homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:42 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:14 am 
Offline
titles are too mainstream.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 4579
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin
"It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere." - Anonymous

I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around what this is saying.

1. Are they talking about God's view or a human's view? in other words, are they saying "it doesn't matter" because God views all beliefs as equal OR "it doesn't matter" because they're all wrong, have the same consequences in this life, or whatever.

2. Are they saying that all religions are true or that God will excuse our wrong beliefs if we are sincere? The first view would hold that it doesn't matter what you believe because all religions are equally true and all that is necessary for you to follow your chosen religion is sincerity. The second would say that maybe there is one true religion, but God is sympathetic and will give us a pass as long as we sincerely believed our chosen religion.

Maybe I'm overthinking this. Does either of these options seem more valid?

_________________
Somehow Your blood makes You blind
To our divide
I am all Yours

David Roth wrote:
you make my life hell.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
3. It's saying you are held accountable for being consistent to what you can master as moral principles/religion. So two sides to a war could both be "right" and pray to God (or their version of God) and stand justified because it is a proper application of who they are and what they know. So sincerity of belief is what [the Christian God] will hold people accountable to. See Kant's Categorical Imperative and essays on Duty... essentially that IF you can will what you are doing be done by all humans, then you stand justified, even if in an absolute sense what you are doing or willing is wrong.

I think that's more what the quote means.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 8
Home Schooled: Yes
This is what Grace Lichlyter said about it. She was an apologetics finalist in 2006. Here's a You Tube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4mTfQqt--w


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:58 pm
Posts: 398
Home Schooled: Yes
It's like whatever you believe is okay as long as you sincerely believe it.
That's wrong though because what you believe may not be true, so how ever sincere you are will not make it truth. That make sense?

_________________
~Rachael


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:41 am 
Offline
titles are too mainstream.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 4579
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin
figuresk8er wrote:
It's like whatever you believe is okay as long as you sincerely believe it.
That's wrong though because what you believe may not be true, so how ever sincere you are will not make it truth. That make sense?

A Hawk wrote:
This is what Grace Lichlyter said about it. She was an apologetics finalist in 2006. Here's a You Tube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4mTfQqt--w


Thanks. That is basically how I presented my speech on this topic last year. But I'm redoing my cards now and I want to go deeper.

I think the weakness in the argument you presented, Rachael, is that the people saying this don't believe that there is one right or wrong religion. So I guess you'd have to start by showing how all religions can't be true (like Grace did). But then you're still left with the option that all religions are false...

Isaiah wrote:
3. It's saying you are held accountable for being consistent to what you can master as moral principles/religion. So two sides to a war could both be "right" and pray to God (or their version of God) and stand justified because it is a proper application of who they are and what they know. So sincerity of belief is what [the Christian God] will hold people accountable to. See Kant's Categorical Imperative and essays on Duty... essentially that IF you can will what you are doing be done by all humans, then you stand justified, even if in an absolute sense what you are doing or willing is wrong.


This is exactly what I was looking for. So, it's not making any sort of assumption as to whether all religions are true or not. Rather it is saying "the truth of a certain belief doesn't matter, it just matters if you're sincere"

that sounds so simple. I don't know why I didn't get it before. Heh.

_________________
Somehow Your blood makes You blind
To our divide
I am all Yours

David Roth wrote:
you make my life hell.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:48 am
Posts: 27
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Where e're I be, there I am.
Dawn wrote:
"It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere." - Anonymous

I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around what this is saying.

1. Are they talking about God's view or a human's view? in other words, are they saying "it doesn't matter" because God views all beliefs as equal OR "it doesn't matter" because they're all wrong, have the same consequences in this life, or whatever.

2. Are they saying that all religions are true or that God will excuse our wrong beliefs if we are sincere? The first view would hold that it doesn't matter what you believe because all religions are equally true and all that is necessary for you to follow your chosen religion is sincerity. The second would say that maybe there is one true religion, but God is sympathetic and will give us a pass as long as we sincerely believed our chosen religion.

Maybe I'm overthinking this. Does either of these options seem more valid?


I believe this quote is someone talking about a human's view of religion and beliefs. This quote may have something to do with the whole Tolerance movement, which now says that we have to "tolerate" what everyone else says.

I understand someone saying that I should tolerate their wanting to believe what they want to believe. Someone once said "I may disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is fine, but in the world today people want you to agree with you in the name of "Tolerance."

This quote, at least I believe, stems from someone saying that it doesn't really matter what religion (or belief system) you believe, as long as it works for you. But don't try to tell me that my belief is wrong, even if your belief system is that my belief system is wrong.

It almost breaks down on itself, as you can see.

I hope I answered the question. This is just what I think the quote means.

_________________
"I SAID...*machine gun fire mowing down Nazis*...don't call me Junior!"

-Indiana Jones


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:18 am
Posts: 60
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Safe in His Arms.
I gave a speech on this topic once... I basically just talked about the Christian's need to be completely sincere in their beliefs.

_________________
Your Grace is enough.
-Bad Horse


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:59 am
Posts: 380
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin
I got this one. I gave the example of two boys who were walking home when they came to a fork in the road. They honestly believed that they chose the right path but they ended up having to spend the night in the rain. Their sincerity had nothing to do with their correctness.

I also talked about how Jesus is the only way to God and gave some verses to support it.

I closed with a quote I heard from an African-American preacher once: "We're all going somewhere. Let's just make sure we get the right address."

_________________
Bioethics Today - Bioethics for the 21st century.
urbanPIXEL Web Design - My web design business.

"Beware for there's a zealot unleashed and sighting the end
Through a scope of righteousness that's blinded by blood on the lens"
-Oh, Sleeper


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 23
Home Schooled: Yes
This was one of the first cards I ever wrote. I interpreted it very simply: This statement is saying that the standard for truth is sincerity. If you believe something, it is therefore true.

So, I suppose I took the statement as espousing relativism. I start off by showing sincerely held beliefs that were wrong. Since I'm approaching the topic from a relativistic/all-roads-lead-to-God perspective, my second point is that the Bible teaches there is only one way to heaven. My third point is that sincerity must be grounded in truth--we should sincerely believe things that the Bible tells us are true.

It may be a very simple way of interpreting the topic, but the judges like it and it's one of my favorite cards. I also seem to draw it with a very high frequency, for some reason. Perhaps tournament directors like it a lot.

_________________
Caleb DeLon
Master Apologetics by Writing Only 25 Cards!
CalebDeLon.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
caleb.delon wrote:
This was one of the first cards I ever wrote. I interpreted it very simply: This statement is saying that the standard for truth is sincerity. If you believe something, it is therefore true.

So, I suppose I took the statement as espousing relativism. I start off by showing sincerely held beliefs that were wrong. Since I'm approaching the topic from a relativistic/all-roads-lead-to-God perspective, my second point is that the Bible teaches there is only one way to heaven. My third point is that sincerity must be grounded in truth--we should sincerely believe things that the Bible tells us are true.

It may be a very simple way of interpreting the topic, but the judges like it and it's one of my favorite cards. I also seem to draw it with a very high frequency, for some reason. Perhaps tournament directors like it a lot.

seems like a gross mischaracterization

I doubt people who hold that opinion say "if you believe something, it is therefore true." That's basically applying your framework (the opposite of the statement) to the statement's language, then saying "see, the statement doesn't make sense". The point of apologetics is to understand what is being said, not rephrase it in your own framework and then show how it fails in your framework.

It's not about whether sincerely held beliefs are wrong or right, it's about how the person should be judged who held those beliefs.

The oversimplification fails to address or persuade anyone but those who already believe the opposite. So I wholeheartedly disagree with your approach here and recommend it to be avoided.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 23
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
caleb.delon wrote:
This was one of the first cards I ever wrote. I interpreted it very simply: This statement is saying that the standard for truth is sincerity. If you believe something, it is therefore true.

So, I suppose I took the statement as espousing relativism. I start off by showing sincerely held beliefs that were wrong. Since I'm approaching the topic from a relativistic/all-roads-lead-to-God perspective, my second point is that the Bible teaches there is only one way to heaven. My third point is that sincerity must be grounded in truth--we should sincerely believe things that the Bible tells us are true.

It may be a very simple way of interpreting the topic, but the judges like it and it's one of my favorite cards. I also seem to draw it with a very high frequency, for some reason. Perhaps tournament directors like it a lot.

seems like a gross mischaracterization

I doubt people who hold that opinion say "if you believe something, it is therefore true." That's basically applying your framework (the opposite of the statement) to the statement's language, then saying "see, the statement doesn't make sense". The point of apologetics is to understand what is being said, not rephrase it in your own framework and then show how it fails in your framework.

It's not about whether sincerely held beliefs are wrong or right, it's about how the person should be judged who held those beliefs.

The oversimplification fails to address or persuade anyone but those who already believe the opposite. So I wholeheartedly disagree with your approach here and recommend it to be avoided.

Okay, so here we have two different interpretations of a somewhat vague topic. I'm fine with a person choosing to interpret the topic as referring to judging people, but I don't believe that because there are multiple interpretations one has to be wrong or a "gross mischaracterization".

That said, I do believe that my interpretation of the topic is the one that is most consistent with the general meaning of the statement. I googled "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere" and looked at only the top five results. How do these websites interpret the statement? All of the top five results used my interpretation. As far as I could tell, none of them said anything about "judging" people based on their beliefs.

Quotes from the top results:
"I have actually had (not overtly religious) people get angry with me when I say they have a moral obligation to check out the validity of their ideas. They literally think that the mere fact of believing passionately in something makes it right."
Steven Dutch

"At first glance this kind of thinking [about sincerity] seems kind and sensible and helpful. ... Kind because it says everybody is right to believe what they want to believe and nobody can say otherwise. Sensible because, after all, who can claim that their opinion, their school of thought, is anything other than just that, opinion? ... And it seems helpful, because it suggests that believing in something is what really matters."
Pete Jackson

"Simply put, some people argue that it really doesn’t matter what your beliefs on a certain subject are, as long as you are sincere in those beliefs. ... Someone’s sincerity regarding a belief does not make that belief true."
An anonymous blog
http://fulfill.wordpress.com/2011/05/11 ... u-believe-–-as-long-as-youre-sincere/

"The one who says that as long as you are sincere [it doesn't matter what you believe] is saying, 'As long as you are already pure in your intentions, you are right to believe anything you wish.' But, this is only true for those who do not accept the Bible assessment of the human sinful nature."
An adapted quote from R.C. Sproul

So, there indeed are people who say "If you believe something, it is therefore true." I'm not applying my framework to the topic--I researched the topic before I developed my framework. My understanding of the topic determined my framework, not the other way around. Because I understand the topic as it relates to truth, my framework is about truth.

Now the alternative interpretation presented has been about "judging" people with sincerely held beliefs. I'm trying to understand how this applies, although as I said above I'm fine with this interpretation if it actually does apply. Here's my issue: Aren't all beliefs sincere beliefs? If so, then this interpretation must become a speech on judging beliefs in general--which I think is much farther away from the apparent meaning of the topic than my interpretation.

There's also no possible way Isaiah can support his statement that no one could ever be persuaded by my interpretation. How does he know? As I showed above, there are indeed people whose interpretation lines up with mine. Perhaps some of those people could be persuaded--God can use a speech to change someone's mind.

I wholeheartedly disagree that there cannot be multiple valid interpretations of a single statement. I recommend that we all recognize the validity of multiple interpretations and try to determine which one is the most likely meaning without declaring other interpretations to be completely bankrupt "gross mischaracterizations".

_________________
Caleb DeLon
Master Apologetics by Writing Only 25 Cards!
CalebDeLon.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
I may or may not have been baiting you to say something like:

Quote:
Okay, so here we have two different interpretations of a somewhat vague topic. I'm fine with a person choosing to interpret the topic as referring to judging people, but I don't believe that because there are multiple interpretations one has to be wrong...


Those results almost all are your interpretation because they are people in your framework. That is the problem.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 23
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
I may or may not have been baiting you to say something like:

Quote:
Okay, so here we have two different interpretations of a somewhat vague topic. I'm fine with a person choosing to interpret the topic as referring to judging people, but I don't believe that because there are multiple interpretations one has to be wrong...


Those results almost all are your interpretation because they are people in your framework. That is the problem.

I don't see how your "baiting" me affects the discussion. Are you attempting to say that interpreting a topic is bad? All topics need some level of interpretation.
If you're saying that a statement cannot have multiple meanings, you're wrong.
And if you're saying that because you may have anticipated one of my responses that response is therefore wrong, that's just a bad argument.

Regarding your one-sentence response:
You're begging the question.
You argued that my interpretation of the topic is bad because (supposedly) my interpretation comes from my framework.
I countered by showing that when people look at the statement we're discussing, they interpret it the same way I do--thus, it's perfectly natural to assume that my framework came from my interpretation.
You then make your conclusion your premise: "Those results almost all are your interpretation because they are people in your framework."--i.e. their interpretation came from their framework. That's the point you are attempting to prove--you can't just rephrase your conclusion and offer it as support countering some actual support I found.

I still don't understand how your counter-interpretation applies to the statement. You never addressed my questions about it. Do you know of anyone else who looks at this statement and arrives at your interpretation? Oh--if you do have someone, I'm not going to accuse them of only having that interpretation because they are "in your framework". Your argument, if it is actually correct (which I don't believe it is), cuts both ways and nullifies the validity of your interpretation as well as mine.

_________________
Caleb DeLon
Master Apologetics by Writing Only 25 Cards!
CalebDeLon.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
If person from worldview B hears from worldview A that he's wrong because worldview A interpret's his words differently than he meant them, person from worldview B will never be persuaded. No matter how many people from worldview A say the person from worldview B _should_ mean what worldview A does, by the same words.

So quoting R.C. Sproul's refutation of what "some say" doesn't mean he any more fairly characterizes what they say. Which is why this answer cannot help but preach to the choir.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 23
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
If person from worldview B hears from worldview A that he's wrong because worldview A interpret's his words differently than he meant them, person from worldview B will never be persuaded. No matter how many people from worldview A say the person from worldview B _should_ mean what worldview A does, by the same words.

So quoting R.C. Sproul's refutation of what "some say" doesn't mean he any more fairly characterizes what they say. Which is why this answer cannot help but preach to the choir.

You're still begging the question. You've never offered any support for your conclusion that my interpretation is incorrect. I elaborated why in my last response so I won't go into it here. You continually assert that "worldview A interpret's [sic] his words differently than he meant them". I've shown that my interpretation is how people mean those words. You stated the opposite and have yet to back it up.

I hope to see some actual, solid support in your next reply.

_________________
Caleb DeLon
Master Apologetics by Writing Only 25 Cards!
CalebDeLon.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Your first post:
Quote:
So, I suppose I took the statement as espousing relativism. I start off by showing sincerely held beliefs that were wrong. Since I'm approaching the topic from a relativistic/all-roads-lead-to-God perspective, my second point is that the Bible teaches there is only one way to heaven. My third point is that sincerity must be grounded in truth--we should sincerely believe things that the Bible tells us are true.


The premises of your argument would not be shared by someone who agreed with the original statement.

Therefore offering the premises as proof of a conclusion that defeats the statement does not persuasion make.

Persuasion is the art of finding assumptions to which both parties agree, then making arguments from those towards a conclusion. Telling someone who believes sincerity on the part of an individual, even when "incorrect", is the standard by which that person is judged, is not swayed by an argument stemming from "sincerity is grounded in truth". In fact, the entire position is predicated on the opposite.

It's preaching to the choir.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 23
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
Your first post:
Quote:
So, I suppose I took the statement as espousing relativism. I start off by showing sincerely held beliefs that were wrong. Since I'm approaching the topic from a relativistic/all-roads-lead-to-God perspective, my second point is that the Bible teaches there is only one way to heaven. My third point is that sincerity must be grounded in truth--we should sincerely believe things that the Bible tells us are true.


The premises of your argument would not be shared by someone who agreed with the original statement.

Therefore offering the premises as proof of a conclusion that defeats the statement does not persuasion make.

Persuasion is the art of finding assumptions to which both parties agree, then making arguments from those towards a conclusion. Telling someone who believes sincerity on the part of an individual, even when "incorrect", is the standard by which that person is judged, is not swayed by an argument stemming from "sincerity is grounded in truth". In fact, the entire position is predicated on the opposite.

It's preaching to the choir.

The entire point of debate is arguing about different premises. No, some people won't agree with my premises. That doesn't invalidate them. You're right: To persuade them of my conclusion, I would have to persuade them of my premises. That's the point. I don't expect anyone who has made this statement to agree with my premises. That's why I disagree with the statement.

Here's our fundamental disagreement: You insist that no one who makes this statement could possibly mean it in a relativistic way, but only as it relates to judging (which, again, you have never clarified the link to). I accept that it could possibly relate to judging, but I've shown that it normally refers to the standard for truth.

Here's the main difference between our arguments: Only my argument has actual support. You continually assert that people who make this statement obviously mean it your way, but have never come up with a single quote (even after I asked) supporting your interpretation. I brought up multiple sources, and your only response was to use the point you're attempting to prove as an argument against that support, as if the accuracy of your point was a foregone conclusion.

My card is about the most obvious, face-value interpretation of the statement. I wholeheartedly agree that if a person means the statement your way, they will not be persuaded by my speech. I just don't believe people mean it that way nearly as often as you insist they do.

Let's see if we can wrap this discussion up. Three questions:
1. Do you believe that any human in the history of the universe has ever or could ever, when making this statement, mean it the way I interpret it?
2. If not, why? WHY isn't it a reasonable interpretation?
3. If so, is there a good reason why I can't use that interpretation? Can you admit it to be a valid interpretation, though not your preferred interpretation? (I did this for your interpretation--would you be willing to return the favor?)

_________________
Caleb DeLon
Master Apologetics by Writing Only 25 Cards!
CalebDeLon.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
I don't feel the need to do what you require to persuade you ;) Sorry you are frustrated about that.


1. Do you believe that any human in the history of the universe has ever or could ever, when making this statement, mean it the way I interpret it? YES – If they already agree with your conclusion
2. If not, why? WHY isn't it a reasonable interpretation? It is reasonable if you already buy the premises and conclusion
3. If so, is there a good reason why I can't use that interpretation? YES – It's not apologetics – it's preaching to the choir

4. Can you admit it to be a valid interpretation, though not your preferred interpretation? (I did this for your interpretation--would you be willing to return the favor?) Yes

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 23
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
I don't feel the need to do what you require to persuade you ;) Sorry you are frustrated about that.


1. Do you believe that any human in the history of the universe has ever or could ever, when making this statement, mean it the way I interpret it? YES – If they already agree with your conclusion
2. If not, why? WHY isn't it a reasonable interpretation? It is reasonable if you already buy the premises and conclusion
3. If so, is there a good reason why I can't use that interpretation? YES – It's not apologetics – it's preaching to the choir

4. Can you admit it to be a valid interpretation, though not your preferred interpretation? (I did this for your interpretation--would you be willing to return the favor?) Yes

If you don't want to support your side and are willing to admit that you haven't, I'm fine with that.

Apparently I didn't make my first question clear enough: Can a person who actually believes that statement is true mean it the way I do? Can you admit the existence of people who believe that statements are true or false based upon personal sincerity?

But at least we can both accept the validity of multiple interpretations.

_________________
Caleb DeLon
Master Apologetics by Writing Only 25 Cards!
CalebDeLon.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
As long as we are sincere in believing that people who disagree with our conclusions agree with our interpretation, then I guess its ok, even though I think yours silly.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited