Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Religion > Christianity > Re: NO EVIDENCE
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 51 of 286 Topic 22090 of 22556
Post > Topic >>

Re: NO EVIDENCE

by "thomas p." <gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 1, 2008 at 09:15 PM

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i en meddelelse 
news:tidj149pbgllqv2bno5hlsnjt2gqbdo5dc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:45:37 +0200, "thomas p." <gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"thomas p." <gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i en meddelelse
>>news:48194c97$0$56777$edfadb0f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Bill Bowden" <wrongaddress@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>
news:bec69fba-199c-4fd9-b2e6-189b8ec6420f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Apr 29, 11:31 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "Bill Bowden" <wrongaddr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i en
>>>>
meddelelsenews:b27f63c5-2f3e-492e-8478-6441d9bd835d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Apr 29, 5:18 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>snip
>>
>>>
>>> You might be interested in this by Dennis Prager:
>>>
>>> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0505/prager050305.php3
>>>
>>> -Bill
>>>
>>
>>I took a look at the above.  It is nonsense, either deliberate or the 
>>result
>>of ignorance.  What he says about moral opinions without a god amounts
to 
>>a
>>strawman that is easy for him to attack.  I find the idea that morality 
>>only
>>exists because there is a policeman in the sky ugly to the extreme.
>>Furthermore one would expect, if he was correct, the real world to
provide
>>evidence of it, but there is no evidence that people without theistic 
>>based
>>morals behave worse than others.
>
> If they need an imaginary alpha male to keep them in line then they
> are at best amoral, at worst sociopaths.
>
> The sociopathy also reveals itself in that they can't conceive of
> others having other reasons to be moral. And also when they tell
> ordinary decent people they can't be moral, which is offensive.

I went to Catholic schools, where we were taught that morals came from
god. 
If one grows up in that kind of environment, it is not easy to look at the

issues differently.  We should also remember that the high percentage of 
genuinely crazy Christians and other theists that we see in alt. atheism
is 
not the same percentage one finds in at least the mainstream churches. 
Most 
of the people I knew as a child believed in the doctrines but never really

thought about it.  They were usually embarrassed or bored if anybody
wanted 
to discuss it in any depth.
 




 286 Posts in Topic:
NO EVIDENCE
"Bill M" <wm  2008-04-27 19:27:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 19:38:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-27 23:54:39 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 21:05:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-27 21:18:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 21:59:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
dieHard <dieHard@[EMAI  2008-04-28 13:56:22 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-28 00:58:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-28 19:41:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-30 04:14:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
"Pastor Frank"   2008-04-30 10:52:00 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-30 21:59:05 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-28 18:07:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
"Pastor Frank"   2008-05-30 07:59:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
dieHard <dieHard@[EMAI  2008-04-28 13:46:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-27 19:41:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 21:05:55 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-28 01:01:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Richo <m.richardson61@  2008-04-27 20:19:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-27 20:35:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-04-28 17:01:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-13 14:51:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-13 11:01:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-13 19:10:13 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-14 11:29:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 19:29:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-15 00:36:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-15 05:50:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 13:34:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-16 08:08:14 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Robibnikoff" &  2008-05-16 08:30:51 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-16 08:43:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 18:02:51 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-28 05:03:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Risto Karttunen <tipsu  2008-04-28 07:19:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-28 17:30:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-04-29 14:18:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-29 17:09:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-04-30 08:31:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-30 20:17:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 06:52:45 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 13:33:56 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 13:45:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-01 04:47:25 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 21:05:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-01 19:38:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:23:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:22:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-15 17:57:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-01 08:45:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 21:15:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-01 15:20:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:48:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-05 00:04:25 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:21:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-04-30 22:01:08 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"firefly" <f  2008-05-01 22:25:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-05-02 04:32:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 08:46:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-01 22:36:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-02 04:31:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-02 04:32:08 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 08:43:42 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-02 06:46:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 22:27:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 18:44:22 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-10 09:04:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-10 10:38:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-10 09:08:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Pastor Frank"   2008-05-12 06:10:30 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Fred Jones" &l  2008-05-12 11:52:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-15 02:37:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-12 12:16:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-10 11:14:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 09:49:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 22:29:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-02 07:55:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 22:42:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-02 17:52:43 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 18:55:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-02 17:39:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
John W. Wells <djinn@[  2008-05-10 20:02:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 08:57:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 09:14:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
dieHard <dieHard@[EMAI  2008-05-11 14:45:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-11 14:48:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-11 20:40:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-05-02 20:05:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECT  2008-05-02 16:29:08 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-02 22:12:00 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-03 09:06:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-03 09:46:52 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-05 21:32:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-06 07:19:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-06 03:48:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-06 17:10:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-06 12:04:06 
freedom of religion is a Christian concept
monkfish <monkfish@[EM  2008-05-06 13:13:38 
Re: freedom of religion is a Christian concept
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-07 03:09:13 
How do you know that we are created equal?
monkfish <monkfish@[EM  2008-05-06 13:05:09 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Risto Karttunen <tipsu  2008-05-05 23:41:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-06 17:26:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-06 21:31:39 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 20:08:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-07 03:17:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-07 18:14:50 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-09 18:15:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Santolina chamaecyparissu  2008-05-06 19:49:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-07 20:56:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-08 09:29:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-07 21:18:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-08 01:42:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-08 15:50:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-08 18:51:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 20:18:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-08 18:20:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-08 21:26:48 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-09 11:49:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-09 03:04:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-09 03:07:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-09 16:54:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-09 20:05:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-09 19:33:05 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-10 08:35:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-09 17:36:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-10 08:29:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-10 03:15:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-10 19:34:42 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-11 17:40:50 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 19:56:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 22:58:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 18:00:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-12 01:32:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-11 21:22:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 20:53:22 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-15 21:02:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-11 22:10:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-12 06:55:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 23:07:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-12 17:40:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 23:13:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-12 13:52:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 23:16:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-12 16:31:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-12 21:55:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-13 11:47:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-13 09:51:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-13 19:07:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-13 13:20:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-14 13:13:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-14 18:03:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-15 05:54:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-16 21:40:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-15 11:46:42 
AQOTM Nomination Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-16 21:41:32 
Re: AQOTM Nomination Re: NO EVIDENCE
atheist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-17 01:39:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-15 21:20:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-15 21:23:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-15 23:47:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Virgil <Virgil@[EMAIL   2008-05-16 01:35:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 13:30:28 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-16 18:14:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-17 05:06:13 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-18 15:15:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-18 20:36:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-17 08:22:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-17 13:08:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-17 17:39:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-18 08:15:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-17 18:50:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-18 22:57:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-19 08:50:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-19 16:50:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-19 20:34:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-20 08:24:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-20 04:21:38 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-21 00:45:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-19 18:24:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-20 21:22:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-21 04:47:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-21 17:38:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-22 03:08:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-22 12:21:56 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
hhyapster@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-05-21 23:25:28 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-22 04:43:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
saint7peter@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-22 01:58:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-22 12:25:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-22 20:13:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-23 16:28:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
asilentskeptic <asilen  2008-05-22 20:20:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-22 21:06:00 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-22 23:37:41 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-23 15:47:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Tokay Pino Gris <tokay  2008-05-25 17:10:09 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-23 17:05:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-23 21:11:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-24 07:54:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-24 08:15:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-25 07:57:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-26 09:18:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-24 07:52:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-24 16:37:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:51:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-06-01 19:16:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-23 17:35:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-23 19:50:24 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-25 11:12:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-25 18:40:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-25 14:15:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:56:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:52:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-06-01 19:14:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-25 22:46:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-26 17:21:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:57:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-27 11:39:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-27 11:44:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-28 18:06:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-29 21:32:14 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-30 13:29:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-30 21:49:09 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-27 11:51:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-06-01 23:39:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-06-02 07:04:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-06-02 09:03:39 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-06-04 21:57:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Risto Karttunen <tipsu  2008-05-03 00:42:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-03 20:13:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-03 20:38:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-04 09:17:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-04 06:31:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-04 10:43:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-04 21:37:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-05 00:44:51 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-05 07:19:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:56:38 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-05 16:16:38 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-05 19:34:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-06 07:16:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-10 20:36:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-10 21:52:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 08:23:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-11 09:30:48 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 08:36:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 09:38:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 09:52:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 16:27:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-11 17:39:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-11 15:00:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 19:28:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 19:39:05 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-12 08:14:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-11 16:07:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 18:09:56 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-11 10:59:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-13 14:48:13 
How did they know?
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-13 15:13:10 
Re: How did they know?
Lars Eighner <usenet@[  2008-05-13 15:45:25 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 14:53:13 
Re: How did they know?
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-26 15:42:51 
Re: How did they know?
duke <duckgumbo32@[EMA  2008-05-26 17:47:51 
Re: How did they know?
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-26 19:02:08 
Re: How did they know?
duke <duckgumbo32@[EMA  2008-05-27 06:45:23 
Re: How did they know?
Lars Eighner <usenet@[  2008-05-13 15:49:42 
Re: How did they know?
raven1 <quoththeraven@  2008-05-13 18:04:35 
Re: How did they know?
Uncle Vic <address@[EM  2008-05-13 22:51:58 
Re: How did they know?
John Locke <johnlocke9  2008-05-13 16:40:08 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:09:53 
Re: How did they know?
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-26 15:38:01 
Re: How did they know?
John Baker <nunya@[EMA  2008-05-14 06:44:55 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:22:23 
Re: How did they know?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claude_Hop  2008-05-14 08:28:42 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:17:10 
Re: How did they know?
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbja  2008-05-13 21:08:03 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:01:13 
Re: How did they know?
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-14 01:59:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 13:34:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-14 10:24:13 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 15:04:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 15:05:58 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-14 11:17:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 19:35:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-14 11:15:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 19:30:58 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-15 00:56:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbja  2008-05-14 16:45:03 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Fri Jul 25 23:07:19 CDT 2008.