bibliotheca Alexandrina, as well as author of 'Alexandria Lost: From the advent of Christianity to the Arab conquest'.
* Justin Pollard, the Cambridge-educated historian and co-author of 'The Rise and Fall of Alexandria: Birthplace of the Modern World'.
* Howard Reid, also educated at Cambridge and co-author with Justin Pollard of 'The Rise and Fall of Alexandria: Birthplace of the Modern World'.
reply
share
kurgan-10
13 years ago
After all that wrangling about how we can't prove who anyone is online (except Tim, we can prove is a Christian, somehow), and arguments about what is "fringe" and what isn't, and who is biased and who isn't, and how it isn't your job to support your own assertions with verifiable sources (somewhere out there is proof that I'm right, now go out and find it!)... you finally spit out the data you should have given at the start. Well, better late than never!
* Jean-Yves Empereur, a French Egyptologist, archaeologist, as well as the director of the Center for Alexandrian Studies and author of 'Alexandria Rediscovered'.
* Roy Macleod, Professor of History at the University of Sydney, educated at Harvard and Cambridge as well as the editor of 'The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World'.
* Robert Barnes, Senior Lecturer in Classics at the Australian National University and one of the contributing writers in 'The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World'.
* Bojana Mojsov, historian and archaeologist for the National Museum and Bibliotheca Alexandrina, as well as author of 'Alexandria Lost: From the advent of Christianity to the Arab conquest'.
* Justin Pollard, the Cambridge-educated historian and co-author of 'The Rise and Fall of Alexandria: Birthplace of the Modern World'.
* Howard Reid, also educated at Cambridge and co-author with Justin Pollard of 'The Rise and Fall of Alexandria: Birthplace of the Modern World'.
(in response to my challenge:
"...a list of modern historical scholars who agree that the Christians destroyed a "daughter library" of the Great Library of Alexandria in the Serapeum around the time of the events covered by the film.")
That's the first substantial reply you've made in awhile. Kudos. Now was that so hard?
I presume, of course, those works you listed actually articulate this view. In other words, we don't have to call up each of these people to ask them their opinion that they might have spilled over coffee one day.
I'll leave it to you guys then, because I really don't have time for another research project before Christmas. Enjoy!
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
tcob44
13 years ago
After all that wrangling about how we can't prove who anyone is online (except Tim, we can prove is a Christian, somehow), and arguments about what is "fringe" and what isn't, and who is biased and who isn't, and how it isn't your job to support your own assertions with verifiable sources (somewhere out there is proof that I'm right, now go out and find it!)... you finally spit out the data you should have given at the start.
And yet I already did just that...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/board/thread/173066530?p=5&d=1 87757553#187757553
reply
share
kurgan-10
13 years ago
I got an email notification so I'll reply to this one.
I actually had to log-out to see that post (from Aug 29th). Believe it or not, when I log in, it is completely blank.
I see you got some responses, though. Did you read them?
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share