Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
Quote: If you show me the facts proving that poor whites are less likely to commit violent crimes than poor blacks, I'll concede that you were right about that specific fact. That does not, however, prove that blacks are naturally more violent, as there are a number of other factors to take into account. Quote:Quote: Typical racist imperialist bullshit. First of all, AIDS didn't exist when African slaves were brought over. And the starvation rate at that time in Africa was much lower, as was the crime rate. The illiteracy rate wouldn't have mattered. The standard of living back then in Africa was much better than it is today, thanks to the destructive effects of imperialism. Technology does not equal a better life. Quote: *cough*BULLSHIT*cough* Quote:Quote: The silence you speak of is a figment of your imagination(or more accurately, your ignorance). There has been much global outcry against slavery in Africa. If you paid attention to world events, you'd know this. Quote:Quote: Apples and Oranges. Timbuktu was ALWAYS inhabited by black people(though as time progressed, Arabs and eventually white people also came to inhabit it, though they were still the minority). Quote:Quote: Look, I don't know if there were any great philosophers and neither do you. That doesn't mean there weren't. Study African history before you make any claims about it. And so what if they didn't have writing systems? All that says is they're different. Quote:Quote: No, exploration isn't exploitation, but imperialism is. Do you deny that Europeans conquered much of Africa in the past couple hundred years? And if you think that black people in Africa are better off now than they were before they were conquered? If you do, then I will have to stop this argument, as I prefer not to waste my time arguing with idiots. Quote: No, I am not. I am merely saying that they are worse off now than they were before imperialism. Quote:Quote: They had cultural interaction with Arab traders, but that was about it until the Europeans started colonizing their land. Quote:Quote: I don't know of one, but that doesn't mean that none existed. They don't teach much about African history in school, but that doesn't mean that there was no significant African history. If you want to know about it, why don't you study it? Quote:Quote: Fuck your stupid, juvenile game! I'm not interested playing movie trivia with you. Quote:Quote: Like I said, I haven't studied much African history, but neither have you. Study it before you make any claims about it. Quote:Quote: /hands it back to you Quote:Quote: No, I mean who is Idi Amin? Quote:Quote: I don't have time for this shit. Timbuktu was a magnificent city of similar caliber to that of the Greeks and Romans. There have been many complex African dialects. As far as traveling goes, who gives a fuck? Why does traveling make you superior? Quote:Quote: No. I'm saying that there was no reason for them to want to travel. There was for the Europeans. I'll consider this my last response to you in this thread, as arguing with idiots is futile. Quote:Quote:Quote: Quote: I said that WESTERN Africa(the black part) was trading with Arab nations. You've clearly demonstrated you're too slow to follow this argument, and I'm afraid I don't have the patience to deal with your incompetence any more. Until you learn to follow what I say, I can't waste any more time with you.
| |||||||
enimatpyrt addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
did that look as intelligent as the word slurred throughout your feeble argument? If you won't discuss points and refer to such wonderful tactics as insulting me and calling me ignorant, this isn't a debate, it is your brainwashed mind doing everything I can to resist the truth. I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. As for me being slow, that is quite obviously not the truth. I haven't left any of your questions unanwsered or points non-attended to. You go from spouting off great gobs of African history to saying that you haven't studied African History, you go from stating that negros had little contact with other cultures, thus leading to their stagnancy, then you discuss their trade, you even said that "having ships deals with the frigid seas..." that my ancestors dealt with. Negros have lived on fertile land and accomplished nothing. Whites have lived in adverse climates and accomplised everything. fuck fuck fuck! ignorant ignorant ignorant! Nah, I still like shredding your posts and displaying your hypocrisy and lack of basic knowledge on subjects too much to resort to the naughty word game. COndisder yourself beaten.
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Link
Argument In The Bell Curve, authors Herrnstein and Murray strongly implied that the white/black IQ gap is largely genetic. (They were careful not to state that claim explicitly.) A year and a half after the book came out, scientists released the results of a well-designed, long-term study that appears to have refuted this contention. Their press release is worth quoting in full: POVERTY ACCOUNTS FOR GAP IN IQ SCORES BETWEEN BLACKS AND WHITES (1) EVANSTON, Ill. -- Contrary to "The Bell Curve" findings, a new study by researchers at Columbia and Northwestern Universities suggests that poverty and early learning opportunities -- not race -- account for the gap in IQ scores between blacks and whites. (The study will be published in the April [96] issue of Child Development.) Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University. As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether. The study includes data from birth to age 5 on 800 black and white children who were born premature and with a low birth weight. Collected from eight health care sites around the country, it is the only data set that combines high-quality measurement of developmental outcomes (i.e., full-scale IQ tests) with longitudinal data on family economic status, neighborhood conditions, family structure and home environment. Because the study looks at very young children, the subjects' IQ measures cannot be attributed to such non-family influences as schooling or work. "The study strongly suggests that economic and learning environments of the home are the most powerful predictors of racial IQ differences in 5-year-olds," said Brooks-Gunn. The longitudinal data allowed the researchers to measure persistent poverty -- found to be a key factor in the IQ differences. "Many children have transitory experiences with poverty," said Duncan. "For black children, poverty is likely to be much more persistent," he said. Of the black children in the study, 40 percent lived in persistent poverty, compared to 5 percent of white children. The study also takes into account how impoverished neighborhood conditions and environmental influences can affect even children not living in poverty. Black families are more likely to live in poor neighborhoods, whether or not they are poor themselves. "Almost one half of all black children whose families were not poor resided in poor neighborhoods, compared with less than 10 percent of white children," said Duncan. In addition, the study measured other factors associated with poverty that are more common in minority children. They include characteristics related to family structure and resources: single parents, parents with low educational levels and low literary scores, unemployed parents and young parents. To determine the child's level of stimulation in the home environment, the data included measurements of parents' involvement and learning and language experiences that they provided for their children. For example, it measured whether the child has toys that teach color, size and shape and whether the child is encouraged to learn the alphabet and numbers. Debate over what causes the IQ gap has been highly charged since the 1994 publication of "The Bell Curve," by Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray, who view the difference as genetic and impossible to change. The Bell Curve hypothesis does not depend on any direct evidence, but rather on its authors' assertion that social and economic factors cannot explain it. Because the typical black ranks at the 15th percentile of the white IQ distribution, say Hernstein and Murray, black socioeconomic status (SES) can only explain the ranking if, on average, it is well below than the 15th percentile of white SES ranking. The Bell Curve authors claim no such SES inequality exists, and this is the point the Columbia-Northwestern study calls into question. Most studies of socioeconomic status do not consider such obvious factors as family income or neighborhood conditions, and those that do fail to account for the degree of persistent poverty. Three times as many black children as white children live in families below the official U.S. poverty line. The average black child in the United States lives in a family whose long-term income ranks at about the ninth percentile of white income distribution, according to the study. The percentile ranking for blacks drops to about the fifth percentile of white income distribution when adjusted for the very different neighborhood conditions black and white children typically live in. The significance of these factors, and the consequent finding that the economic and learning environments of the home are the most powerful predictors of age-5 racial IQ differences, is the implication that the debate spawned by "The Bell Curve" has badly misdirected the national debate on welfare reform. Such reform is clearly needed, said Duncan, Brooks-Gunn and Klebanov, but the point of reform should be to focus on the real problems of children rather than the presumed moral failings of their parents. Whatever the merits of requiring mandatory employment and responsible behavior, the researchers said, the key issue -- and the one with the greatest impact on the nation's future -- is how such requirements will affect family poverty. The Bell Curve's one-sided analysis At the time of The Bell Curve's publishing, there were seven studies in the scientific literature concerning the causeof the black/white IQ gap. Six of them point to the environment; and only one points to genetics. The authors of The Bell Curve prominently displayed only the results of the pro-genetics test in the main text. Of the others, they dismissed one in a single-paragraph side bar, dismissed another in the endnotes, and simply ignored the rest. Psychologist Richard Nisbett has been generous enough to provide the public with the details of all seven studies: (2) After World War II, many American GI's (both white and black) fathered children by German women; these children were then raised in German society. The children fathered by black GI's had an average IQ of 96.5, and the children fathered by white GI's had an average IQ of 97 -- a statistically insignificant difference. (3) In another study of children raised in residential institutions, black, white and racially mixed children who were raised in the same enriched environment were given IQ tests. At four years of age, the white children had an average IQ of 103, the blacks had an average IQ of 108, and the racially mixed children had an average IQ of 106. (4) Another study measured the IQ's of children from black-white unions. Assuming that mothers are more important than fathers in the education and socialization of their children, the study sought to see if a child's IQ is higher when the white partner is the mother. This turned out to be true -- the IQ of a racially mixed child averages 9 points higher when it is the mother who is white. (5) A genetic study took advantage of the fact that African-Americans genes are about 20-30 percent European, and that Africans and Europeans differ just enough in their genetic blood groups to determine the degree of "Europeanness" in an individual. If intelligence were indeed genetic and favored in Europeans, we might expect blacks with greater Europeanness to be more intelligent. However, a study of 288 young blacks found almost no relationship between Europeanness and intelligence: the correlation was a trivial and nonsignificant .05. (6) Another genetic study examined the correlation between IQ and European blood groups (as opposed to the estimated Europeanness of individuals based on blood groups). In one sample of blacks, the correlation was a trivial .01, in the other a nonsignificant -.38, with higher IQ being associated with the more African blood groups. (7) Another study tested the hypothesis that if IQ were both hereditary and favored in Europeans, then blacks with high IQs should have several times the level of Europeanness than the black population in general. But a study of high-IQ black children in Chicago found that this wasn't the case; in fact, these black children were slightly less likely to have European ancestors. (8) The study featured in The Bell Curve was the Scarr-Weinberg study, which examined the IQs of children from different races who were adopted by white parents. White adoptees turned out to have higher IQs than mixed-race adoptees, who had higher IQs than black adoptees. (9) There are statistical difficulties with all the above studies. For example, Scarr and Weinberg themselves believe that their adoption study is not informative on the question of genes, race and IQ, because their study sample was small, the adoption agencies could have selectively placed the kids, the adoptive families were recruited on a voluntary basis, the natural parents' IQs were not known, the black children were adopted at a substantially later age, and the social stigma of being a black child in a white family probably has effects on development. Curiously, The Bell Curve does not report the reservations that the study authors themselves have. Many of the same objections can be raised to the other studies. The IQs of the parents were not known, and there is a possibility that the study samples were nonrepresentative of the population being studied. Possibly, whites who breed with blacks may tend to have lower IQs. (This assertion would beg support, however, since the biracial population in the U.S. first burgeoned during the days of slavery, when wealthy slave masters and plantation owners raped hundreds of thousands of black slaves.) However, as Nisbett points out, the six studies suggesting a social rather than genetic factor were taken at very different times and places, under a wide variety of circumstances. That they should all suffer from the same sort of self-selection is therefore implausibly great. But even accepting the statistical difficulties of all seven studies, the authors of The Bell Curve were wrong to imply that the difference in black and white IQ scores is largely genetic. At the very least, they had no hard scientific evidence at the time; at the very most, the fact that the environmental results outnumbered the genetic results six-to-one makes their suggestion completely indefensible. Return to Overview Endnotes: 1. Press Release from Columbia and Northwestern Universities, April, 1996. Contact: Pat Tremmel at (847) 491-4892 or p-tremmel@nwu.edu or Barry Rosen at (212) 678-3176 or bmr13@columbia.edu . 2. Condensed from Richard Nisbett's article "Race, IQ and Scientism," pp. 37-42 in Steven Fraser, ed., The Bell Curve Wars (New York: HarperCollins, 1995). 3. J.R. Flynn, Race, IQ and Jensen, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980), pp. 87-88. 4. Ibid., pp. 110-111. 5. L. Willerman, A.F. Naylor and N.C. Myrianthopoulos, "Intellectual development of children from interracial matings: performance in infancy and at 4 years," Behavior Genetics 4, 1974, pp. 84-88. 6. S. Scarr, S. Pakstis, H. Katz and W. Barker, "Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population," Human Genetics 39, 1977, pp. 73-77, 82-83. 7. J. Loehlin, S. Vandenberg and R. Osborne, "Blood-group genes and Negro-white ability differences," Behavior Genetics 3, 1973, pp. 263-70. 8. P. Witty and M. Jenkins, "The educational achievement of a group of gifted Negro children," Journal of Educational Psychology 25, 1934, p. 586. Levels of Europeanness in subjects were based on self-reports on their ancestries. 9. S. Scarr and R. Weinberg, "The Minnesota adoption studies: Genetic differences and malleability," Child Development 54, 1983, pp. 260-267.
| |||||||
zeronio Stranger Registered: 10/16/01 Posts: 2,349 Loc: Slovenia Last seen: 7 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
The problem is when a stupid individual that belongs to a statistically superior race thinks he's better then a smart individual that belongs to a statistically inferior race.
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Nice post, well, nice and long, again.
My family history shows that study to be incorrect. Sorry.
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: It's generally been my experience that the people who crow most loudly about their race/ethnic group/nation/etc. tend to be the ones who have the fewest achievements as individuals. High-achieving individuals are less likely to share credit for their achievements with some amorphous and imaginary community such as their own racial group, whereas low-achieving individuals tend to grasp at whatever straws they can to make themselves feel some measure of self-worth: in other words, taking some partial credit for the achievements of people long dead simply on the basis of having the same color skin or same color passport. There are exceptions, of course, but this is a classic pattern.
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Surely that post was a joke, right Bubbles?
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Nope, not at all. If you scroll back you will see the conditions my family were raised in and the level of intelligence (IQ) they attained. Go back and read it.
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
I read it.
You don't seriously think that your one anecdotal story carries more weight than several studies carried out over the course of decades, do you? Did you actually read the entire post? The studies (there were several cited in the article) simply suggested that there is no statistical link between race and IQ. Nowhere was it ever said that EVERYBODY raised in poverty has a low IQ, or that everybody raised with access to the best education money can buy has a high IQ. If you seriously, honestly think that your anecdote "disproves" anything, well . . . . things are even worse than I suspected.
| |||||||
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Hm... interesting. Those are some compelling statistics. Although
the reactionary in me wonders if a bunch of liberal researchers set out to attack the "Bell Curve", and did whatever they could to disprove it. Let's say for argument's sake that in homo sapiens, intelligence and demeanor is largely based upon environment and not genetics. How is it that European culture advanced so rapidly and African culture did not?
| |||||||
question_for_joo i'm left. youal Registered: 04/30/03 Posts: 1,591 |
| ||||||
fat lipped, crack dealing negros
I think that, as Alex123 noticed, this little slip is probably the key to your head here. What's bad about big lips? Do you think big lips look stupid? Ugly? Do they mean the creature with big lips is Evil? I'm pretty sure when Africans first saw slave traders walking across their planes they must have thought they looked pretty sickly with our thin lips and all. I really can't argue your claim that throughout history the white race has come out on top in learning and wisdom over the black race but there are other virtues than learning and wisdom. What about honesty? What about sense of community? What about humility? What about contentment (the opposite of greed). There are things in this world that are more important than empires and kingdoms and marble mansions. You know how many treaties the white man has made with indigenous tropical peoples throughout history that they broke the second it became convenient? Almost all of them. You know how selfish middle class white Americans is becoming. Slip on your neighbors sidewalk: sue unless they're poor in which case sue the town. This mentality is rampant and getting worse. Sue the teacher, sue the doctor...get a newer car than your neighbor get a younger wife than your colleagues. We are developing into a really ugly culture. i felt like you until not that long ago but I broadened my perspective on the human race. you claim to be arguing black people are just different but everyone can sense you arguing they are WORSE. you seethe pride (as in the sin, pride) but mostly just hate. get a grip on the big picture. -------------------- youi was a pig informatnt so you can go fuckyoruselfs
| |||||||
Baby_Hitler Errorist Registered: 03/06/02 Posts: 27,635 Loc: To the limit! Last seen: 7 hours, 19 minutes |
| ||||||
Actually, thin lips are not at all uncommon throughout most of africa, probably more common than fat lips among caucasians.
-------------------- "America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” -- Thomas Jefferson The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance. The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)
| |||||||
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
No, I mean who is Idi Amin?
The assessment of Idi Amin when he was under the command of British officers was: "A splendid type, virtually bone from the neck up". Makes you wonder why the "superior" white brits helped such a man gain power..
| |||||||
question_for_joo i'm left. youal Registered: 04/30/03 Posts: 1,591 |
| ||||||
mick jagger got fat lips
-------------------- youi was a pig informatnt so you can go fuckyoruselfs
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Don't forget though that they looked at ALL of the pre-Bell Curve studies dealing with the issue--6 out of 7 of those studies discredited the Bell Curve thesis, while the authors of the ONE study that the Bell Curve authors seized upon were not even confident in the validity of their results (because adoptive parents and their children are not exactly a randomized sample, and their sample size was very small). Quote: Now there's the million dollar question--one that's very difficult to answer scientifically so your guess is as good as mine. It's all speculation. My feeling is that culture developed more slowly in tropical environments in general, not just in Africa--precisely because the warmer climate makes survival easier and therefore doesn't force people living in those environments to develop various technologies in order to survive. People in northern climates, on the other hand, have a much harder time of it, and precisely for that reason they HAVE to innovate more, if only to survive. This is true not just of Westerners, but of the Chinese, for example, who developed writing long before the West and were more scientifically advanced than the West up until about the 16th century. When western thinkers threw off the yoke of religious ignorance in the Renaissance and Reformation, science and knowledge expanded exponentially. By the time Newton wrote the Principia in 1687, the West had catapulted far ahead of the rest of the world. But the answer is far more complex than that, even, as it brings into play multiple factors of climate, geography (and resource distribution), and culture and history. An interesting recent book about this subject is "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. A very worthwhile read if you want to know more. Here's another thing worth considering. I personally use and appreciate all of the marvels and conveniences of modern life and technology and I realize there's no going back, but the fact is that one really nasty side effect of science and technology is that human beings now have capacity to exterminate ourselves. If and when that happens, any intelligent life that happens to come upon our remains may well be justified in thinking that the rise of Western man was a signal disaster in the history of the human race (in terms of the l-o-n-g view). We can also thank the West for wonderful innovations like Marxism and the Total State. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
EchoVortex writes:
My feeling is that culture developed more slowly in tropical environments in general, not just in Africa--precisely because the warmer climate makes survival easier and therefore doesn't force people living in those environments to develop various technologies in order to survive. People in northern climates, on the other hand, have a much harder time of it, and precisely for that reason they HAVE to innovate more, if only to survive. In my opinion, you're dead on the money. This was brought home to me when I moved here. It takes relatively little effort here to survive at a subsistence level. Everything grows here. There is pretty much no danger of starving to death, the climate is temperate enough that the rudest shelters are all that is required, the ocean and the rivers teem with fish. You are probably also correct that there may be other factors involved, but the climate thing has got to be a major motivator for technological advances. pinky
| |||||||
zeronio Stranger Registered: 10/16/01 Posts: 2,349 Loc: Slovenia Last seen: 7 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: We conquered and enslaved the rest of the world and centuries of exploatation made us economicaly more advanced. At the beginning we were just more violent and merciless.
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Quote: If you read my post you should have noticed that I said I wouldn't get dragged into this argument. I have argued these points enough on other message boards. So my response to this post of yours and the lengthy footnoted one is:
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
If you didn't want to get dragged in to it, why did you bother posting not just once, but twice? More logical inconsistencies from the self-annointed master of reason.
Does saying "I'm not going to get dragged into it" somehow give you license to make statements and then make no effort to substantiate them? These antics are tiresome, MM, and quite surprising coming from a grown man, to be honest. You can all you want; no skin off my ass.
| |||||||
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
We conquered and enslaved the rest of the world and centuries of exploatation made us economicaly more advanced. At the beginning we were just more violent and merciless. I don't buy that. Tribal conflicts in Africa were(and are) just as intense and bloody as anything Europeans ever did. That is one constant among the races; all of them have bloody pasts full of ruthlessness, conquering, and war. The "warm weather" theory is interesting(posted by Pinksharkmark). Basically, it says that in warm areas, food is abundant and little effort is needed to survive. Therefore, there is no real need for technological advancement.
| |||||||
|
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
The Negro Project!!! | Ellis Dee | 815 | 5 | 04/08/02 11:38 PM by | ||
What I love about America... ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
JohnnyRespect | 5,514 | 77 | 05/13/03 09:43 AM by Evolving | ||
There is still hope for America ( 1 2 all ) |
luvdemshrooms | 3,376 | 39 | 01/29/04 09:03 PM by Evolving | ||
America...our last hope? | Azmodeus | 927 | 19 | 02/26/03 05:48 AM by Azmodeus | ||
whats wrong? ( 1 2 all ) |
drfrei | 1,506 | 24 | 06/12/03 09:38 AM by drfrei | ||
Why has Africa failed? ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
enimatpyrt | 4,627 | 74 | 01/03/04 07:32 PM by winelover | ||
Misuse of the phrase "African-American" ( 1 2 all ) |
TheOneYouKnow | 3,370 | 28 | 01/23/04 09:15 AM by Anno | ||
US troops to 'protect oil interests' in Africa? | Edame | 827 | 1 | 07/11/03 12:55 PM by Xlea321 |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 14,306 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 28 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||