Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:36 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
Quote:
William S. Sadler (1875-1969) was a central figure - perhaps the central figure - in the whole Urantia Book phenomenon, but he remains an enigma. He apparently destroyed nearly all of his personal and professional files, leaving historians little to go on beyond the surface facts of his career and the stories told about him by a tight circle of Urantia Book believers who held him in uncommonly high esteem. His most interesting legacy are his numerous books, most of which have not been read by even the most ardent Urantia Book believers, but which - thanks to the parallel studies - reveal much about him, some of it disturbing.

Most remarkable is the fact that Sadler’s techniques of culling and paraphrasing from his sources (which he often didn’t cite) are, sometimes, distinctly similar to those used by the UB author(s) in writing several Urantia papers. Comparative study of the Sadler parallel charts and the UB parallel charts may shed unexpected new light into Sadler’s real role in the creation of the Urantia Book.
http://www.squarecircles.com/urantiaboo ... roject.htm


Matthew Block has discovered that William S. Sadler's own writings often paraphrased other authors without attribution in a similar manner to the Urantia Book's use of human sources. Is this just a coincidence? Or is there something profoundly different about the Urantia Book?

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
I've known about this for some time, from personal correspondence with Matthew, but I didn't want to get into it here before he posted it on his web site.

Personally, I consider it rather strong evidence that Dr. Sadler was more directly involved in the composition of at least parts of the UB than he was willing to reveal. The simple fact that Dr. Sadler used uncited sources is not in itself so striking. It's not so uncommon to do so, after all, although in a professional-level book by an individual who proclaims his academic standing in no uncertain terms on the cover, it would definitely be frowned on. What is striking is the manner in which the uncited sources are used. Matthew's parallel studies show how the sequence of ideas and occasional adaptation of "expressions" is the same as the sequence in the source, with material added in between. And even though the source is often modified, it remains easily recognizable. It's a very distinctive way of using a source, ethical issues aside.

And of course, as Matthew points out, it's exactly how the UB uses sources. The sequence of ideas in those sources is followed, with enough close paraphrases to be readily identifiable, with with modifications, additions, and deletions. Moreover, The Truth About Spiritualism and The Mind at Mischief were written before the UB was written.

In at least some passages, Block has identified lengthy verbatim copying of the source material, without attribution. See pages 33 and 34 of http://www.squarecircles.com/urantiabooksourcestudies/pdf/TTAS-Chapter04.pdf, for example. This is flat-out plagiarism, of course. Look at page 12 of http://www.squarecircles.com/urantiabooksourcestudies/pdf/MAM-Chapter19.pdf, where Dr. Sadler mentions "the late Dr. Funk" but fails to mention that the next three paragraphs are verbatim copy from Funk's work.

These are particularly flagrant examples, of course, most of what Block has documented falls in the gray area of recognizable parallel and paraphrase, as in the UB. But the flagrant plagiarisms are, unfortunately, sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on Dr. Sadler's professional integrity. I know very well that many will find that accusation to be unwarranted and even unethical, since Dr. Sadler can't defend himself against it. Still, the methods of the historian can't leave these issues politely untouched. What Matthew Block has found won't go away.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
@Ubizmo Mind at Mischief was published in 1929. The transmissions between the sleeping subject and Sadler where there was communication happening actually started in 1911. The first 2 sections of TUB were actually completed in 1934 but the entire process was not just a one day event the papers were formulated over a long period of years starting from 1911. With the last two finished in 1935. Is it any surprise that he would take information he heard from superhuman beings?!?!? Wouldn't you if you were in his shoes? All it takes is some common sense to figure this confusion out :roll:. I guess we can judge Sadler as a fraud because the few times he took information from a midwayer he failed to cite that midwayer as a source in his books. :roll:

Not to mention Sadlers writing style is completely different then the authors. He does not use words in a poetic way like the authors of TUB do, with every sentence having many hidden meanings. His writing style is very matter of fact, with little attention being paid to the small details. The authors never put in words randomly, every word is used for a reason.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Last edited by boomshuka on Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:59 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Yoder777 wrote:
... Matthew Block has discovered that William S. Sadler's own writings often paraphrased other authors without attribution in a similar manner to the Urantia Book's use of human sources. Is this just a coincidence? Or is there something profoundly different about the Urantia Book?
Hi Yoder, First, from what I’ve seen of Sadler’s writings, it’s very obvious that he couldn’t have written The Urantia Book. The whole idea is quite ridiculous imo. Secondly, from what I’ve seen of Matthew Block’s analysis of parallelism in TUB, I think that TUB consistently adds to, expands, and improves the human source material. It appears the revelators used these existing texts exactly because the vocabulary and linguistic and conceptual frameworks were the most advanced and/or most suitable for them at the time of writing.

Third, from what I’ve seen of Matthew Block’s analysis of parallelism in Sadler’s writings, they mostly look like the product of a human author who has been inspired by a number of other human authors and has (possibly partly unconsciously) adopted their language and some of their ideas. And sometimes Sadler literally copied text, with reference to the source. (Note that TUB only literally quotes the Bible, without any reference to the source ;))

So, yes, I think that Sadler’s techniques of paraphrasing from his sources is profoundly different from (and much more common than) the paraphrasing by the revelators of their human source material in TUB..


Last edited by Bart on Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:18 pm +0000, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
Also most readers in TUB community are aware of books that have been used as sources for writings in TUB. The authors tell you flat out that this is what they are going to do. So it shouldn't be any surprise when they do that. What is surprising is how they change the sentences they take from human sources to make them fit with the whole revelation in a coherent way. They will take a human concept and tweak it to make more sense.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
I expect that most long-time readers of The Urantia Book have found their usage of English improving over time and that we sometimes include Urantia concepts when we write. That Dr. Sadler used such concepts isn't at all surprising... but as Bart has pointed out, anyone reading Dr. Sadler's works will quickly recognize that the voice of his writing is very different from that of TUB, and as he's indicated, to contend that such a book could have been written by such a person, or by any person for that matter, indicates a grand lack in perspicacity.

The revelators were under no constraints to have used source authors without attribution -- quite likely, the source material written by all those various earthly authors had been inspired by the very presence of the revelators being here. They used those sources as springboards to present even greater insights and concepts than the authors had. That Dr. Sadler freely used source authors verbatim is a different matter altogether and one that brings into question his integrity since his usage could have been considered to be plagiarism.

Larry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
The testimony of William S. Sadler on the anonymous sleeping subject is one of the main reasons why people believe the Urantia Book to be an authentic revelation. What would it do for the revelation's integrity if Sadler was shown to be a man of low integrity?

If Sadler plagiarized numerous sources in his own writings, it's not because he was influenced by midwayers to do so. From what I can guess, he didn't use the same exact sources as the Urantia Book, so how was he influenced by the midwayers to plagiarize?

My personal opinion is that Sadler may have edited the papers, possibly under spiritual guidance, but that he didn't change the overall meaning of the papers.

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Last edited by Yoder777 on Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:18 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
There are two main points I have against the idea that Sadler wrote the papers. Firstly, that the revelators often improved upon human sources, instead of merely regurgitating them. And secondly, that there is a wealth of information in the Urantia Book that was previously contained in no human source.

The concepts of the Urantia Book are ultimately more important to me than its authorship. I see the book as a means to an end, a relationship with the Universal Father, rather than an end to itself. The Urantia Book, regardless of its authorship, provides peace and hope to thousands of people. Similarly, no one knows for sure who wrote the New Testament Gospels, and yet they are relied upon for the faith of millions of people.

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Bart wrote:
Hi Yoder, First, from what I’ve seen of Sadler’s writings, it’s very obvious that he couldn’t have written The Urantia Book. The whole idea is quite ridiculous imo.


There was a time when I held exactly the same view. That, however, was before I did more research into the general phenomenon of dissociated or automatic writing. I didn't realize that there are well documented cases of people producing writing that differs drastically in style and content from their normal writing. I don't pretend to understand this phenomenon, but it is real and there are numerous well-known instances. I've mentioned them before. You can't simply ignore the phenomenon and claim that because the styles of two writing samples don't match, they couldn't have been written by the same person. It's a lot more complicated than that.

If Sadler wrote any of the UB, it's not necessary to assume that he did so in his normal working conscious state. It's possible that he wrote some in a dissociated state and wrote other parts in a normal state. It's possible that he had help. We simply don't know.

Quote:
Secondly, from what I’ve seen of Matthew Block’s analysis of parallelism in TUB, I think that TUB consistently adds to, expands, and improves the human source material. It appears the revelators used these existing texts exactly because the vocabulary and linguistic and conceptual frameworks were the most advanced and/or most suitable for them at the time of writing.


Sometimes the human source material is "improved", sometimes it's merely paraphrased with no change in content.

Quote:
Third, from what I’ve seen of Matthew Block’s analysis of parallelism in Sadler’s writings, they mostly look like the product of a human author who has been inspired by a number of other human authors and has (possibly partly unconsciously) adopted their language and some of their ideas. And sometimes Sadler literally copied text, with reference to the source. (Note that TUB only literally quotes the Bible, without any reference to the source ;))

So, yes, I think that Sadler’s techniques of paraphrasing from his sources is profoundly different from (and much more common than) the paraphrasing by the revelators of their human source material in TUB..


Then you haven't given the matter the attention it deserves. The parallelisms in Sadler's writings go well beyond mere unconscious inspiration. It is the actual sequential nature of the parallels that is telling. The source covers a topic in a certain order and Sadler covers it in the same order, borrowing bits of text along the way, sometimes modifying and "improving" them, sometimes not.

This is exactly the kind of "parallelism" teachers see in student writings, when the students use a source without citing it, copying some of it verbatim, paraphrasing other parts, but generally following the same sequence as the source.

Yes, sometimes Sadler quotes sources and cites sources. Sometimes he doesn't. And sometimes he simply appropriates their language at length without citing the source. This is plagiarism, and Block has documented it. I cited a couple of examples above; there are others. The UB generally avoids this more blatant kind of offense, with the possible exception of the use of Hartshorne in the Foreword, which is nearly verbatim.

This way of using sources is not "profoundly different" in the UB. It's not really different at all, except in that Sadler crossed the line into direct and extended plagiarism in his own writings more than the UB does.

Block's research does not prove that Dr. Sadler wrote the UB. It does prove, however, that Dr. Sadler was a plagiarist, at times, in his own work. This must affect our judgment of his ethics. Moreover, the similarity in the manner of paraphrasing uncited sources does count as evidence that Dr. Sadler at least contributed to the content of the UB. Furthermore, the documented phenomenon of dissociated writing proves that dissimilarity of style between two texts is not sufficient evidence that they were not from the same hand. We might wish that things were so simple, but they're not.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
Several responses are necessary...

Yoder wrote:
The testimony of William S. Sadler on the anonymous sleeping subject is one of the main reasons why people believe the Urantia Book to be an authentic revelation.

Absolutely not. First, there was no testimony, Dr. Sadler made personal comments. Testimony has legal connotations which don't apply to this fuzzy controversy. Second, the main reason most intelligent people recognize revelatory material is because they've read it, not because their decisions are based on the opinions of others.

Yoder wrote:
My personal opinion is that Sadler may have edited the papers, possibly under spiritual guidance, but that he didn't change the overall meaning of the papers.

As has been mentioned before, we're each entitled to our personal opinions, but they don't necessarily carry weight, especially when they're illogical according to historically factual documents.

Todd wrote:
This way of using sources is not "profoundly different" in the UB. It's not really different at all, except in that Sadler crossed the line into direct and extended plagiarism in his own writings more than the UB does.

It most certaily is "profoundly different" in the UB, but only for those of us who can recognize that the UB is a divine revelation and that Sadler's apparent plagiarism would be a mortal fault that is addressed by copyright law. Big difference.

Because Sadler appears to have plagiarized other's in his personal work it doesn't necessarily follow that he therefore disregarded the revelatory mandate that the contact commission was responsible only for "punctuation and capitalization." just as, if I drive above the speed limit it follows that I cheat on my income taxes. Those are two separate and unrelated issues.

Todd wrote:
Moreover, the similarity in the manner of paraphrasing uncited sources does count as evidence that Dr. Sadler at least contributed to the content of the UB. Furthermore, the documented phenomenon of dissociated writing proves that dissimilarity of style between two texts is not sufficient evidence that they were not from the same hand. We might wish that things were so simple, but they're not.

Yes, everyone understands that Dr. Sadler, as well as about 400+ members of the Forum, contributed to the content of the revelation -- it was their questions that steered the direction the revelators took in presenting the contents of the book.
It's a telling stroke that in order to promote this argument you've now made an aspersion that Dr. Sadler must have been a dabbler in psychic activity of his own accord; that's a far step away from reason and from reasonableness for promoting an otherwise unfounded argument.
As for sufficient dissimilarity in style -- I believe that has been proven to be beyond any element of statistical chance by Phil Calabrese and others who have the mathematical ability to scientifically test that assumption.
Your comment about "We might wish that things were so simple, but they're not." is appropos -- I see a lot of wishful thinking unsupported by historical relevance.

Larry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
lwatkins wrote:
Todd wrote:
This way of using sources is not "profoundly different" in the UB. It's not really different at all, except in that Sadler crossed the line into direct and extended plagiarism in his own writings more than the UB does.

It most certaily is "profoundly different" in the UB, but only for those of us who can recognize that the UB is a divine revelation and that Sadler's apparent plagiarism would be a mortal fault that is addressed by copyright law. Big difference.


Sadler's plagiarism is more than "apparent." It is blatant.

More to the point, recognizing the similarity in the way uncited sources are used in no way depends upon knowing anything about the claims of the texts themselves. That is, you could take one of Block's parallel studies of the UB and its human source, and take one of his studies of Sadler's writing and his human source; remove all identifying references to the authors of all four and give them to someone to examine. The similarity in the way they are constructed would be apparent. It's not subtle.

Quote:
Because Sadler appears to have plagiarized other's in his personal work it doesn't necessarily follow that he therefore disregarded the revelatory mandate that the contact commission was responsible only for "punctuation and capitalization." just as, if I drive above the speed limit it follows that I cheat on my income taxes. Those are two separate and unrelated issues.


They are not unrelated. Sadler's now documented lack of integrity in his own published writings gives us reason to be suspicious of his integrity with respect to the UB, especially in conjunction with the similar way of using uncited sources. Evidence is cumulative. If Sadler was the author of the "revelatory mandate" we can well imagine that he didn't feel bound by it.

Quote:
Yes, everyone understands that Dr. Sadler, as well as about 400+ members of the Forum, contributed to the content of the revelation -- it was their questions that steered the direction the revelators took in presenting the contents of the book.


I think you understand that what I meant by "contributed to the content" was not merely a matter of asking question.

Quote:
It's a telling stroke that in order to promote this argument you've now made an aspersion that Dr. Sadler must have been a dabbler in psychic activity of his own accord; that's a far step away from reason and from reasonableness for promoting an otherwise unfounded argument.


It's not an aspersion. It's a conjecture, no more. If he did, he wouldn't have been the first public critic of psychic phenomena to do so. The main point of the argument is not "otherwise unfounded." It is evidentially based on two facts that Block's work have brought to light: Dr. Sadler's lack of integrity in his published work and the similar way in which he and the UB use uncited sources.

Those facts are evidence (not proof) that Sadler wrote or edited parts of the UB. Where there are facts in evidence, an argument is not ungrounded.

Quote:
As for sufficient dissimilarity in style -- I believe that has been proven to be beyond any element of statistical chance by Phil Calabrese and others who have the mathematical ability to scientifically test that assumption.


Once again, you choose to ignore the fact that there are documented cases of people producing texts in radically different styles. Also, stylometric analysis of, for example, the Book of Mormon has indicated that it was not written by Joseph Smith, Simon Spaulding, or Oliver Cowdery--the three mortals who were in a position to have written it(http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ling485/for_class/30.3Hilton.pdf). Shall we conclude that the Book of Mormon is authentic, in which case we have still more reasons to be suspicious of the UB, or that stylometric analysis is not decisive in these unusual cases? Which is the reasonable conclusion?

Quote:
Your comment about "We might wish that things were so simple, but they're not." is appropos -- I see a lot of wishful thinking unsupported by historical relevance.


Wishful? Personally, I'd prefer to believe that the UB is authentic celestially authored revelation. As for historical evidence, Sadler's lack of integrity is now as well documented as anything of the sort could be. Matthew Block also points out that Dr. Sadler "apparently destroyed nearly all of his personal and professional files, leaving historians little to go on." Why would he do that? We are told that he was under orders from the Revelators to destroy all manuscripts and notes pertaining to the UB, so that's understandable, and would have been done by the time of publication in 1955. But why destroy all the files? Usually people destroy records for a reason. We don't know his reason but it's at least possible that he was afraid that those his files and notes would reveal things he didn't want revealed. I grant you that's speculative, but I reject the notion that it's not historically relevant.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
Todd how do you know that this style of writing is immoral? To take anothers idea and manipulate it in whatever way you want. We do this as children when we learn from adults do we not? Are children being immoral when they do this?

Breaking a taboo is not actually immorality. Integrity is not something measured by social mores.

I imagine at some point in a conversation Sadler saw the revelators doing this and probably thought if they could do it why can't he?

I mean a lot of what Sadler takes is factual information. Do we hold any ability to place a copyright on the truth? If someone speaks the truth, then that truth is not theirs to hold onto.

To share is to be god-like. What is more moral to share the truth freely, or to say to another cannot use the words you used to express that truth even though they fit perfectly because you thought of it before they did.

You can't claim intellectual property over truth.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
There is nothing immoral about taking anothers idea as your own. Everyone does it. It has become a taboo in our society. Taboo does not always equal sin. Jesus shattered taboos and tradition. A social and religion consciousness makes this an impossible thing avoid.

Quote:
4. THE FACT OF EXPERIENCE

102:4.1 Because of the presence in your minds of the Thought Adjuster, it is no more of a mystery for you to know the mind of God than for you to be sure of the consciousness of knowing any other mind, human or superhuman. Religion and social consciousness have this in common: They are predicated on the consciousness of other-mindness. The technique whereby you can accept another’s idea as yours is the same whereby you may “let the mind which was in Christ be also in you.”

102:4.2 What is human experience? It is simply any interplay between an active and questioning self and any other active and external reality. The mass of experience is determined by depth of concept plus totality of recognition of the reality of the external. The motion of experience equals the force of expectant imagination plus the keenness of the sensory discovery of the external qualities of contacted reality. The fact of experience is found in self-consciousness plus other-existences—other-thingness, other-mindness, and other-spiritness.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
ubizmo wrote:
Wishful? Personally, I'd prefer to believe that the UB is authentic celestially authored revelation. As for historical evidence, Sadler's lack of integrity is now as well documented as anything of the sort could be. Matthew Block also points out that Dr. Sadler "apparently destroyed nearly all of his personal and professional files, leaving historians little to go on." Why would he do that? We are told that he was under orders from the Revelators to destroy all manuscripts and notes pertaining to the UB, so that's understandable, and would have been done by the time of publication in 1955. But why destroy all the files? Usually people destroy records for a reason. We don't know his reason but it's at least possible that he was afraid that those his files and notes would reveal things he didn't want revealed. I grant you that's speculative, but I reject the notion that it's not historically relevant.


This reminds me of what the Urantia Book says about Jesus having had destroyed all writings written by himself.

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
lwatkins wrote:
Absolutely not. First, there was no testimony, Dr. Sadler made personal comments. Testimony has legal connotations which don't apply to this fuzzy controversy. Second, the main reason most intelligent people recognize revelatory material is because they've read it, not because their decisions are based on the opinions of others.


What we know about the sleeping subject, that the sleeping subject even existed in the first place, is primarily from William S. Sadler. Furthermore, it lends credibility to the revelation that he was a former minister, a respected psychiatrist, and a known debunker of psychic phenomena who only after years of investigation came to believe in the authenticity of the revelation. The professional integrity of Sadler has been cited numerous times by Urantians as a reason for believing his account of how the papers originated, including A History of the Urantia Papers by Larry Mullins.

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google Feedfetcher


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group