This Forum is not Dying because of .....

bob_2 · 02-26-09 10:52 pm

This Forum has lost it's focus. It is called Adventist for Tomorrow. Is that Atheism???? Is that Pacificism, is that Darwinism? What should we be discussing that MAYBE the leaders would listen to . In AToday, a discussion is taking place of why the NAD only has about 700,000 members. When Maggie and Neal are discussing Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris in their last posts, no leader of the SDA church will take a group serious who is "worshipping" men that are the enemies of the church. Tune in to the Bible Answer Man, Hank Handegraff some time and hear about the warfare that is going on, the Culture Wars between Paganism and Jesus Christ, the real Church. Are the Atheist themes being lauded on these threads what leaders of a church will listen to: <center>I DON'T THINK SO !!!</center> You can blame me if you want, but the above topics were the reason for this "apparent" demise. When Atomorrow.com looked as if it would die, I was the one that said, "It doesn't have to." and it doesn't have to now.

admin · 02-26-09 11:27 pm

Bob, which forum are you talking about? I ask this rhetorically. I don't know what the focus of ATomorrow.com was. The only focus of this forum when it first went online, however, was to provide a place for open discussion without much censorship. Look at the "group" who posts on this forum. Most of them are non-SDAs or anti-SDAs. I will not ban them from espousing their beliefs or views. I would be more than happy if there were battles of the Culture Wars on this forum, but that requires all sides. If it looks like ATomorrow.net is turning atheist, which it isn't, then is that the problem of the forum or the problem of the Christians who haven't defended their positions well enough? Furthermore, I did not create the forum for the SDA church. If they don't take us seriously, who cares? If it turns out that we do care, what does that require of us? We need good, honest, and open discussion, even debates. And, like I said, that requires more than one side. You're mixing up the forum with the people who post on it. The forum is just a place. You're asking how would the SDA church take seriously a group who worships Dawkins and Harris. They wouldn't. But I bet they would take a serious look at Christians, especially Adventists, who are able to "out-discuss" our group of Maggie, Neal, and others who share their views. There are different categories on this forum for different discussion topics. Evolution and ID discussions stay in their home and so forth. But, what do we do when the majority of our topics are theology- or religion-based? This is not a place to discuss only one side of any issue; that would be boring. Tom favors one view of Adventism, others favor differing views, and their discussions are allowed. The same thing goes for discussions on Christianity in a more general way. Do we only let Christians post? How do we have a discussion on Christianity without a look at the other sides? Why would I kick out the atheists or agnostics because I disagree with their views but allow differing views on Adventistm to remain? I understand that you have a mission for ATomorrow.net. You have the forum and the minds and eyes of various people. Show them your mission, support it on here, and carve a path through the differing views and beliefs. If you succeed, then we would have something the SDA church, or even the Church, should take seriously. But I'm not going to clear the path for you. I will help because this forum is called Adventist Tomorrow, and I will censor when needed, move threads when needed, and make sure this place doesn't implode, but I'm not going to kick off the dissenters or disagreeables. I'd rather see them disarmed by argument (the good kind) and discussion. Ryan

bob_2 · 02-27-09 12:20 am

The ATomorrow is the on with these stated goals, recently by yourself: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:5) Ranting, raving, and hate speech/mail against religions, churches, and individuals will not be tolerated. 6) ATomorrow.net is not a hate forum towards the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Denomination. 7) ATomorrow.net is not a forum for the promotion of any other religious faiths/philosophies/belief systems<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

bob_2 · 02-27-09 12:28 am

Ryan, Atheists, if you have heard Hitchens have encouraged the derogatory type speech that Neal brought to .com and now to .net. When the Christian side presents a non-scientific faith based creation position, the atheist, darwinist is allowed, by the moderator to berate that position. Look no more science will proof God as creator. Intellegent Design which is Math Science is scoffed at, no moderator stands up for that, so the Culture War slides toward the Atheist/Darwinist side that the SDA church will have no part in. Why not just rename the forum to whatever is Van Dolson's vision and those he favors, with all due respect.

bob_2 · 02-27-09 12:41 am

You say you don't know what .com's mission was. Well it is easy enough to read: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:"It is the mission and objective of ADVENTIST for TOMORROW to provide a medium that will assist THOUGHTFUL individuals in forming accurate, balanced opinions with respect to current events and issues within and without the church." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Did J.R. accomplish that by inviting people to post to irritate individuals purposely?? That was in my opinion a bad decision, with obvious consequences. You seem to think it is funny. I for one was appalled and disgusted. I know the list of bleeps that had to be done when this individual gave himself a self imposed Sabbatical and now he is back laughing in any Christian's face for not accepting his Pagan views. That Christianity was just copied from Pagan sources. Then laughed at as unintellectual when one stands with the Bible story. Read the content. I know the vulgar things he said about my wife on the forum when he was banned before he was invited back by J.R. Too vulgar to repeat, here or on email. Yet here I have been chastised more than this individual, while all who saw the vulagarity are supportive of this individual. Make your mind up Van Dolson, if you favor certain individuals, that is what you will produce. If you don't know the history ask. (Message edited by Bob_2 on February 26, 2009)

bob_2 · 02-27-09 3:28 am

Ryan help me understand your thinking on the mix of people needed for successful problem solving, or concensus on a topic. You feel if we are talking about what to do about drunk driving, we need to have a former drunk driver as a poster? Right or Wrong? If we are discussing attributes of God that certain people don't like, we should use group dynamics to seek concensus and design a God that everyone can agree is a "NICE GUY". Right or Wrong You have to have an Atheist as a member in order to be authentic when discussing the issues of Atheism, that one can not tell from listening or hearing Hitchens talk where his flawed thinking is. You have to have an Atheistic poster? Right or Wrong. If God meant women never to be Spiritual Church leaders, you can only have a legitamate discussion if you have a woman in the group that stays convinced that God is wrong? Right or Wrong.

bob_2 · 02-27-09 3:47 am

If women are truly to be equal they should not feign outrage, especially when the individual they are trying to pin their outrage on has received far worse treatment by the likes of those she cozys up to. "The dinner invite is still on." Enjoy. (Message edited by Bob_2 on February 27, 2009)

bob_2 · 02-27-09 3:46 pm

Membership isn't helped when Elaine and John in their last posts encourage Spectrum as a place to post: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/659.html?1235614045" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/659.ht ml?1235614045</a>

bob_2 · 02-27-09 3:53 pm

How come when the Forum was down to 7 posts for the last day, the moderator had no ideas of what to post. Does he want it to die??? Where are his queries on subjects???? Here are the last words of our leader: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:I understand that you have a mission for ATomorrow.net. You have the forum and the minds and eyes of various people. Show them your mission, support it on here, and carve a path through the differing views and beliefs. If you succeed, then we would have something the SDA church, or even the Church, should take seriously. But I'm not going to clear the path for you. I will help because this forum is called Adventist Tomorrow, and I will censor when needed, move threads when needed, and make sure this place doesn't implode, but I'm not going to kick off the dissenters or disagreeables. I'd rather see them disarmed by argument (the good kind) and discussion. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Are you, Ryan going to do any of that disarming argument?????

bob_2 · 02-27-09 4:21 pm

How forgiving are your posters, Ryan. Where is your leadership, I don't have the keys to moderatorship. But where are you giving direction to this venture you took on. I realize you went to a secular university, but your firsr contact with me was wanting to set up a Wiki to document the scandals of the SDA church. I discouraged you, because there are enough of that type of history, but what would make the SDA church a thriving, booming, exciting place, people would look forward to interacting with every week??

admin · 02-27-09 7:19 pm

Bob, For starters, please make some of your posts more comprehensible so I can understand what you are trying to say. No, Bob, you have your history wrong. I did not contact you about the wiki. I posted my idea on ATomorrow.com and you then proceeded to berate me and my idea. You have continued to bring it up with me, with your distorted history, as some sort of shameful reminder. It's not. What is shameful, however, is your narrow and one-sided memory. Furthermore, you have often waved my going to a secular university in my face like another badge of shame. Again, it's not. Your use of it as a weapon has failed because I'm assuming you went to an Adventist college/university (correct me if I'm wrong) and I've seen what kind of person you are. Enough said about that. You have a tendency to miss the point of my posts, twist my words, draw illogical conclusions from what I've said, and even put words in my mouth. For instance, you said <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Did J.R. accomplish that by inviting people to post to irritate individuals purposely?? That was in my opinion a bad decision, with obvious consequences. You seem to think it is funny.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> I do not know what "it" specifically refers to, and I also don't think I was around at that time to even find "it" funny. In that same paragraph you bring up Neal and his vulgarity. Until he acts that way on this forum, he is not going to be banned. Who cares if he made fun of you or laughs at you? If you have a good argument then you should be fine. And, by the way, if you're going to complain about being made fun of, maybe you should do a bit better about not making fun of others. I'll move on. You said, <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Ryan help me understand your thinking on the mix of people needed for successful problem solving, or concensus on a topic. You feel if we are talking about what to do about drunk driving, we need to have a former drunk driver as a poster? Right or Wrong? If we are discussing attributes of God that certain people don't like, we should use group dynamics to seek concensus and design a God that everyone can agree is a "NICE GUY". Right or Wrong You have to have an Atheist as a member in order to be authentic when discussing the issues of Atheism, that one can not tell from listening or hearing Hitchens talk where his flawed thinking is. You have to have an Atheistic poster? Right or Wrong. If God meant women never to be Spiritual Church leaders, you can only have a legitamate discussion if you have a woman in the group that stays convinced that God is wrong? Right or Wrong.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> I suggest that you go back and reread what I said and not just to conclusions. I'm moving this thread to a better location. In the future, please post in the correct topics.

bob_2 · 02-27-09 7:46 pm

Not to belabor any of this, but I showed you the post where Neal was braggin about being asked to come back to harass me specifically, after his vulgar remark about my wife, that should of had him banned from .com and .net had you asked the history. As to your first statement, any thing you don't understand, feel free to ask a question about your lack of understanding. BTW, my selection of where this thread startd seemd appropriate at the time. I am open to your thinking on that. (Message edited by Bob_2 on February 27, 2009)

lijhakim · 03-01-09 7:36 pm

Ryan, I just read all the above topics for the past week, about the forum. In one place you made a plea for tSDAs or Christians to "out-discuss" the dissenters. I have tried that, as anyone well knows. What I have found is that I am opposed five to one. That is there are about five posts opposing what I write for every one that agrees. What this means is that the "milieu" of this forum favors dissent. This is not a criticism, as I understand that this forum is designed for people to ventilate as they choose. I only mention this to point out that serious discussion here is rarely rewarded. When the dissenter runs out of argument I am accused of being influenced by Ellen White, when I NEVER use EGW to prove a point. I am accused of having a colored viewpoint on the world -- as if no one else has such a viewpoint. Further, such a remark is not one that can further discussion. There have been times that derogatory remarks have been made about me personally. I have enjoyed posting on Atomorrow for about five years or more in the past. I haven't quit Atomorrow. I still look here frequently, and dive in when there is something that interests me. But it seems that reaction to my posts have become almost automatic. As you know I have a forum that I started, and I recently started posting on two other forums. What will come of this, I don't know. But I just mention this to show that there is competition in the "forum business!" I know that I have been complaining, and please forgive. I just wanted to point out a reason why a tSDA like myself finds it less rewarding to post on Atomorrow. Hubb

bob_2 · 03-02-09 12:19 am

Hubb, do you read absolutely or allow a learning process as you read. I listen to Don, he has studied NCT, learned a lot he claims, but he is not decided yet where it fits in accepted knowledge for him. I am similar, and can leave certain things unresolved while I study more. However, I agree with you there are things that can be rejected outright, based on logic, and reason, sometimes faith, but not chance. Logic and reason and faith by reading the context. God created my body, I have no doubt. Something this amazing doesn't come together by chance. However, and Everlasting Covenant truth can be determined by logic, reason and faith, just like NCT. However, if one hangs on to tradition, or they look to acceptance of friends, rather than reason and logic, one will not have truth at the end of the day.

don · 03-02-09 8:24 am

Everlasting Covenant truth can be determined by logic, reason and faith, just like NCT. In discussions, I have noticed that a Bible verse can be taken in several ways. We all interpret the Scriptures. Christians often fall into the trap of believing that their interpretation of Scripture is "The Truth". Consider the NCT adherent and the Reformed view of the Covenants, or my own. In particular, the Sabbath. I see plenty of evidence that Jesus endorsed the Seventh-day Sabbath and the Ten Commandments. Thus, when I look to Romans 14 and Colossians 2, I interpret the issues there addressed as involving other sabbaths. Bob, as an NCTer, reads those same verses where Jesus gives counsel re: the Sabbath and he concludes (correct me if I am wrong) that Jesus' counsel was done away along with the Sabbath when Jesus died on the cross. Now, what are we to do about this interesting phenomenon. My conclusion: Bob is a Christian, he loves the Lord, but I can't accept what he teaches re: Christ and the Sabbath. The church of Jesus Christ acknowledges faith where they find it. It also acknowledges the need to share faith, which includes interpretation of Scripture. Christians err when they speak in an unChristlike manner to each other as His disciples. We will learn absolute truth soon. Jesus promised to return. He did not say that God will ask us if we understood the truth correctly in all points. No, He will evaluate us on how we treated our fellow humans. .

bob_2 · 03-02-09 8:52 am

Even that can be subjective if one is sensitive. But as far as NCT, if Jesus says he fulfilled the Old Covenant and is now the Sabbath himself and we hang on to the old message, we will have to deal with not reading or listening properly. It's pretty clear to me and others that Jesus is the Sabbath. http://www.quango.net/brinsmead/Sabbatarian.htm#Th e%20Reality%20of%20the%20SabbathChapter%2012 http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Sabbath/Transformed%20in%20Christ.pdf Some want to let some shadows go but not others. (Message edited by Bob_2 on March 02, 2009)

bob_2 · 03-02-09 8:59 am

<a href="http://www.quango.net/brinsmead/Sabbatarian.htm#The%20Reality%20of%20the%20SabbathChapter%2012" target=_top>http://www.quango.net/brinsmead/Sabbatarian.htm#Th e%20Reality%20of%20the%20SabbathChapter%2012</a> <a href="http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Sabbath/Transformed%20in%20Christ.pdf" target=_top>http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Sabb ath/Transformed%20in%20Christ.pdf</a>

bob_2 · 03-02-09 9:00 am

You can't read Heb 8:13 too many ways, you run out of options quickly.

bob_2 · 03-02-09 9:03 am

I agree about the treating others properly. Ryan is the only moderator here. If a post is not understood one can always ask for it to be repeated if they didn't understand it, instead of making it look like the person doesn't know how to put sentences together, Ryan. What was it you didn't understand??? Otherwise lets move on!!! (Message edited by Bob_2 on March 02, 2009)

bob_2 · 03-02-09 10:04 am

Don, I will correct you, since you are concerned abuut the way people treat each other, you said: Bob, as an NCTer, reads those same verses where Jesus gives counsel re: the Sabbath and he concludes (correct me if I am wrong) that Jesus' counsel was done away along with the Sabbath when Jesus died on the cross. It is unfair to state it like that. I believe Jesus is the Sabbath, the True Rest. No his counsel is not "done away" with. The Festival of Lights was spoken of by Jesus, do you recommend the SDA church or you or I keep it, because he couselled about it?? But I do say: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Who could object if a person or community should decide to observe a weekly day of rest on which to rehearse God's mighty act in Christ and to celebrate their liberation? But to bind a weekly celebration with arbitrary regulations which shackle the conscience or to ascribe to a weekly day a redemptive significance which belongs to Christ alone is to make a day compete with Jesus Christ. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><a href="http://www.quango.net/brinsmead/Sabbatarian.htm#The%20Reality%20of%20the%20SabbathChapter%2012" target=_top>http://www.quango.net/brinsmead/Sabbatarian.htm#Th e%20Reality%20of%20the%20SabbathChapter%2012</a>

bob_2 · 03-02-09 10:11 am

John 10:22Then came the Feast of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. Should we keep the Festival of Lights Don because Jesus did. Is our example what he did in His life time???

lijhakim · 03-02-09 3:02 pm

Bob, About the Everlasting Covenant, do I read absolutely or do I read in a learning mode (Pardon if I got that wrong): I took up the interest in the Covenant because I found that the SDA church did not have a unitary view of the Covenant(s). HMS Richards recommended that the church needed specialists in certain areas. So I determined to become a specialist in the Covenant. I have spent hundreds of hours in studying the Covenant. My study has been almost exclusively from the Bible. Ellen White has good things to say about the covenant, but her knowledge of the covenant is rudimentary. The Bible has much more to say. There are problems in understanding the covenant, which is well demonstrated in the "semi-dispensational view that most Adventists hold. It is difficult to put together the Everlasting Covenant with the repeated covenants made during the time of the Kings of Israel. It is difficult to understand that God would hold Israel under a faulty "Old" covenant throughout their entire history. It is difficult to separate the covenant of God given, from the covenant of men made at Sinai. It is hard to see all ramifications of the "New" covenant which was prophesied, but never described as given. And it is hard for many people to see in the willing sacrifice of Christ on Calvary the confirmation of the Everlasting Covenant, which is strengthened and maintained -- and separate this from the passages in Hebrews about the "New" and the "Old". These are just some of the problems that I have tried to address. My approach is to take a step by step study of the Covenant through history. A person has to understand and agree at each step before the next step can be taken. I have never been able to get beyond the origin of the covenant on Atomorrow forum. On Covenant forum I have run into objections at the presentation of the covenant to Adam and Eve, and the covenant(s) at Sinai. Has it been a learning process. Yes it has. I have studied hard and prayed at a number of steps in this process. I would like to talk to Skip MacCarty, Hans LaRondelle, and Angel Rodrigues -- but they are busy men. So the best I can do is to read what they have written, and this is what I an doing. Well, I don't know if this is what you wanted. When I look at Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology, I find that it is heavy on their particular theologies, and pretty weak on the covenants (pardon me). ------------------- Hubert F. Sturges .

bob_2 · 03-02-09 3:29 pm

If there is any "eternal covenant" it is Jesus blood, not the Old Covenant, temporary in nature, until the Seed should come: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Heb 13:20May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

bob_2 · 03-02-09 3:42 pm

And <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: Heb 7:23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Christ and His Father are the only things everlasting from beginning to end about the matter of Salvation. Christ's blood, the blood of the Father, was eternal, but not the Old Covenant, it was temporary. Because the New Covenant had Christ blood as its bsis, it was eternal, because another one would not be needed, and the blood had no beginning. The Abrahamic Promise was used to show how God would graft in Gentiles and break off Jews that did not accept the Messiah and his blood offering.

cadge · 03-02-09 5:56 pm

"It is hard for many people to see, in the willing sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, the confirmation of the Everlasting Covenant which is strengthened and maintained, and separate this from the passages in Hebrews about the "New" and the "Old"." Hubb says above that the Everlasting Covenant is "strengthened and maintained", and it was, being that the atonement part, in fullfillment of the promise, was then completed through His sinless/unblemished sacrifice in our behalf. OK now, the covenant promise of life, based on where God did provide this perfect sacrifice to ransom us from death, does continue until that Perfect One comes again. However, the death decree given to Adam and Eve was for disobediance to the law of 'do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'. Before that they only knew what was good and desired to follow after learning more by eating of the tree of life. They knew His "way". Even then He was, as only God can be, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life". They cut themselves off from that/Him when they disobeyed. There was no Ten Commandments back then. They knew His way and they had temptation to battle continuously now, and had to live by their consciences and hope for a redeemer. Seeing that their sons understood sacrifice to God, they must have learned it from them, who, it stands to reason, learned the type from God when He provided them with the animal skin coverings. Now, no Ten C's. No Sabbath observances. Fast forward to Abraham. No Ten C's. No Sabbath observances. Fast Forward to Moses. Laws were given to Israel after 430 yrs in Egyptian captivity which included the Ten C's. Why? they forgot all about the true God and His way/system/character; whatever His Spirit entailed. He had to have them unlearn their bad habits that they had developed under the influences of the Egyptians, and they went on a, kind of meandering, 40 yr boot camp. Fast forward through the settlement of Canaan, the division, the captivity, the dispersion Blah, Blah, Blah.... and eventually fulfilling the fact that "The Law and the prophets were until John". The Law that "was added because of transgressions (they learned in Egypt) till the seed(Jesus, from David's seed) should come to whom the promise was made (Abrahams offspring). He came! And, "since that time, the kingdom of God is preached". He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. He did that, He lived a sinless life in perfect conformance to the Law. Now, all the Law, the Torah was lacking. By it's both minute and faulty exposee, it couldn't give the greater concept of God that was needed. He nailed that "bad boy" to the cross and after He was "given all power in heaven and earth", He gave us the Holy Spirit as He promised. In doing so He purposed to write the character of God, the Law if you will, in our hearts, as He promised also, so that we would have this greater, and continually growing understanding of all that God is. So, the Everlasting Covenant still stands; pardon by His sacrifice and graceful power to obey and live through faith. The Torah and the Ten C's ended at the cross. They fell far short of the true character of God. The true Law is His charcter which we recieve as it is written in our hearts incrementally as we abide with Him daily through speaking to Him(prayer) and listening to Him in His word. In there, along with greater appreciation of Him, we recieve expanded knowledge on which way to act, live and think, and what not to do, and what to do if we or others err. We rest in Him 24/7/365. Do not confuse the Everlasting Covenant for salvation with the Ten Commandment covenant of Sinai. There is no such teaching, and if anything thinks so then "grace is not grace", "Christ is dead in vain" and Paul pronounces a curse on us for teaching such a false Gospel that was not delivered to us. Cadge

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 02-26-09 10:52 pm

This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#2 02-26-09 11:27 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#3 02-27-09 12:20 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#4 02-27-09 12:28 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#5 02-27-09 12:41 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#6 02-27-09 3:28 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#7 02-27-09 3:47 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#8 02-27-09 3:46 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#9 02-27-09 3:53 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#10 02-27-09 4:21 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#11 02-27-09 7:19 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#12 02-27-09 7:46 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#13 03-01-09 7:36 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#14 03-02-09 12:19 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#15 03-02-09 8:24 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#16 03-02-09 8:52 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#17 03-02-09 8:59 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#18 03-02-09 9:00 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#19 03-02-09 9:03 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#20 03-02-09 10:04 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#21 03-02-09 10:11 am

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#22 03-02-09 3:02 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#23 03-02-09 3:29 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#24 03-02-09 3:42 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

#25 03-02-09 5:56 pm

Re: This Forum is not Dying because of .....

Board footer