Home | Community | Message Board


Phytoextractum
Please support our sponsors.

Community >> The Pub

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Microscope

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineHawkeye2
Resident TranceAddict

Registered: 04/05/04
Posts: 626
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more)
    #4590274 - 08/28/05 07:05 AM (11 years, 3 months ago)

I was coming down on some ecstasy and the meth was kicking strong long after the MDMA wore off, I was so tweaked I just started typing my thoughts, and I got the passage below. It's totally delusional, repetitive, and doesn't make sense, but it's surprisingly coherent.

EDIT: Oh, and I want to add, if you're intent on reading this bullshit(I can't see why you would be), you really need to read the whole thing for it to make coherent sense.

Before an attempt at understanding and accepting the ideas outlined in this document, it is important for one to understand that there is basic set of truths that govern all of reality, and it is upon these sets of truths and every assumption in this document is based on. To prove the existence of certain laws, one must look at a reality in which there are no basic laws governing basic function. This would result in chaos, and unpredictability, so, the existence of these rules are proven by the fact that there is an observable pattern in microscopic and macroscopic functioning, and that reguardless of an intelligent consciousness's ideas of it's own realities, all consciousness that exist in this reality must share the same basic views of the universe, because these rules govern every event that takes place anywhere in existence. It is useless, as explained many times in this document, to attempt to discard any philosophies here because this explanation of reality includes observational reality, the existence of alternate consciousnesses, and an orderly and sometimes predictable world. To refuse the basic truths in this document without providing an alternate explanation would explain this universe as disorderly and chaotic. To refuse the truths in this document and provide an alternate view of any idea outlined here is simply useless because, if one considers both observed explanations, the one entailed here is all-encompassing, and, if considered, accounts and explains for a radically different understanding of any philosophy function of reality. Adding to the uselessness of contradictions to the explanations of reality and existence outlined here, any discrediting and rejection of ideas here prove the very point of this document, and subsequently creates a paradox of a document being disproven and proving itself in the same time, further proving the point of this document, which has been disproven and proves itself simultaneously, etc.

These points are hard to argue and


Abstraction is the basis for advancement. The way in which things have come to be and the way things have panned out have all fundmanetally been driven by several ideas that, just as natural selection is the raw material for evolution, are the absolute basis for the way things are and as they have come to be. The way in which a congnant and intelligent consciousness are driven and utilized by several driving forces that have come to exist in the way reality works is so in-depth, complex, and rooted in organismic behavior and what a cognition has accepted as real and normal that it will never be fully understood or flawlessly manipuled by any single or multiple consciousnesses. It's not at all a coincidence that the level of complexity of what we understand is real, and the way life is, is mutually reflected in the complex manner in which each individual consciousness, that unitedly drives what a collective group of people know as reality, functions and reasons. So, conversely, and perhaps more importantly, is not a surprise that a collective group of individual consciousnesses has come to create a reality that is as reflectively complex as the basis of their own existence.




As one subjectively observes reality and the way things are, there are patterns, laws, and rules. As such, the way things are, and what we accept as reality, must not be completely accepted as the way things were meant to be, because if, indeed, the idea that the way things are is NOT the only way that they could be, it would predictably result in an extreme alteration of the limits of though and comprehension. As the world we know is explored, and as we learn more about the reality around us, which, conversely, and abstractly, can also be viewed as a series of sensory inputs in the form of electrical pulses being pieced together and formed into a coherent idea by an intelligent cognition, we begin to accept new ideas as well as a new system of thinking, and it is in this way that a society, or, abstractly, multiple consciousnesses, drives the ability of a cognition to comprehend new and foreign ideas and thoughts, in other words abstract thoughts, which, systematically, can be argued, as stated, as the basis for advancement.

So, to simplify the reasoning and proof, the existence of a soceity and external input(which could be argued to be completely internal, by some thinkers), is the basis for the advancement of thinking, particurlarly abstract thinking, which in turn is the basis for advancement and is also the basis for a being's acceptance of reality and the way things exist. Those organisms that hold the cognitive capacity to be able to function on just a slightly abstract level of thinking are those organisms that are aware, on various levels, primarily cognitively, of the existence of a reality. This can be proven by looking at those organisms whose consciousnesses were not complex enough to understand the abstract idea of reality, and existence, and consequently, the existence of reality. Examples of these presumably living and systematically functioning beings, as far as current acceptance of reality is concerned, are such things as bacteria, other microscopic or nanoscopic but functioning particles, atoms, and even plants. The individual consciousnesses, as stated above, and if they can be considered conscious beings, seem to not be able to posess the cognition and ability to piece together sensory input, and, as presumably follows, the ability to harness seemingly abstract ideas such as the existence of a reality or even one's own existence.

Several levels of abstraction have been touched upon thusfar, including one of the lowest levels of individual cognition and abstraction, and acknowledgement, or at least knowledge and acceptance, of the raw idea of reality and existence, seemingly to be considered as those consciousnesses that are aware of external as well as internal sensory input, in other words, organisms that, on various levels, are complex enough to be able to, as stated above, have awareness. It is with this reasoning that it is a generally accepted idea to divide most of what we know included in the external world (reality) into two major groups , one with a cognition and awareness, with varying levels of intelligence, and the other, objects or even ideas that lack awareness of oneself, for example, inatimate objects, or, functioning and antimate organisms that seem to lack the existence of a consciousness or or coherent cognition. Again, through this reasoning, we can infer that the acknowledgement or knowledge of existing, or the idea of existing, or acknowledgement of existing in reality, is one of the basic and fundamental criteria for a consciousness to put into application,the rules, or laws, or constants, of the basic workings of reality and the way things are. It is at this level of thinking that an organism can be considered as conscious and cognitient.
It then makes sense to accept the idea that a certain level of abstraction is required for the existence and understanding of reality as one of the most fundamental ideas that is present in every cognitive being. Returning to the explanation of various levels of consciousness, the idea that abstraction is a requirement and is the basis for reality and an external world, is not the only level of abstraction in the collective pool of conscious organisms as we know. The law of necessary abstraction is only a fundamental and basic rules, and, logically, there exists other levels of intelligence, understanding, and abstraction, which all, predictably, build upon one original idea and are rooted in a fundamental law, in this case, the law of necessary abstraction. Building upon the most basic level of abstraction, all thinking and self-aware(even if the concept of self is not understood, just accepted) organisms can be divided into many other levels of thinking, or abstractions. For example, concerning the existence of complex and, acceptedly, intelligent emotions, there is a certain level of abstraction required by a cognitive being to be able to correctly understand, comprehend, and accept the idea and existence of emotions. It just so happens that, this example, is one of the basic examples, that comprehending beings such as ourselves posess a greater capacity for comprehension, abstraction, and advancement.


Listed thus far, first, has been the fundamental, essential, and basic criteria for an object to posess a consciousness, and, secondly, one of the "highest" criteria, or the criteria that perhaps requires the greatest capacity for abstract thinking, for a being to be considered intelligent. It is between these two limits that every cognitive and aware organism can be grouped, with no known exceptances.


Every idea touched upon in this document is due to, and enabled by, a consciousness with a comparatively high capacity for abstract thinking, and, as often follows, introspect. The fact that EVERYTHING entailed in this document, and all the ideas of the writer, and ideas in general, are the result of a curiosity and intelligent drive rooted so deeply in the very system of constants that the simple existence of abstract ideas seems, and that which the very same consciousness is attempting to define, that the simple existence of abstract ideas seems, curiously enough, abstract. In other words, every idea formulated by an intelligence is completely and unavoidably based upon the ideas which this consciousness considers real, comprehendable, and understandable. So, following that train of thought, every idea that has been understood by any consciousness is based upon what this organism has, through experience, defined reality, abstraction, existence, cognition, and any other earthly idea. One can finally begin to understand the very idea of abstraction, the concept upon which the writer believes coherence and existence is based upon, in pondering the observation that if the thoughts of an organism are based fundamentally and unavoidably upon simple and basic ideas and acceptances of the way things are(enabled through the existence of an active consciousness), then abstraction is the comprehensible ability to form ideas which are not fundamentally rooted in what we accept as existence. This leads to a seemingly unavoidable paradox: If every single coherent thought put together by any and every understanding being is unavoidably and fundamentally rooted upon several essential constants, of reality, then how is it possible for a thought, labeled abstract, to exist? If every thought from every consciousness is based upon an acceptance or at least obeyance, purposefully or inadvertantally, of fundamental constants of reality, how, then, is it possible for a consciousness to comprehend an abstract idea, or, and idea, as has been reasoned, that is NOT fundamentally rooted in a cognition's obeyance of the many essential laws outlined in this document.



It is then in which the next point can be made. First, it should be stated that every idea and paradox in this document are, just like every other idea in existence, based on a system of beliefs and acceptances of a method of function and operation, in this case, based upon the acceptance of beliefs, inferences, and ideas of the writer concerning consciousness, existence, intelligence, and reality. To someone who shares an alternate view of the aforementioned topics, the reasoning for anything in this document can be simply and easily discarded through the simple and basic ability of a consciousness alternate to another applying it's own acceptances and ideas of reality, by, for instance, refusing to accept the idea that abstraction is the basis for advancement, and, ultimately, is a reqirement for the acknowledgement and perhaps of a universe in the first place.
Simply put, the basic constants of reality by which a consciousnesness believes is the basis for the fundamental existence of a reality is, paradoxically, a result of that very consciousnesses's acceptance of those very same beliefs. An consciousness creates and coherently assembles an idea already based upon the acceptance of a certain set of beliefs. This is important to note because as a consciousness defines other ideas in which it believes all others are based upon, that consciousness is acknowledging and accepting what it knows as reality and forming ideas based upon that very reality. So, in summary, and to very clearly explain these ponderings, the thoughts of a consciousness are purely and once again unavoidably based upon it's current idea and acceptance of reality, and thus, the thoughts of one consciousness may be radically different from another for the simple reason that this other consciousness has a radically different acceptance and comprehension of reality, and thus forms ideas and thoughts based upon this radically different view and interpretation of reality. As the reader begins to comprehend the ideas outlined in this document, it is important that the reader must accept, or at least begin to understand, the ideas of another consciousness, in this case the writer, or else every idea entailed here can be easily discarded and ignored as nonsensicle due to the simple fact that two consciousnesses develope ideas based on their collective knowledge which can be very different. If the reader does not begin to accept and understand a majority of the ideas outlined here, the rest of the reasoning of every other concept simply fails to make sense, and can result in a paradox of conflicting views and basic acceptances of reality.


Following along this line of reasoning, and this system of logic, there exists several unexplainable, by the current beliefs of the writer, paradoxes. It's quiet interesting to note that almost any attempt to explain very basic ideas of consciousness and cognition can lead to a paradox resulting not from flawed reasoning, but the system of logic in which all previous conclusions were made. So, it seems, this particular system of logic leads to fundamental paradoxes, and it seems the road of reasoning by which various consciousnesses reach ideas and conclusions based upon the accepted fundamentals leads almost uncertaintly to paradoxes. To add another idea, it can also be inferred that the existence of another system of logic in which all fundamental ideas, or what has been accepted as a fundamental idea, can be explained alternatively and, sharing the same views of the observer, satisfactorily, is an abstract understanding in itself. It seems that the questioning of the existence of this abstract view of logic can be made, however a complete understanding of said system would prove logically impossible due to a being only be able to form ideas rooted upon it's very own reality. This leads to another paradox coinciding with the others, and can be communicated in asking the question, "if abstraction logically cannot exist, by it's definition and by the definition of rules of thought accepted by the consciousness, and abstraction is the basis for existence and the capacity to comprehend said existence, how, then, can one exist? Perhaps the definition of abstract is obscure, wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete. However, the definition of abstraction reached through the reasoning of the observer's consciousness and applied the ways in which it drives the fundamentals of the universe, seems to make all logical sense, especially at the fundamental level.

To provide an example, the definition of abstraction, or the comprehension of ideas not rooted in current reality, is satisfactorily and easily applied to the law of essential abstraction. In short, as abstraction has been defined, once a being has the capacity for "abstract thought", it can be reasonably said that the simple and basic ability to comprehend existence is an abstract thought in itself, and this thought is one alternate to the absence of extraction, and consequently the absence of thought and possibly the presence of an unacknowledgable existence of a reality. To conclude the proofs for the truth of this document, let it be remembered that every thought here is a result of this observer's belief in reality, and to reject the ideas of fundamental universal mechanics is to create a paradox and to prove the point of this document in itself by assisting the idea that ideas and acceptances vary upon individual consciousnesses, and that any observation made by one consciousness can be made nonsensical by another.

Finishing the specific proofs of the fundamentals in this document, everything entailed here and that will be entailed, pieced together completely, and unitarily, will attempt, through an individual form of logic, to prove every statement in this document, a majority of this proof coming from the next set of macroscopic ideas.

Before the analysis of the effect of fundamental laws on a macroscopic level begin, it is important to stress that, on a basic level, all ideas here fall in logic reasoning and are a basic explanation for the most basic functions of reality.

It can then be said that these fundamental ideas also build upon a macroscopic theme. There are several ideas that, by the observer's current knowledge, lead to confusing paradoxes and the contradiction of every sentence, every word, every idea in this document. Surprisingly, the contradiction of these ideas to themselves helps to prove the sweeping idea of an explanation of the universe. It's based on order and disorder, normalcy and chaos.

These points are difficult to argue because as stated in the beginning of this document, almost any attempt to discredit all ideas here result in these very ideas proving themselves, such as reality being subjective, however, this creates another paradox, how can a theory prove itself if it has been disproven? Once again, a paradox results, leading to a circle of unprovable ideas and assumptions from either consciousness.


Assuming every truth outlined here is true, then we now have a structured, coherent universe that has a proof and a disproof, a positive and a negative, order and chaos, normal thinking(thinking limited by a current acceptance of reality) and abstract thinking(the inverse of "normal" thinking.


When presented as a coherent idea, everything that we know and presumably everything we don't know can be proven by the idea that to every statement there is a counter-statement, fundamental observations always lead to circular paradoxes, and the other ideas of reality and the existence of another. Systematically, any contradiction to most ideas in this document prove the document itself. Perhaps this current take on reality is solely based on the reality that is understood by the writer's cognitive ability(which, following suit, is true). Perhaps this take is wrong. This would lead to another reality, one of thoughts and ideas not attainable following, or perhaps another alternate explanation that cannot be understood and comprehended by a consciousness that has not come to accept current rules, constants, and truths of a new reality(assuming this reality has order). This further proves the statements of this document concerning positives and negatives, and paradoxes. For this reality, there is a counter reality, and, reasonably, this reality cannot be understood by a consciousness in an alternate reality due to the restrictions of thought that stem from it's own rules. The description of this reality, then, follows closley along with that of an abstract reality.

Reguardless of any other realities, limits, consciousnesses, cognitions, beings, realities, the basic theory entailed here is all-encompassing, self-proving when disproven, and most importantly sensible(to this reality's standards). The basic ideas are as follows: In order for reality to exist, and thus for any of these rules of reality to apply, an object must posess the cognitive capacity to comprehend the abstract idea of existence, one radically different from non-existence. Every law that is concluded from the current explanation of reality leads to paradoxes, has a counter-statement, and proves itself again, leading to another paradox. It is impossible to unprove a document which proves itself in any attempt to unprove it(paradoxically, the only method of disproving that would completely discard these ideas as nonsensicle would have to be those of an alternate universe, and these disproofs must be those of a reality unforseen, and by this document, abstract, cue paradox. Cognition and consciousness, thought and comprehension, are all the result of something akin to a great nothingness(a non-reality, an idea abstract due to it's rooting in an abstract reality, from the observational point of the current reality) somehow acquiring enough cognition to acquire self-awareness, and thus, awareness of the current reality. Every idea has an inverse, the concept of balanced, unmentioned until now, is absolutely essential to the existence of a predictable and non-chaotic universe. There is a paradox in this reality, however in another, there may be a solution to this very paradox. There is an inverse for everything, and ALL of existence is, to reiterate, based solely upon cognition and fundamental, all-encompassing laws and rules of logic operation. Also, following suit with a logical universe(so-called logical because it is what has been accepted as the norm, and logical), are these laws, or fundamentals, building upon one another, entwining with ideas of positive and negative, normal and abstract, reality and non reality, disorder and chaos, perhaps the very nature of existence and the universe can be explained by completely by understanding the observed ideas in this document.



Accepting the "abstract" ideas of this document(note that it can be seen humorous that ideas such as this are abstract, however this document defines the very idea of abstract and discards the possibility that a thought, observed in this reality, can be considered abstract by the definitions above.

To help coherence, and to make a solid point, many ideas are repeatedly explained in an attempt to help unify and bring together the broad, all-encompassing ideas of this document, however, it must be considered, by anything with the cognitive capacity to comprehend and understand these ideas, as a definitive and end-all document, a point, once again, reiterated many times for coherence and completeness


Edited by Hawkeye2 (08/28/05 07:09 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleeligal
Noobie

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/25/05
Posts: 7,021
Loc: California
Re: So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more) [Re: Hawkeye2]
    #4590287 - 08/28/05 07:30 AM (11 years, 3 months ago)

damn thats long... lol, might read it tomorrow night, if its all about abstract ideas and not the physical evolution of the universe, im not sure ill reply, but if it has to do with the physical evolution etc, then i most likely will comment.
thanx for postin, always kul to hear other peoples ideas and opinions.


--------------------
\m/ Spanksta \m/

"do you have the freedom to do with your nervous system what you want?"

"MolokoMilkPlus said:
I'll respect you if you let me give you a blow job"

"tactik said:
respect the can."



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFospher
Crime FightingMaster Criminal
Male

Registered: 02/09/05
Posts: 2,033
Loc: The Netherlands
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
Re: So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more) [Re: eligal]
    #4590316 - 08/28/05 08:55 AM (11 years, 3 months ago)

The S&P forum will appreciate this more.


--------------------
010001100100001001000101!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemycogirl
Fold@home!
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 1,117
Re: So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more) [Re: Fospher]
    #4590456 - 08/28/05 11:23 AM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Damn, that is seven pages in Word.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineHawkeye2
Resident TranceAddict

Registered: 04/05/04
Posts: 626
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
Re: So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more) [Re: mycogirl]
    #4590537 - 08/28/05 12:20 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

mycogirl said:
Damn, that is seven pages in Word.




I have been tweaking since like 12 o fucking clock. I've been tweaking for over 12 hours. Fuck.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefreddurgan
Techgnostic
Male

Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
Re: So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more) [Re: Hawkeye2]
    #4590571 - 08/28/05 12:40 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Well even in the first couple of sentences you say that there is predictability in the microscopic world, and there really isn't. So right there...we got some problems.


--------------------
Ishmael
http://www.ishmael.org

Ron Paul 2008!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinetomk
King of OTD

Registered: 09/22/04
Posts: 1,559
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 9 months, 16 hours
Re: So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more) [Re: freddurgan]
    #4591412 - 08/28/05 05:44 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

The universe isn't something to be explained, but rather something to be experienced.

Experience it.


--------------------
"I am eternally free"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCsphere
Stranger

Registered: 10/13/04
Posts: 21
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more) [Re: Hawkeye2]
    #4591425 - 08/28/05 05:49 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I was coming down on some ecstasy and the meth was kicking strong long after the MDMA wore off, I was so tweaked I just started typing my thoughts




:confused:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineIllicitAlchemist
Becoming one.
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/24/04
Posts: 395
Loc: The hara.
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more) [Re: Csphere]
    #4591902 - 08/28/05 08:17 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinemotamanM
old hand
 User Gallery
Registered: 12/18/02
Posts: 6,021
Last seen: 11 days, 23 hours
Re: So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more) [Re: Hawkeye2]
    #4591967 - 08/28/05 08:40 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more)



So maybe you should post this in corresponding forum?



What is going on here..?

:smirk:


--------------------
http://heffter.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleyousuck
Stranger

Registered: 05/23/05
Posts: 616
Re: So I wrote a philosophy that explains the entire universe(and more) [Re: motaman]
    #4593375 - 08/29/05 01:19 AM (11 years, 3 months ago)

whoa there mr. runonsentence, take it slowly.

Quote:

The law of necessary abstraction




is this the a law only meth addicts abide by?

hes basically saying (at least in the first half, as thats as far as i got) that if our reality is built off of prior experience from our sensories, how can we have the ability to conceptualize things that dont have sensory values, or things weve never sensed before.

Its simple really, our brains are powerful computational machines, able to produce complex mental models of our choosing. Of course then you go back to the theory of, "if a human child was brought upon in a sensory-less environment, never having to use its brain, would it have the brain of an infant when sensorys would be introduced? would it continue to develop properly during this sensory deprivation period?"

do you honestly think that without these prior sensory models to work off of, that we'd be able to conceptualize anything at all?

I never knew meth made people such ego-maniacs, believing that our perception of reality defines the universe around us. Surely by the fact that we persist to percieve reality despite others dying around us shows us that reality is not defined by our brains, but that our brains are defined by reality. Even more shocking to me, having never used meth or other related poisons, is that it makes simple ideas seem brilliant, a true ego-maniacle sense of self.

If your so confident that we can comprehend truly abstract concepts, then why is it the human brain is incapable of conceptualizing non-existance?

when you speak of one theory being disproved and this creating another theory, the word your looking for is called the antithesis.

Seriously, i dont mean to bash your ideas, i just feel you should sit back, rewrite this is simpler more concise terms, and really try to determine whether or not your ideas are truly that deep.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop for: Microscope

Community >> The Pub

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* So my parents caught me smoking weed again so I wrote them a letter.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Poptart 32,294 143 05/21/13 08:56 AM
by Gumby
* Molecule of the Month, Bristol Univ, U.K. Chemistry Department mjshroomer 529 2 03/12/06 12:04 AM
by Koala Koolio
* Just a rap i wrote
( 1 2 3 all )
highc 2,938 49 12/07/10 07:38 PM
by NastyDHL
* Pope: "Fundamentalism threat to world peace" DNKYD 425 1 01/02/06 06:40 PM
by Shroomism
* Ron Paul Explains How Anti-Prohibitionists Can Win Elections
( 1 2 3 all )
YthanA 4,486 44 06/09/07 12:22 PM
by Rahie
* The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
( 1 2 all )
Coaster 2,027 39 08/07/08 04:19 AM
by DieCommie
* I have a university degree (Univ of FL) but no high school diploma (GED) Azen 1,552 19 05/04/07 11:14 PM
by trepanib
* Can you explain bit torrents? skunkape 1,114 15 07/23/08 11:02 PM
by altershroom

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
1,390 topic views. 18 members, 93 guests and 61 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.125 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.