Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
12 crawler(s) on-line.
 102 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 saipaman4366

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 saipaman4366:  1 min ago
 Beajar:  20 mins ago
 Rob:  22 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  1 hr 25 mins ago
 agami:  1 hr 25 mins ago
 RobertB:  1 hr 45 mins ago
 OlafS25:  2 hrs 35 mins ago
 Bruce72:  2 hrs 37 mins ago
 MEGA_RJ_MICAL:  3 hrs 24 mins ago
 t0lkien:  3 hrs 29 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )
PosterThread
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 13:13:56
#1781 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Thought you might like this. During the civil war some soliders had glowing wounds. Those soliders had a better rate of healing than non-glowing soliders. This effect was labled as 'Angel's Glow'. Turns out there is a reason for this. It wasn't angels. (Or as you might say Angels are really ET, they just didn't know it.) It was a worm.
http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/glowing-wounds/

What I think we see here is a good example of how an explaination wasn't available people readily assigned an other worldly cause. The truth was not that the other wordly cause existed. The truth was a cause of another lifeform here on earth itself. There was not angel nor was there a confusion that the angel was really ET.

Or in short - just another 'God of the Gaps' explaination. Or more properly in your world view 'ET of the Gaps'.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 13:40:20
#1782 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5895
From: Work

@Lou

Ok, I'll grant you the samarium-146 change was bigger than the lead-lead dating difference. But if you go back to the article you see this little part:

Quote:
This does make for some interesting shake-ups in the chronology of Earth’s formation, at least for work that relied solely on the samarium-146 clock. Those dates will shift closer to the initiation of planet formation, with some moving as much as 80 million years. For the most part, though, this seems to be more about tidying up the books than reworking timelines. The updated half-life brings samarium-146 dates in line with other decay series. So for events that were dated using multiple series, this merely erases the question marks surrounding that discrepancy.


Do you know any actual implications of improving this method? From your post it sounds like improving the sm-nd chronology is a bad thing?

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 14:59:39
#1783 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Thought you might like this. During the civil war some soliders had glowing wounds. Those soliders had a better rate of healing than non-glowing soliders. This effect was labled as 'Angel's Glow'. Turns out there is a reason for this. It wasn't angels. (Or as you might say Angels are really ET, they just didn't know it.) It was a worm.
http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/glowing-wounds/

What I think we see here is a good example of how an explaination wasn't available people readily assigned an other worldly cause. The truth was not that the other wordly cause existed. The truth was a cause of another lifeform here on earth itself. There was not angel nor was there a confusion that the angel was really ET.

Or in short - just another 'God of the Gaps' explaination. Or more properly in your world view 'ET of the Gaps'.

I love your anecdotal take on the ET phenomenon. Of course it is useless, but what ever floats your boat...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 15:01:31
#1784 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote:
@Lou

Ok, I'll grant you the samarium-146 change was bigger than the lead-lead dating difference. But if you go back to the article you see this little part:

Quote:
This does make for some interesting shake-ups in the chronology of Earth’s formation, at least for work that relied solely on the samarium-146 clock. Those dates will shift closer to the initiation of planet formation, with some moving as much as 80 million years. For the most part, though, this seems to be more about tidying up the books than reworking timelines. The updated half-life brings samarium-146 dates in line with other decay series. So for events that were dated using multiple series, this merely erases the question marks surrounding that discrepancy.


Do you know any actual implications of improving this method? From your post it sounds like improving the sm-nd chronology is a bad thing?

If you tell me that the half-life of element X is 1 million years, I would like you to name the scientist that was around that long to take the measurement...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 15:37:03
#1785 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
The evidence was provided in this generally addressed post. AKA you are once again proven wrong.
If you learned to read, and then took the trouble to read my respons you will realise that I already agreed that there was a lot of ice melting at the end of the last ice age, and as a consequence the dogger hills are still under the North sea between England and mainland Europe, so yes there was a flood and it still hasn't gone away. But how does the existence of the British Isles prove the presence of ET's.

Quote:
I said gravity was a side-effect of EM, you said no. I proved you wrong.
Correction, You made an unsupported assertion that you were right, and your evidence that you are right is the fact that you said you were right. It is called circular logic and is a favourite ploy of the uneducated in a futile attempt to appear erudite. EM has both positive and negative charge which in the macroscopic scale cancels out. Gravity by contrast is entirely additive and there is no cancellation.

Quote:
I said EM is ORDERS of MAGNITUTE stronger than gravity, you said no. I proved you wrong.
Correction, You made an unsupported assertion that you were right, and your evidence that you are right is the fact that you said you were right. It is called circular logic and is a favourite ploy of the uneducated in a futile attempt to appear erudite. You totally failed to post a single relevant mathematical equation to support your statement, failed to account for random magnetic fields of the planets of the solar system, failed to account for planetary rotation axes that are tilted both in relation to the magnetic field of the sun and even their own magnetic fields (if any), and failed to account for the orbit of a planet in a nearby solar system that orbits its sun in the opposite direction of the rotating magnetic field.

Quote:
I said there was a big flood according to Sumerian texts around 12K BC, you said myth. I proved you wrong.
Correction, You made an unsupported assertion that you were right, and your evidence that you are right is the fact that you said you were right. It is called circular logic and is a favourite ploy of the uneducated in a futile attempt to appear erudite. The Sumerian flood myth, like many other flood myths including the biblical myth that derives from the Sumerian myth, have the waters receeding after a few weeks. The rise in sea levels that accompanied the end of the last ice age have not yet receeded. That makes the stories told by Sitchin simply that. Stories told to children to stop them asking questions for which the adult does not know the answer. Tablet 11 of the epic of Gilgamesh, like the Hebrew storiy of Noah, is set around 2750 to 2500 BC. It was the calculations of these dates together with the claimed ages and and supposed family histories that led James Ussher to give a creation date of October 23, 4004BC. As a consequence of this your margin of error is 10,000 years on an age of less than 5,000 years. Learning starts when people have the honesty to look at the evidence first, then reach a conclusion based on the evidence.

Quote:
I said using decay to date things has a HIGH margin of error ... etc ... I was right.
Correction, You made an unsupported assertion that you were right, and your evidence that you are right is the fact that you said you were right. It is called circular logic and is a favourite ploy of the uneducated in a futile attempt to appear erudite. While I accept that the levels of accuracy have increased over the years as a result of the advances in electronics, the earlier results were far from the random numbers that you would like them to have been. The results are certainly far more accurate than the fantasies touted by Sitchin in his attempts to pass invented stories as translations of ancient writings. The other thing that you fail to realise is that scientists draw from more than one source of evidence when they put theories up for peer review. They do not pick the result that they want, and ignore any and all evidence that does not support their predetermined view of what the world should be like.

Quote:
Are you and BrianK and any other pundit starting to see a patern yet?
Strangely enough, I do begin to see a pattern. Lou makes unsupported assertions that Lou is right, and his evidence that he is right is that Lou says that Lou is right.
Instead of making blind unsupported assertions, instead of posting links to other people making blind unsupported assertions, why don't you post some actual real and tangible E V I D E N C E

Lets just sum this up:

Nirmod, a user who's username is apparently quite fitting, is too old a dog to learn new trick and to stubborn a man to admit Lou is right about anything and would much rather live in has happy place, the state of absolute denial so that he can foolishly claim he won in the internet. He could also also be suffering from Alzheimer's disease because he keeps repeating claims that Lou has provided no evidence, despite the opposite being true. That or apparently Nimrod can justify this claim because he is only referencing the message he is replying to rather than the actual fact that evidence has actually been posted in prior posts. Hence if Lou doesn't reference all his evidence in all his posts each and every time, Nimrod makes the claim that Lou posted no evidence.

I think that about covers it!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 16:30:46
#1786 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

BrianK's take: fairies.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 17:51:59
#1787 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
I love your anecdotal take on the ET phenomenon. Of course it is useless, but what ever floats your boat...
You are the one telling us that Gods depicted on ancient artificats aren't really Gods but ET. Also early you posted that angels were ETs just misunderstood at the time. IMO it's the own uselessness of your guesses that you're hoping floats something.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 18:31:55
#1788 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
If you tell me that the half-life of element X is 1 million years, I would like you to name the scientist that was around that long to take the measurement...
If you have to take your shoes and socks off to count past ten, and undo a zipper to reach 21, you will not understand the existence of something called mathematics. One part of this branch of human knowledge is something called the exponential function. In a system exhibiting steady growth it is possible to calculate how long it will take until the original figure has been doubled. Likewise in a system of steady decay the halving time can also be calculated. The amazing thing about mathematics is that it enables people to measure all sorts of things indirectly, for example nobody has walked to the middle of the sun with a length of knotted string and yet we know how far away the sun is. For your information a radioactive source that reduces its radiation count by 0.007% at the end of one year will take 1 million years to become half as radioactive as at the start. The principle of stable stochastic decay has been proven mathematically, and also demonstrated using isotopes with short half lives. Just as you claimed gravity was a figment of the imagination when it disproved the existence of your fantasy invisible planet, I suppose that you will now claim that mathematics is also nothing but a con trick.

Quote:
Nirmod, a user who's username is apparently quite fitting, is too old a dog to learn new trick and to stubborn a man to admit Lou is right about anything
I would be delighted to admit to you being correct about something, but as yet there is absolutely no evidence that you have been anything other than totally undeniably absolutely irrefutably wrong. The reason I dismiss your unsupported assertions is not because I am in denial, as you claim. From the link that you posted is the following line Quote:
Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence
I reject your so called evidence because it directly contradicts mathematical logical and observational analysis. Not only do you fail to provide proof for your assertions, but they can readily be disproven. You claim overwhelming evidence yet your claims require light to slow to 0.0035C every time it comes near an atom and protons to have a mass of 800 tonnes. Added to this, your failure to grasp the basic principles of electromotive force is laughable. Until you understand the basics, all of your arguments are built on shaky foundations and are shown again and again to be "castles in the air"

Quote:
He could also also be suffering from Alzheimer's disease because he keeps repeating claims that Lou has provided no evidence
This is not the first time that you have made this claim in order to try to discredit me personally in a feeble attempt to detract from your own indefensible position, however I will repeat my previous response. If you have posted a successful refutation of mathematics on this site please repost your evidence as I cannot find any evidence of anything other than your own ignorance of the basics of science, and the differences between fact and opinion or between learning and dogma.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 19:06:38
#1789 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:
This is not the first time that you have made this claim...

Really? I'm suprised you remembered at all...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 19:49:25
#1790 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Quote:
This is not the first time that you have made this claim...

Really? I'm suprised you remembered at all...
Remembered what?


Joking aside, I explained to you in June of last year that I have a retentive memory and an alalytical mind.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 19:52:28
#1791 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
[quote]This is not the first time that you have made this claim...

Really? I'm suprised you remembered at all...
Remembered what?


Joking aside, I explained to you in June of last year that I have a retentive memory and an alalytical mind.
[/quote]
I can't tell...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 11-Apr-2012 20:05:26
#1792 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Quote:
Joking aside, I explained to you in June of last year that I have a retentive memory and an alalytical mind.
I can't tell...

Which probably demonstrates that you have neither of these benefits.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 12-Apr-2012 11:46:23
#1793 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

BrianK's take: fairies.

Since these properties are all the same for fairies we must ask if the observers, which only had indirect observation at best, weren't simply mistaken.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 13-Apr-2012 1:27:59
#1794 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1JDMToJDe0

Skip to 1h:10m

Nassim Haramein solves everything.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 13-Apr-2012 10:52:38
#1795 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5895
From: Work

@Lou

So you don't know what half-life means, then?
If something has a half-life, it must also have a quarter-life, a 1/100th life and a 1/1000000th. But also a three-quarter-life, a 99/100th life and a 999999/1000000th life. If you can measure X amount of radiation in one year it's not very difficult to calculate how much radiation you would have in 1, 4.5 or 68 million years. Any error in the measurement of one years radiation will obviously be multiplied up along the way, but that's an error in measurement, not an error in the scientific theory of half-life chronology.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 13-Apr-2012 12:49:51
#1796 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote:
@Lou

So you don't know what half-life means, then?
If something has a half-life, it must also have a quarter-life, a 1/100th life and a 1/1000000th. But also a three-quarter-life, a 99/100th life and a 999999/1000000th life. If you can measure X amount of radiation in one year it's not very difficult to calculate how much radiation you would have in 1, 4.5 or 68 million years. Any error in the measurement of one years radiation will obviously be multiplied up along the way, but that's an error in measurement, not an error in the scientific theory of half-life chronology.

I don't know how long you've been following along but many, MANY pages back I posted a link about how many scientists were finding that published half-lifes of many isotopes were quite off. The latest link you read was just more fuel to the fire.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 13-Apr-2012 19:31:50
#1797 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
I don't know how long you've been following along but many, MANY pages back I posted a link about how many scientists were finding that published half-lifes of many isotopes were quite off.
You seem to assume that scientsts assume half-lifes were perfect. The truth is that half-lifes have published decay rates with error boundaries. It's these error boundaries that communicate the probability rates of predictions used from those methods.

Scientists, knowing there is no 100% certain test for age, also use multiple lines of evidence and multiple types of testing to help validate and verify the time period of an object.

Quote:
The latest link you read was just more fuel to the fire.
No it clearly was not!

Summary of the last link - previous generated error boundaries using the half life method gave an error of 400K on a prediction on 4.5Million. (Roughly an 88% accuracy). Using improved methods the error boundary has been tightened to 30K years on a prediction of 4.5 Million (Roughly a 99% accuracy.)

Though both rates are noteably higher rates of accuracy than someone's claim here that a mammoth of 10K years old proves a global flood happened 14K years ago. At best this is an error of 4K years on the 14K year prediction. (Roughly a 71% accuracy)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 13-Apr-2012 19:53:58
#1798 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1JDMToJDe0 Skip to 1h:10m
OK I did as you asked (Thanks for saving me from 70 minutes of this drivel) and I nearly wet myself laughing at the stuff this individual was spouting. The equations that he showed demonstrated that a black hole with the radius matching that of a proton would have a mass of 8.7x10^14g or 870,000,000 tonnes (I note that not only is his understanding of mathematics poor but his ability at arithmetic is such that his calculation is wrong giving a result of 8.9x10^14)

1h11m 21s says it all when he admits that he is off by a multiple of 10^38. that is to say his proton is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as massive as a real proton is. How does he resolve tha fact that he is wrong? Simple he makes up some crap for which he has no proof and asserts that he has squared the circle. What he has forgotten is that gravity is always additive and does not cancel in the way electrical charge does, and as a result the Earth would have sufficient mass to be a black hole itself, since its mass would be raised from its present 5.796x10^21 tonnes to approximately 6x10^59 tonnes. following the same mathematics used by Haramein the schwatzchild radius of this mass would be 8.9x10^31cm which is larger than the radius of this planet. Since the planet we live on is NOT a singularity I think it is safe to assume that Haramein has made a mistake in assuming that protons are mini black holes.

This moron struts around a stage thinking he is so clever making jokes but the clear evidence is all around him that we ere not in a black hole.

At 1h48m53s Haramein claims "I made a scale of the radius of an object against its mass" Since the volume is proportional to the radius cubed, his graph is basically plotting the cube root of the density of objects of different sizes. and as such would not plot as a straight line for real world masses having similar densities. This man is using numerological sleight of hand to tell lies. He cannot do basic arithmetic and his maths is totally false. The man has simply drawn a straight line graph, told you it proves something and you have blindly believed it simply because he told you that it proved that the whole structure of science was wrong and therefore your fantasies must be right. Having looked at the whole of his assertion I can categorically state that he is using false maths to falsely "prove" a false statement.

At 1:38:43 He makes the statement " a little too much and it is off" well his arithmetic has been shown to be incorrect so I can clearly state that his "maths" only works because his figures are wrong, which means that his scwartzchild proton CRAP is wrong and he has as little scientific credibility as Becher or Schiaparelli

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 14-Apr-2012 21:28:21
#1799 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Meanwhile, he is a published scientist and you, well, what are you called again?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 15-Apr-2012 2:22:30
#1800 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Meanwhile, he is a published scientist and you, well, what are you called again?

Name that Fallacy!
..
..
..
..
..
Bzzt Time's up it's - 'Argument from Authority'! ... Though it'd be nice if he had some actual evidence to establish Authority before you proclaim his authority.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle