| 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.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale |
| |||||||
 skatealex2 ////////////////    Registered: 07/04/08 Posts: 18,714 Last seen: 1 month, 23 days |
| ||||||
I'm only in Psych 101 but we are basically doing what is in the book and some random research and stuff. I'm too high to explain right now 
| |||||||
|
youbreakyoubuy Monkey Mouth  Registered: 10/16/05 Posts: 2,632 Last seen: 16 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Psychology as a whole is okay. I understand the rationale behind reductionism in science, but, in my opinion, reductionism often paints an incomplete picture of the richness of the human experience. Or, rather, a monochrome perspective. I'm happy that biological processes are given credit for their extensive(complete?) involvement in the running of our lives.
But then, the only therapy I've ever accessed has all been found on the self-help aisle. Or the internet, or the altered states of consciousness that I've experienced. Thankfully, I've never undergone clinical examination. Ever since I've read of the mathematician Godel and his incompleteness theorem(look into it if you dare), I've lost faith in rational reasoning explaining everything. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that irrationality is like dietary fats--absolutely essential in moderate doses and life threatening in large doses. -------------------- Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.
| |||||||
|
skatealex2 //////////////// Registered: 07/04/08 Posts: 18,714 Last seen: 1 month, 23 days |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
youbreakyoubuy Monkey Mouth Registered: 10/16/05 Posts: 2,632 Last seen: 16 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
roger
-------------------- Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.
| |||||||
|
laserpig Weedmaster_P  Registered: 04/28/09 Posts: 7,468 Last seen: 14 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
In an abstract sense you're right that having found no evidence of a link doesn't mean that no such link exists. However, we also have absolutely no obligation to believe in something which has never been factually backed up. The idea that anyone would structure their thinking about psychology in these terms which don't actually relate to the brain just because someone else used it as their own explanation doesn't make sense to me. Sorry if I'm coming off as obtuse but, I have a huge problem with Freud and the amount of credit he gets -- even though science has advanced by more than a century since his time. That said, I admit to some ignorance of newer psychology. My intro to psych class focused way too heavily on old ideas, and when I took biopsychology the professor spent so much time talking about the micro level that I never felt it was really psychology she was teaching. I understand basic behaviorism and I agree that it's valid, but all they taught us in psych 202 was so obvious it barely counted as science. If you have a book or something to recommend, I'd love to learn more. By the way, I'm not condemning theoretical psychology as a whole. In fact, my favorite psychologist is Kazimierz Dąbrowski. Check out his theory relating to the development of gifted children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pos
| |||||||
|
laserpig Weedmaster_P Registered: 04/28/09 Posts: 7,468 Last seen: 14 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
daaaamn i like this post too wiped out to reply but thought you should know
| |||||||
|
SneezingPenis ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
well, its simple... at what point can we begin to generalize a group of people? you say that universal characteristics are few... why is that? is that because each person is an individual, with an infinite number of reactions, choices, and decisions to make about any given "stimulus"? do we break it down more to say black people? no that would be wrong right? wait, wrong in what context? would it offend the germans? what about mixed people? see how it doesnt end... until you have a very strict set of a few number of people who have already made a choice to behave in such a way that there is no point in saying "yes, you behave this way". all left handed people, living within 10 miles of appomatox courthouse, Mississippi, with the last name sheffield all have abandonment issues... great. what did you do with all that grant money again?
and what is the end product? what is the great, final point to psychology? it seems that there is no real standard for psychological theories other than having them published... and so we take these musings that are no more scientific than the pot headed ramblings of your average P&S thread and take some amalgamation and turn it into what? advice? you see, I own a car, and when i perceive something to be wrong with my car, i take it to a mechanic... a mechanic that i presume knows much more about cars than I do. when i take my car to the mechanic, i expect it to be repaired. I dont expect the mechanic to say, "well you are gonna have to keep bringing it back to me until i can figure out which one of these thousand theories, or combination of such, will have results you and i are happy with". and I know that there are many, many organizations, religions, and groups out there that work along those same guidelines... but what really makes me bitter about the whole thing is that they claim to do it in the name of science... when in reality, there is nothing scientific about any of it. back to the mechanic scenario... my mechanic does know more about cars than me... can you honestly say that when you bring the problem of "yourself" to someone else, are they supposed to know more about you, than you do? am i supposed to believe that you can train empathy?
please elaborate as to what the difference is between pop psychology and the (imagine me with a very serious bottom lip jutting out when i say this) very serious, and scientifically rigorous techniques of "real psychology". correct me if i am wrong, but in a field such as psychology, where there is no tangible, extrinsic, or objective raw data produced from a "session" isnt everything ultimately "pop psychology" until someone says "hey, jesus this is fucking retarded, lets try something else".
see, the problem is that for one to be a psychologist, they have to believe that they themselves understand humans better than anyone else. With psychology, it is a mutually inclusive characteristic to be pretentious, otherwise you would feel incompetent... right? I have no children... therefor, all of my friends with kids do not approach me for advice about how to raise their kids... now why is that? because i have no first hand experience of child rearing. Now if I am an ex meth addict whose parents just died and cant figure out if im truly gay or not... well, do i go to some guy who wants to sit me on a couch and talk about it who has never even come close to experiencing these problems... oh, but he has read multiple theories about such general things as "drug addiction", "homosexuality" and "mourning". which should be enough right? see, people dont go to psychologists because something is actually wrong... its because these people think that they are so deep and "artistic" that they need a psychologists. People talk about their shrinks like a badge of honor... like I am so fucking eccentric and intriguing i have to pay someone to listen to my laments. sorry, vanity is psychology's number one customer.
| |||||||
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger   Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 10 months, 30 days |
| ||||||
I think it isn't internally consistent logic to simultaneously accuse psychology of being fundamentally flawed, as there is no possible way to create an accurate macro model of human behavior (obviously psychology as a whole isn't even concerned with this, although perhaps aspects of it might be, so I don't even see how this fact somehow makes psychology fundamentally flawed), and then make a blanket statement that people don't become psychologists to help people, but that their motivation is to gain a sense of having an upper hand on everyone else. How exactly have you come to create an accurate macro model of the human behavior of all psychologists?
Sure, there is no point in simply concluding "yes, you behave this way", but that obviously isn't the point of psychology as I have come to understand it. I recognize psychology as being the practice of identifying ways and techniques to gain an understanding of how an individual's mind functions relative to a certain manner, and to then find a path of effective communication with that individual to resolve a specific concern that they are having regarding how their mind is functioning or how their behavior is manifesting.
I fail to see, first of all, how a published work would be no more scientific than ramblings of average P&S threads, although some P&S threads could be pretty scientific. I personally do not see how the only real standard is to have a theory published. The standard is the effectiveness of applying a theory in a specific circumstance towards a desired end. The great, final point to psychology? To develop individuals who are capable of helping others become more aware of how their minds work, or to simply help change aspects of how their minds function to benefit them in some manner, or to help change patterns of behavior. To understand the mind and behavior more fully and to find ways of utilizing that understanding to help oneself and to help others.
Of course you wouldn't expect the mechanic to say something along those lines, because a vehicle is a system that consists of only physical components and that functions in a relatively simple, understood fashion. The facets of the system of a vehicle are extremely limited compared to the facets of the system of the mind. It only makes sense that it would take more time to diagnose and treat a much more complex system, especially when one considers that the much more complex system is not nearly as well understood, functions in a very complex manner, and is not nearly as accessible for diagnosis and treatment as simply popping the hood and reaching in with a wrench. To think otherwise would definitely be an unrealistic expectation.
I don't see how this statement could possibly be true. It seems likely that you are confusing "science" to mean certainty, because obviously psychology is based upon the scientific method. Observation, theory, test, observation. I think one thing about this that misleads people is the fact that, like you've already acknowledged, every individual is different, so it is more difficult to develop models that can pinpoint the sources of various manifestations for general groups of people. Beyond that, it is more difficult when it comes to the mind to be able to replicate results or make objective confirmations, due to the mind's nature as it pertains to each mind's individuality and how that mind transforms with every new interaction. Clearly, psychology doesn't resemble other sciences like chemistry because of the unique and individual nature of every case. This doesn't, however, mean that psychology is not science, as it functions through the scientific method. The difference is that the results of each case mostly can only apply to each case, due to each case's uniqueness. Of course, there are more generalized trends and conclusions that can be and have been made, since there are bound to be similarities due to the similarities humans have with each other. The difference is due to the way the mind is transformed by experience, but it doesn't mean that the approach to best understanding a case and being able to successfully influence a case to the desired result is not scientific. People just aren't the same, standardized weight and purity of iron being exposed to the same quantifiable degree of temperature. 
No, they aren't "supposed" to know more about you, nor could they possibly know more about you. However, to think that this is the case is, IMO, a misconception. A psychologist isn't supposed to know more about you than one oneself does, but what could be considered the primary goal of a psychologist is to use their ability of communicating and interacting with you to develop a working model of an aspect of you as it relates to the concern that is to be addressed, and to subsequently play a role in helping you to resolve the concern. It isn't about knowing you better than you, but about using the power of interaction to resolve a specific concern.
You aren't supposed to believe anything, but clearly individuals can develop the ability to be empathetic. From that, it is a question of how, and certainly there are ways of interacting with someone to help spur the development of empathy. Obviously, it isn't as simple to develop empathy as it is to learn how to clean out a carburetor, but it doesn't mean it is impossible to do so. 
No, I don't see how one has to believe that in order to be a psychologist. One only needs to feel capable of interacting with a human to resolve a concern that this human has. One only has to make observations, form a theory that might hold predictive value for the matter, interact with the person in a way that puts the theory into action, and then observe the changes that result. This is the scientific method in practice, and psychologists are capable of applying it successfully to resolve concerns, all without the supposed need to believe that they "understand humans better than anyone else". 
Baseless generalization. --------------------  
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you   
 
| |||||||
|
laserpig Weedmaster_P Registered: 04/28/09 Posts: 7,468 Last seen: 14 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Haha -- fuckin' brutal. I think he's got you there YawningAnus.
Thanks for taking care of that, fireworks_god -- I had the several problems with his post, and then you just laid 'em all out in the open perfectly. Kudos.
| |||||||
|
SneezingPenis ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
its pretty simple... (i was going to say that psychoogy doesnt work, but thats a whole different discussion IMO) I personally dont believe psychology works. so your internal logic was assuming that i basically said "psychology is fundamentally flawed, but people learn it because it works"...
easy, i used the scientific method and my observations were published in the very prominent forum known as P&S. I observed, made a theory, tested it and observed some more....
ok, here is why psychology is so widely accepted. thought like this. See, when (real) doctors first discovered cancer, it didnt create some boom in the amount of people with cancer. cancer is a real thing, not created by neurosis... but it is psychologists who over the years have started to "discover" and label these "problems". You say that the world of psychology isnt interested in a macro model of human behaviour, but what they have done is given people the neurosis to falsly dissect their own shortcomings in the world and thus personify their regrets and bad choices. By stating that Person A has an anxiety disorder, you have to compare that relative to a macro model of human behaviour. You are making the assumption that 1) anxiety is abnormal OR! 2) anxiety is normal, but it is abnormal to no be able to deal with it. just by citing what is normal or abnormal, you already have created a macro model. but what makes it worse is that these psychologists got together to make these rules and for some reason society has accepted these rules and when we find ourselves not able to fall within the rules of normal sane behaviour, we go to these psychologists to make us fit back into their rules again. but back to my premise of why psychology is fundamentally flawed... like I have said before, cephalic destiny is absolute bullshit... but deeper than that is that psychology believes in itself. it works on the premise that society and all of its progression is a natural order... a constant if you will... and that society cannot be wrong (because where is the money at in treating an entire society?). Psychology works on the premise that man is the variable... when man was still somewhere in the middle of the food chain we didnt have time to sit around and worry about the stain on our tie, or if our wife is fucking her boss. children arent supposed to be enthralled by the magna carta. there is no basis to say that man is supposed to be living in the world we have created, and furthermore, supposed to be happy doing it. that is why it is fundamentally flawed.
right... and as long as you get to put the goal post wherever then whats the point of scoring? this is a problem I addressed with some of our psychiatry debates... there is a problem that is even recognized by the psych community that shows an entanglement of "desired ends" and procedure. for example when patients get a few hundred volts through their temples a few times they will say "yeah, stop shocking me, im cured! its a miracle"...
and that is all great. I dont believe that any human being is inherently evil, which is why all the perceived evil in this world is done by people thinking they are doing good. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -C.S. Lewis
| |||||||
Kickle Wanderer  Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 19,554 Last seen: 5 days, 7 hours |
| ||||||
 I've always found you to be an intelligent poster, but sometimes you really sink your heels in and won't accept 'no' for an answer. In particular about psychology and psychiatry. I appreciate SOME of what you said, and find them to be extremely valid criticisms of the field. But I'm not going to address that which I don't agree with, because I feel it is counter-productive for the both of us. So, the points I agree with:
The DSM was a mistake IMO. It is nothing more than a political tool with stigma attached. The only good thing about it, is insurance coverage. Lucky for researchers, it doesn't apply at all to their field.
I agree that this is an assumption of psychology, that individuals have a right to be happy if they want to. And you're right, there is no universal law stating this is the case. I suppose that's why it isn't mandatory.
I've actually run through that thought on more than a few occasions. Would issues exist if there were no one placing judgment. I say no. And I feel that my other post, the illusion of self, addresses this. But that's what a good therapist does, and that's why the DSM sucks so much. They observe the behavior, or thought, relay it back, but don't judge the behavior or thought. The client is the one who decides what judgment to place on it, and it is the clients job to express that to the therapist. So then the question becomes: If the client never attributed judgment, would the therapist view that as an issue. I highly doubt it, because there would be no ill feelings resulting in the first place, and the therapist would never see the individual to begin with. So why do people place judgment? It feels like you blame psychology, and I can understand why. The DSM certainly does its part. But if psychology/psychiatry didn't exist, do you really believe that we wouldn't find other aspects of society fitting to judge ourselves with? I feel as though psychology bears witness to its own role, and tries to make amends. -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
SneezingPenis ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
1) even if I am playing devils advocate... doesnt there need to be that element? what you basically said was i should accept psychology and psychiatry with unflinching optimism when every fiber of my being cannot for the life of me find anything worthwhile, just, noble or logical in any of it... ah im sorry, i do see the logic in one aspect: money. I spend a lot of time talking to the psych community, and more so the average joe who believes that it works... but in all of that time, in all of those conversations... not one person has ever said that it has actually worked, that they are now happier than they were as a primary result of seeing a therapist. and you know, i could take a "no" if that was just my anecdotal evidence, but there is no science, there is no raw, objective data... absolutely nothing in the entire field of psychology and its derivatives that has ever cast any shadow of a doubt in my mind to prove otherwise. 2) my offer is always on the table... just like swami has put forth his offer to prove the mystical and supernatural to him, I have many many times put forth the offer to shut me the fuck up once and for all if someone can show me that there is a true, biophysiological cause to mental illnesses. note: not true dementia, parkinsons or alzheimers... by mental i mean emotional. basically, i am asking that someone prove cephalic destiny. there is as much basis for psychology and psychiatry as there is a basis for any religion around the world. just try this one out on yourselves: try to ignore your notion that psychology is science and think over its tenets and beliefs (because that is exactly what they are, if it helps you can call them "theories") and put that in the context of a religion. now how silly does it sound? I have no problem with the psych community other than that it touts itself as a science. people dont question science the same way they would question a religion. Psychology didnt invent "talking things out" or "getting to the root of the problem"... there are many religions that do that and have equal or better results. what is the difference between a pastor telling a troubled person that it is satan that is the root of their drug addiction and a psychologist saying it is a coping mechanism for repressed childhood trauma? neither can be proven, one has really cool jargon.
| |||||||
|
Kickle Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 19,554 Last seen: 5 days, 7 hours |
| ||||||
I tried this with systematic desensitization of specific phobias. The belief is: We learn to associate specific stimulus with a fear response. The theory to change this then is: Build a hierarchy of anxiety provoking stimulus, from least to worst, based around the stimulus. For instance, a fear of snakes might include a hierarchy such as... thinking of a snake photo of a snake photo of multiple snakes a rubber snake a snake in a cage snake out of a cage touching a snake allowing a snake to crawl on you Then, you work through the hierarchy to adjust what the associated response to a snake is. I relate this to religion in the following way: Christianity creates an association of the snake as evil, the tempter in the graden of eden. A creature to beware of, to avoid contact with. It's building an association in a similar way, yes, linking evil deeds with the snake until the two become synonymous. Neither one sounds silly to me, and both sound quite functional given that interpretation. Sure, I can, with the knowledge that psychology has provided me, interpret similar scenarios. Psychology isn't finding things that didn't exist before, what it's doing is giving an explanation to the processes involved. Systematically examining them and pinpointing what is in fact responsible for the effects we observe. What exactly was unscientific about Pavlov's methodology when explaining classical conditioning. -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
SneezingPenis ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
the problem with the pavlov experiments is basically the core of the debates between behavioralists and everyone else.
the very first and most obvious problem with the classical conditioning theory is that it is based upon dogs salivating at the sound of a tone. from this very simple discovered correlation (note: not figuring out cause) he proceeds to extrapolate an entire theory regarding human interaction and maturing. second, human interaction is far more complex than a dog salivating at the anticipation of food... and third.... between skinner, thorndike, pavlov and Kamin all performed the same basic experiment and came up with differing conclusions... and of course skinner and pavlovs were pretty much exact opposite conclusions. be it a rat, dog or cat... a scientific experiment that leaves such a wide range of interpretation is so scientific at all... if in the end you cant really decide what this arbitrary data means, or (most importantly IMO) the mechanics of phenomena then you have done nothing than discovered phenomena. its kind of like saying X+Y=Z... but we dont know what x,y,or z really is.
| |||||||
|
Kickle Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 19,554 Last seen: 5 days, 7 hours |
| ||||||
|
Given that stance, I find it interesting that the only science you find fault in, is psychology. Sure, there were changes in the theory over time as more and more elements were discovered. Skinner added in the pieces of reward and punishment. The association piece was as present as ever.
It just seems that all theories go through this morphing process as new information is gathered. No field is free of new information which cause modifications in the original conclusions. Not even your beloved medical doctors. You didn't object the to method he used (except you claimed causality was not found), but to the conclusions drawn. The conclusions were formed from the information at hand, just as every other fields are. If those original conclusions need more added to them as new information is discovered, it does so, and the field is better for it. In reality, you remind me of the cigarette companies, who refused to believe cigarettes were responsible for all this lung cancer, because there was only correlation. Come on... they were just being exceptionally stubborn due to vested interest. -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
SneezingPenis ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
actually it isnt just psychology i rail against... there are a few threads on here where i slam modern medicine as well.
| |||||||
|
SneezingPenis ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
this is how every single thread ends.... a gradual transition from debating points to a discussion about me. go ahead... check all the threads out and notice that im not really saying anything new, but the last page is always something personal with an obvious emphasis on not responding to my points.
| |||||||
|
Kickle Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 19,554 Last seen: 5 days, 7 hours |
| ||||||
That was the only point I observed, and I addressed it with that statement. What point was I missing? And if you disagree, please explain why, rather than saying I'm not addressing your points. Edited by Kickle (05/01/09 01:26 PM)
| |||||||
 Zippy Needlepoint   Registered: 04/04/09 Posts: 472 Loc: Santa Cruz |
| ||||||
|
While some of his arguments are a little flawed, I'm going to have to agree with YawningAnus on this one.
There are aspects of psychology I like. Some of the correlations people notice are interesting and fun to think about, and certain behaviors CAN be predicted fairly consistently. However, psychology is not a science. IME psychologists tend to take great leaps to draw conclusions from data that could have a number of explanations. You're sad? It must be because you were raped as a child! You're happy? It must be because you're suppressing the memory of your father sticking his thumb up your butt when you were in elementary school! (probably an exaggerated example... but maybe not considering the flaws with RMT http://www.scientificamerican.co Psychology is taking the wrong approach IMO
-------------------- Even a fish could stay out of trouble if it would just learn to keep its mouth shut.
| |||||||
|
Kickle Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 19,554 Last seen: 5 days, 7 hours |
| ||||||
|
What approach do you perceive psychology to be taking?
Your examples were extremely Freudian in nature, and as has been discussed a few times in this thread, really have no merit in psychology today. So if anything, that would say the field is moving away from what you seem to take issue with, not deeper into. That's why I ask what direction you see psychology taking. Further, you say psychology is not a science. What do you base this off of? I need expansion of the ideas, or else it's so open ended I could be responding in entirely the wrong direction. -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain Edited by Kickle (05/01/09 01:55 PM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Religious people are not considered delusional, according to modern psychology... (  1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Poid |
5,147 | 70 | 12/22/09 02:38 PM by Kickle |
|
 |
Psychology & Seeing Clearly ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Chronic7 |
5,563 | 70 | 12/10/09 05:40 PM by akira_akuma |
|
 |
Abnormal Psychology, not so abnormal.... |  Woland |
1,549 | 17 | 02/02/05 08:09 PM by Woland |
|
 |
Psychology and Dogma in General as Bunk ( 1 2 all ) |
 Kalix |
5,574 | 37 | 06/16/05 10:54 AM by WanderingStudent |
|
|
A psychologists opinion......... on myself? ( 1 2 all ) |
 Foothill |
2,386 | 22 | 10/07/08 01:34 PM by Rahz |
|
|
Psychology Psucks ( 1 2 all ) |
 LunarEclipse |
2,495 | 29 | 10/14/09 10:11 AM by youbreakyoubuy |
|
|
Psychological study on the potential for evil in people ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 blissedout |
4,030 | 42 | 09/14/10 02:14 AM by Psilosyth |
|
|
Does psychology attempt to explain the consciousness? |  Ayrios |
1,834 | 11 | 09/23/04 01:02 AM by DigitalDuality |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 12,433 topic views. 0 members, 87 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||