The Astral Pulse
News: http://www.astralpulse.com/aup.html. Acceptable Use Policy for the forums. Please read and ensure that you respect these policies. Thank you.

Please note that due to the amount of spam posts we have been receiving over the past few months, we have switched Registration to require you to be approved by a moderator.  We will go through the approval list as often as we can, but if it's been 24 hours and you haven't been Approved yet or you've received a rejection email, please email myself or one of the moderators immediately so we may correct the application.

We apologize for any inconveniences this may cause, but it's the last resort we have to fighting the spam for now.
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 30, 2016, 01:21:19


Login with username, password and session length


  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 52 ... 84
1151  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: so first rule of AP. you dont talk about ap hahah on: May 08, 2011, 00:21:04
Quote
There is nothing to stop anyone from starting The New Age Mumbo-Jumbo Clinic for Personality Disorder Research.

Mainly funding. Those who gather enough personal capitol to do the research themselves, like Monroe and Charles Tart struggle and struggle with keeping their enterprise afloat, and even when they produce seemingly repeatable results, it is still difficult to get legitimate attention, since what they are suggesting is occurring is so far off of what the community as a whole is willing to accept. Case in point- project PEAR at Princeton was apparently producing very rigorous statistics over literally millions of trials that seemed to imply that human conscious choice could remotely affect random events in the physical world to a very slight but statisticly significant and consistent degree. Now if this is true, there should have been a dozen follow-up studies in parallel at other universities and labs, but there were none- only attempts to write off the findings. There is a very real barrier that keeps alternative views from being entertained if they are far enough outside of the accepted pail.

Quote
Reagan?! How is a guy who hasn't been president for over 20 years somehow relevant to a discussion about contemporary treatment options? What did Clinton do to rectify the action? Nothing. And it isn't even a back burner issue for the present president. Why not complain about them?

Oh yes, every president since is just as guilty for not reversing the budget cuts. I merely mention Reagan since it happened under his watch and guidance, and that changes that occur under one president are rarely changed immediately, since it takes so much effort to get Congress to change their position again. None of the Democrats really liked the concept of Homeland Security, yet with Obama now in office, there is very little talk of repealling it; political changes are long and laborious, unfortunately.

Quote
beyond that, in practice, the only mental health treatments that get supported are the ones that make money.  do you really think that the reason psychology and psychiatry prescribe more medications than ever before is because the meds really work!?  bullcrap.  it''s like that because that's where the money is.

Yes, I am going to have to go with Personal reality again. The pharmaceutical turst is a powerful lobbying gorup, and has made a billion-dollar industry out of railroading drugs through a now-toothless FDA. Cognitve approaches may be just as effective or even significantly more effective, but you can't prudce good cognitiveists in a factory like you can the doctor in a bottle.
1152  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Take it easy guys. on: May 07, 2011, 23:10:04
Quote
But I didn't want to put words in your mouth so I asked you directly, out of courtesy, twice -- and you still won't give a direct answer.


Then I apologize. I did not mean to be indirect- I try to address serious questions as I see them.

Quote
Why do you say "I am advocating not getting involved in unecessary wars"? No one is advocating for such insanity. Why advocate against something no one has said?


This point hinges on whether or not you view the Middle-eastern wars as necessary. Your statement is that no one is arguing for such insanity (meaning arguing for fighting in a war that is not necessary). Obviously no one is going to advocate a war that they themselves consider unecessary, but what a person themselves believes and what may be true in an absolute sense, or in the views of others, are very different things. Consider the situation if I hold the view that the Middle-eastern wars were not necessary, and you hold that they are. Then in this situation, from my perspective you would indeed be advocating for a war I deemed unnecessary. Since most people believe in the opinion they support publically, then what is required is merely a difference in opinion and perspective for this to be a true statement (that from one perspective you are arguing for a war that is unnecessary). I did not mention the perspective part, since perspective is inherent in any situation in our reality, but if you don't notice this fact about perspective, it is possible to mis-interpret the statement, I suppose.


Quote
There you go again. I never said anything about any pacifists out to get me.

It was a joke. You have mentioned pacifisim and your distaste for it perhaps a dozen times at this point. I was making a joke about the fact that no one has yet come out and identified themselves as a pacifist, but that you still mention it countless times. It was not intended as a serious remark.

Quote
There you go again. I did not say that these wars were not as bad as Vietnam or any other recent conflict and I presented no such argument to justify them.

I think the common thread in all of the points you made this post was in not recognizing context and implication in statements. You never mentioned the Vietnam conflict per se, but notice you did say this:

Quote
Every 170th soldier dies? That's like half a percent. I think relative to past wars that is almost zero.

Now when you make a comparative statement like this, saying that the percentage of deaths is almost zero, it only makes sense in context of comparison. For instance, if I said every 170th person on earth dies every minute, it would not make sense to retort that this was almost zero, since at that rate, everyone on earth is dead in under 3 hours or so. So to say that 1 in 170 is near zero in the case of war casualties, there must be another conflict you are comparing it to as a baseline, and if not Vietname per se, some other similar large-causualty conflict is implied. So while you did not mention a certain conflict, the structure of your argument necessarily made it implicit.
1153  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: so first rule of AP. you dont talk about ap hahah on: May 07, 2011, 18:46:59
Well, the almost insurmountable obstacle you would face trying that is the prevailing scientific paradigm. The scientific community today believes almost unanomously in materialism (all of reality is explained by physical matter), and materialism does not leave any room at all for considering that everything out of the ordinary a schizophrenic experiences is not a hallucination- it is pretty much assumed at the outset. So you will never get funding for such an endeavor, since the bodies who could support such research would view it as exploitation of the mentally ill to further half-baked new age mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in reality. Getting a university to pay for research like that is like trying to convince a Southern Baptist that maybe he should donate some of his salary toward promoting Hinduism; there is just too much ideological friction for it to work.
1154  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: so first rule of AP. you dont talk about ap hahah on: May 07, 2011, 17:42:53
Quote
This is a simulation of what it's like in the mind of a schizophrenic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s33Y5nI5Wbc

You're dead.

This seems pretty accurate for a paranoid schizophrenic. The severity and frequency of the hallucinations varies with the individual, and some may not have auditory experiences, but only visual ones. It really is very debilititating though, especially when a person is driven to question they're very reality.

You're dead.

I could see devices like that being useful in situations such as helping to train jury members for trials involving specific kinds of insanity defenses; juries today are quite reluctant to accept insanity, and we have prisons full of schizophrenics on one side of the institutional bars, and thousands and thousands on the streets now too, thanks to Reagan's cuts to mental health programs.

You're dead.
1155  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Take it easy guys. on: May 07, 2011, 17:26:55
Quote
Quote from: personalreality on Today at 03:20:03
Quote
I don't even know how we ended up talking global politics!  lol.
I know...

*Points the finger at Stillwater*


Yeah... probably is my fault. cry

Quote
Pacifism is tantamount to suicide.

This is the third or fourth time you have decried pacifism; I have not seen anyone else mention pacisfism or advocate it yet. I am advocating not getting involved in unecessary wars, that does not at all equate to pacisfism, but rather a rejection of a jingoist outlout; you are speaking so adamently about propaganda, and one form of propaganda is to distort the statements and opinions of others into much more extreme versions of what they purport.

Quote
I do not believe the 'civilian casualty' numbers repeated by pacifists.


These are reported by the U.S. government. I don't know who these shadow pacifists are who are curiously enough out to get you. The most liberal studies by groups like the New York Times put the numbers into the millions of civilian casualties; going by the official government numbers (which are the most conservative of all the reports) still brings us to 200,000 or so between the two wars.

Quote
Every 170th soldier dies? That's like half a percent. I think relative to past wars that is almost zero. Ipso facto, the Congress providing the soldier with the best training and equipment pays off in lower casualty rates. Nothing capricious about that.

Saying that these wars were not as bad as Vietnam or any other recent conflict is not an argument sufficient to justify them. An analogy would be to say that I would not mind getting AIDS since it is not nearly as bad as the Ebola virus. And these are only the U.S. losses we are talking about in this particualr statement. The civilian numbers are horrendous by the most conservative of any reports. Potentially 1 out of every 30 Iraqi civilians has been injured or killed.
1156  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Take it easy guys. on: May 07, 2011, 08:41:38
Quote
If going to war means people will get hurt,


Yes... yes it does wink. Is there really a question, with hundreds of thousands of heavily armed men shooting at one another constantly, that someone will be hurt?

Quote
(assuming your bs propaganda is true)


Where does propaganda enter into this? Every 170th soldier that has ever served in the Iraqi and Afghan wars has been killed there(1.3 million have served, 7600 have died); the number of very serious injuries is approxiamately 3 times this number, and around every 40th soldier has been shot. The number of reported civilain deaths between the wars is somewhere between 200,000 to over a million, depending on which reporting body you ask. These stats are presented to us by the U.S. government. These are very cold facts. Propaganda implies incendiary statements with clear intended bias to persuade; presenting the very figures the government has given us can hardly be considered propagand against the government.


Quote
60 year old men are usually physically incapable of doing the tasks required of soldiers in battle. Seriously, get a grip here. Many of the men in Congress are retired military. They KNOW what they are asking the troops to do.

It was a joke, keeping in mind the discussion it was contextual to. But that does still does not mean that 60-year-old men should be so capricious with the lives of so many soldiers and civilians, regardless of who they are.
1157  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Take it easy guys. on: May 07, 2011, 00:39:24
Quote
When terrorists flew airplanes into building and killed thousands of innocent people ... we should have shot every tenth representative after funding the war on terror?

Every 40th soldier or so on the ground was shot (and hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed and injured), why not shoot some of the guys who sent them? They can dish it out, but they can't take it? Some members of congress are a bit too distanced from the realities they help bring to fruition when they make their decisions.
1158  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Take it easy guys. on: May 06, 2011, 22:15:52
I think that is part of the issue too though, politics is not a binary issue, despite what our 2-party system has drilled into people in the U.S., and politicians don't have clear-cut party lines voting records. If they do, they are yes-people who worship the soveigrnity of their controling groups.

Obama, for instance, is far from a party-lines sort of person. His ideas in many areas are really quite conservative, when it comes to military action and corporate law and iterests. At best, he is a middle of the road moderate; he is one of the most plain vanilla politicians out there today. So if you branded yourself a hardcore liberal, that means there still would not have been a candidate that represented your views in the 2008 election. And when you don't have someone who represents your views, you look around at others; you find the other major party's candidate has very little in common with your ideas, and you are placed on the fence about voting for either the generic person your favored party has put up, or throwing away your vote making a statement voting for an unknown party that will get .3% of the vote.

Yes- most of the political ads are aimed at simpletons who have no rational basis for voting for one person or another, and will vote for the person who's ads show them the shiniest lies at the critical moment; but that absolutely does mean once you figure out your core beliefs, you should step out of an evalulative mind-set, and align your votes to the group that best approximates those beliefs. I think a better solution would be to break away from our party-identity system, and have literally 10 or more candidates who have radically different views; that system would have its own issues too, since it would sometimes have potential for giving power to the largest minority of radicals, but it would have many advantages as well.
1159  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Strange Emissions by the Sun are Mutating Matter on: May 06, 2011, 19:29:08
That is a damn big stretch. Our sun is not nearly large enough to be the sort of star that collapses into a black hole... some pretty jazzy physics magic would need to go down for that to be possible. Not saying it could never happen, but it sounds wayyyy out there. If a series of events happened in our solar system such that the sun were rendered capable of becoming a black hole, it is pretty much a certainty that the changes would have killed us far in advance of being rocketed into the a black hole; our existence here on earth is dependent upon the finest of circumstances being balanced just right more or less continuously. There are tons of things like the physical constants that would kill us off if they deviated even .0001%. We are like the cosmos' most fickle and difficult-to-care-for aquarium. And if we are already dead before the earth is sucked into the black hole, why would that even be necessary for a "4th dimension" transfer?
1160  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Take it easy guys. on: May 06, 2011, 19:20:00
Yeah, Plato liked more of a paternalistic government. He did not go for group rule, since he felt that the only people that should rule are the people best suited to it- his "philospher kings", haha. In theory, if it was thoroughly unatrractive to rule, you would only be recruiting those who feared power falling into the wrong hands otherwise. He also believed in state-censorship too. His version of ideal governemnt probably equates to fascism in many peoples eyes today.  cool
1161  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Take it easy guys. on: May 06, 2011, 18:43:19
If you read Plato's Republic, he explains that positions of leadership should be extremely unattractive and with no perks or benefits, and that therefore you will only attract people who want the position because they are afraid of someone else having it, and doing a much worse job, and causing harm as a result.

In line with this, anytime I have been in a leading position in any organization that was worthwhile or meaningful to me, it has always been tons of work, and not any fun, which is absolutely how it should be.  wink

Sometimes I feel like they should make it 80 times less fun to be the president here in the U.S. Like the whitehouse is actually a big hovel made out of dirt blocks and scraps of rubish, and everytime you wakeup, your secretary of state is there waiting and punches you in the face, and then there is a drill sargent in the next room who screams at you for all the mistakes you made, and tells you that you can ring this big bell when you are finally ready to quit.

Or maybe when Congress decides to go to war, they shoot every tenth congressman, so they are sure they really mean it.
1162  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Osama Bin Laden's Primary Focus No Longer F1! on: May 06, 2011, 16:05:39
Quote
there isn't literally a "place" of different focus that we enter into.

Yes, but then that is not how the model works anyhow. It is not like there is the F21 plane, and the F27 plane, etc. Monroe just made these numbers up to explain various mental states by the features they appear to have, and assigned them numbers along what appeared to be a loose continuum. F numbers are less about places, and more about psychological experiences of individuals; and at the end of the day it is just that anyhow- a model that does not purport to be reality, but merely to make a first attempt at explaining it.
1163  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Take it easy guys. on: May 06, 2011, 15:58:28
That makes sense stookie.

1164  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Strange Emissions by the Sun are Mutating Matter on: May 06, 2011, 03:41:14
This particular article was slightly strangley worded in some cases, but quite interesting as well.

I don't believe in this 2012 eschatology stuff, but if I did need to pick a method of delievery, the increasing solar-flare activity that has been observed of late does seem like a very good candiate.

But as Xanth hinted, with this particular situation it is hard to say if this is really a special event, since we have only recently developed the instruments sophisticated enough to carbon date or to meaure quantum solar effects, so we have no real data history to compare the current times to. At least with hurricanes, we can look through a few hundred years of records to see if we are exceptional or not, but with this stuff, who can say, if the meters have only be running for decades?
1165  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: no offense but the energy on: May 06, 2011, 03:27:53
This is like the third or fourth "your dirty vibes are ruining my yoga practice" topic I have run into in the past week; I am starting to worry. Maybe there is a lot of rage and bile being dispensed in a corner of the forum I never read; maybe new-comers are just having bad run-ins, I am not sure. But you are definitely not the first to say this, and I am puzzled why.

I guess my advice is to not allow 2 or 3 bad exchanges or forum arguments ruin your experience- any community has its less cordial members, or its ill moments; there are also a lot of people here that are exceptionally caring, thoughtful, tolerant, and knowledegable, and a lot is to be learned from collaberation in a subject like this. I apologize for any bad time you might have had, but I am definitely also saying don't leave merely on that account.
1166  Energy Body and The Chakras / Welcome to Energy Body and The Chakras / Re: what do you eat? on: May 06, 2011, 03:02:31
Quote
So, your point is that the global economy is suffering because people eat meat?


Yes, actually, in the sense that there is less engergy and signifcantly less food to go around while supporting a livestock system, by the nature of engery passed on at each level of the tropic food-chain. For every person you can feed with the engery and labor needed to raise enough animal weight to feed them, you can literally feed dozens upon dozens, and potentially even hundreds of people, based upon what crops are grown with those same resources.
1167  Energy Body and The Chakras / Welcome to Energy Body and The Chakras / Re: what do you eat? on: May 05, 2011, 08:27:27
Quote
because of some silly religious or cultural belief.


I will quote... myself... of 5 posts back  grin Religion is not even a part of where I coming from. It has been irrefutably established that the livestock industry is one of the absolute top causes of world hunger, and a principle source of world pollution and energy consumption. Merely for the unarguable good of other people on earth, and of future generations, it is a responsible choice to give up eating meat, or to even eat less. If with this understanding, you choose to eat meat, that is a personal choice, like driving an SUV to work, but don't dismiss reasonable, scientific facts by calling them religious mumbo-jumbo not worthy of your time. You can say that other people's wellfare is not a top priority to you, and it would be an understandable position in some ways, as you can either choose to spend your time caring about others, or do your own thing, but don't paint blatant facts to be "religious people stuff". It makes sense to me that one could say it was not a compelling argument to them, since they are focuesed on their own personal exerperiences, but to say it was not a rationalistic, factual-based argument can only be ignorant.

Quote
There are economic arguments to make as well. Consider all the bio-matter that must be cultivated, transported, and distributed in order to feed and raise an animal to kill. The cost of all the produce it eats is hundreds of times the nutritional value of its meat. If we put the same resources we put toward raising livestock into producing vegetables and grain, we could feed the entire world many times over, rather than just barely, and having many in constant starvation. There are also massive quantities of energy consumed and pollution resulting from keeping the volume of livestock we do. It has been said that given a choice between getting rid of every motor vehicle in the country, and getting rid of the livestock industry, the latter choice would be vastly more beneficial in terms of energy and pollution.


1168  Energy Body and The Chakras / Welcome to Energy Body and The Chakras / Re: what do you eat? on: May 05, 2011, 03:36:08
Quote
The only good reason to not eat meat is if you didn't like the taste of it

Again, a significantly biased claim. It is okay to say it is a manner of opinion and choice, and that there is debate involved, since it is not a black and white issue; but to flat out say that there are no reasons of any kind to support a decision otherwise, and to say that the other side of the discussion has made no counterpoints is not only willful ignorance of rational arguments, it is also lying to yourself and lying to others.
1169  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: so first rule of AP. you dont talk about ap hahah on: May 04, 2011, 23:17:16
Looks like it is time for people to stay awhile and listen.

Here, take a seat- no really, take a seat; take a seat!
1170  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Osama Bin Laden's Primary Focus No Longer F1! on: May 04, 2011, 23:13:15
Lol... somehow that is funny to me. I think you probably rightfully earned the virus to deal with for an evening if you clicked on a link looking for Osama's body.
1171  Energy Body and The Chakras / Welcome to Energy Body and The Chakras / Re: what do you eat? on: May 04, 2011, 20:26:40
I think it is necessary to twist a lot of the facts in a grievously biased way, however, to say that it is the same to eat plants and animals, and that the treatment each receive are equivalent. As has been mentioned, animals kept on most farms are more or less in constant torture. And people do differentiate between how they treat lifeforms of different kinds of development, based on their perceived mental experiences; case in point- most people don't feel bad about stepping on an ant, but would think twice about crushing a dog under a giant dumpster.

There are economic arguments to make as well. Consider all the bio-matter that must be cultivated, transported, and distributed in order to feed and raise an animal to kill. The cost of all the produce it eats is hundreds of times the nutritional value of its meat. If we put the same resources we put toward raising livestock into producing vegetables and grain, we could feed the entire world many times over, rather than just barely, and having many in constant starvation. There are also massive quantities of energy consumed and pollution resulting from keeping the volume of livestock we do. It has been said that given a choice between getting rid of every motor vehicle in the country, and getting rid of the livestock industry, the latter choice would be vastly more beneficial in terms of energy and pollution.

It is indeed a lifestyle choice, but I think it is a vast misrepresenttion of reality to say it does not matter which you choose, and that there are no other consequences for the world.
1172  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: so first rule of AP. you dont talk about ap hahah on: May 04, 2011, 08:41:43
Quote
you just have to find the terminology that they are comfortable with, the language of their culture.  it works well.

Yes, this is absolutely essential when having a discussion with people of other faiths and views.

For instance, when speaking with people of the Abrahamic religions, when inevitably asked if I "believe in God", I almost always say yes. Most precisely, my status with respect to a deity is agnosticism, but I believe strongly in a systematic line of ethics and compassionate treatment of other beings, and in metaphysical realities- to most Abrahamic people, the term for this and the method of recognizing it in others is belief in God, since this is how they approach these concepts, but when I say God, to myself I mean the aforementioned ethical and metaphysical concepts, rather than a deity per se. The reason is pretty simple- for many of these folks, you either believe in God and the whole kit-and-kaboodle, or you are an atheist, pure and simple, and if you are an atheist, you have no values in their eyes at all.

Not all of this group think that way, naturally, but a significant number do. I have found this to be especially true of many Muslims; a surefire way to start ill feelings and arguments up is to say you don't believe in God when asked; I try to stress the similarities with them between what they value and I do, and to point out that the differences are generally matters of language and approach, and not concept; the end result is generally they assure me I am a follower of God, and not a lost cause, but probably some kind of heretic as well. Goodtimes. If I wanted to talk about concepts like projection, and non-physical beings, for instance, it is the absolute best approach to start talking about Muhammed's meditations in the cave, and the realm of the Djin Allah created, and the Sufi's travels, since this is the lens they are prepeared to view mysticism through.

And the same for Catholics. Very few of them will like talk of what we practice here- it smacks of devil-play; on the other hand, connect it to the visions of the saints, and their communion with God, and the concept is suddenly far more accessible. Cultural context is everything.
1173  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Re: God's Wife on: May 04, 2011, 08:06:20
The Israelites and the Canaanites had several versions of a supreme God prior to Yahweh, and one of the last before his arrival was married to a ruthless and vengeful goddess, and was pretty fearsome himself. The Israelites went back to the drawing board and decided that guy wasn't who they had in mind, I guess. It is also with this earlier version that the Adam and Eve story originates, not alongside Yahweh, although even that genesis story had earlier derivations.
1174  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Adult baby on: May 04, 2011, 07:52:47
........

................

Interesting... lol.

Adults who lead structured fantasy lives around pretending to be babies, and hire people to care for them...

When I read the title, I was hoping for the opposite- babies which somehow developed pseudo-adult features and thought patterns to match... that would have actually been remarkable. This is... different, haha  rolleyes
1175  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Osama Bin Laden's Primary Focus No Longer F1! on: May 04, 2011, 01:34:41
Quote
What does the government have to gain?

Symbolic value. This guy holds a lot of weight in manipulating mass public opinion. Let's assume that things did happen as has been reported to the media; doesn't it seem really convenient that the guy all of this war business was supposedly inspired by is killed not immediately, but nine full years after the fact? They can have the war for as long as they want, do what they want to do, build bases here, intimidate OPEC oil markets there, and then pack up it and leave at the end of the day, a decade later, and say, "Oh look, the guy is chillng out over here in Pakistan a few dozen miles from us, eating falafel", and nab him on the way out. The military can do what it wants for as long as it wants, and then say it was all justified at the end. They can tell the public the ends justified the means- we did what we can to do, etc. Meanwhile, they may have known exactly where he was at all times for a decade, and they were just waiting till they were through with everything else.

Again, not saying there was necessarily foul-play here, but you can't just accept that what O'Reily or anyone else says every night is the full story; mobilizing actual resources (labor, funding) through the control of social resources (public belief/support and motivation) is the entire picture of world politics. Lots of people play the game, and plenty don't play fair. For this reason alone, and not on the basis of any conspiracy theories, you cannot take anything that happens in the greater political theatre at assumed face-value.
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 52 ... 84
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums


The Astral Pulse Copyright 2002 - 2014
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM