Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Stower,

Quote

SC: And around in circles the merry-go-round travels.

MS: Only because you persist in snowing this board with worthless assertions.

SC: And all in a good cause, dear boy – to demonstrate the obvious flaws in your own argument that you are so blind to see yourself. Yes, it’s a dirty job but someone has to do it.

Quote

MS: So the full chain of hearsay is this:

Humphries Brewer ? William Marchant Brewer ? Helen-> Pattengill (née Brewer) ? Walter’s mother ? Walter M. Allen ? Zecharia Sitchin

SC: What? Are you having a giggle here or what? Surely you jest? Surely you understand the difference between a primary source and secondary source?

MS: This beggars belief.

Creighton,

You don’t have a primary source here. That’s what I’m pointing out to you.

SC: And once again, my point goes right over your head. I often wonder if you actually do this purposely? The POINT – which I am certain you well know – is that Sitchin merely made public the information passed down to Walter Allen and presented by Allen to Sitchin. If hearsay it is then it was not manufactured by Sitchin - Sitchin is merely making public what has been made known to him. Sitchin is merely reporting third party information of which he had no personal input to. It is not Sitchin's 'hearsay'. The primary source for Sitchin was Allen's document. Sitchin, in reading through Allen's document, would have realised it was a tradition passed down by word-of-mouth i.e. a family oral tradition and, as such, would have asked Allen for the original source (i.e. the Brewer letters etc). But these could not be found though I suspect, even if they had been, they would have been denounced by the Egypt-apologists here and elsewhere as lies.

Is it to be the case that because the original documents are in absentia that the later summary produced by Walter Allen is somehow inadmissible? I don't think so. If you want to travel that particular road then you'll be striking out much of the history of the world that is built on second-hand accounts whereby the original written material has been lost, destroyed or otherwise become unavailable. Just because a later document is based on earlier source material does not make the later account wrong.

Quote

MS: As usual, I suggest you learn what the term means.

SC: And, as usual, you merely demonstrate your ability and proclivity to lose the debate by scoring an own goal by your resorting, once again, to ad hominem remarks. I have little need to take any lessons in the use of the Queen’s English from you, thank you very much.

Quote

SC: Who first wrote the words "Faint marks were repainted, some were new"? Was it Walter Allen or was it Sitchin? Yes, Stower - it was Walter Allen.

MS: Oh. You know this, do you? You were looking over his shoulder, as he wrote them?

SC: Sitchin merely QUOTED Walter Allen.

MS: Oh. You know this, do you? You’ve seen the original document? You know that Sitchin reproduced it correctly?

SC: Oh, so it is all a big conspiracy Stower? Is THAT what you are insinuating here? Let me, once again, quote to you your own words:

Quote

The reality of the case is that they won’t. Why would they? To satisfy a few diehard conspiracy theorists? Who, being conspiracy theorists, wouldn’t be satisfied anyway. - Martin Stower

SC: So, Stower – even if Allen’s notes are proved to have been written by Allen, you still wouldn’t believe it, would you? If the original Brewer letters ever turned up you'd have them as fabrications, wouldn't you. Everyone else is a "conspiracy theorist" but not you. 'It was Sitchin wot dunnit, Guv!' Are you listening to yourself?

Quote

MS: You know that Sitchin correctly represented what Allen told him
about this document?

Seeing as how Sitchin waited until Allen was dead, before disclosing any of this material.

SC: And so the conspiracy rumbles on. I can see the epitaph - 'Here lies consensus Egyptology - reduced to defending its position by concocting outlandish conspiracy theories'. Once again, Stower – let me quote back to you, your own words:

Quote

You need to deal with things as they are, not as you think they must be. - Martin Stower

SC: As matters stand, Allen’s notes were written by Walter Allen. If you imagine some great conspiracy that they were actually written by Sitchin then present proof of it. Otherwise, “…deal with things as they are, not as you think they must be.” The Allen family (and the other McAlpine branch) were very keen (amateur) genealogists, documenting their family history going as far back as King Kenneth McAlpin of Scotland. I rather suspect that this interest was passed onto Walter Allen’s grand-daughter who should be able to confirm this (his daughter, a keen amateur genealogist herself, died prematurely of cancer). Why would Sitchin, knowing Walter Allen’s family research would most likely be passed down to someone else in the family who would very easily be able to call Sitchin’s bluff, have taken such a risk? Sitchin would have been insane to knowingly place himself in a position where he could easily be found out as a liar by the family concerned. The Allen family tradition didn't end with Walter Allen's death y'know.

Quote

MS: Tell me, Creighton, did Sitchin lie about the Hill facsimiles? A yes or no answer is suggested.

SC: Did Sitchin lie or did he have bad eyesight or was he misguided by poor printing in the books of Tricky Dicky and Perring? Look at the print in those books – the circles DO APPEAR as though they have centre dots. For whatever reason, Sitchin was expecting to see diagonal hatched lines and found horizontal ones instead (when he visited the BM to see Hill's facsimilies). So, what he actually found in Hill's drawings at the BM did not appear like the images in the books of Perring or Tricky Dicky (due to the poor quality of print in those books) – the disc looked like a solar disc with circumpunct. And Hill’s drawings in the BM certainly didn’t have any diagonal hatched lines which Sitchin was expecting (apparently this may have been from his observation of the Khufu cartouche on the Inventory Stele). So, the only things Sitchin got wrong was in not realizing that the print of the cartouches in Perring and Howard-Vyse’s books was smudged and unclear, not obtaining actual photographs of the cartouches in question and that the hatched lines need not be diagonal. Is this a lie or just sloppy research? You tell me.

Quote

MS: If Sitchin lied, should we be entirely trusting of what he says and shows us on this question?

SC: If Sitchin lied then, of course, we should be wary of what Sitchin says and of what any liar says. But Allen’s words are not the word’s of Sitchin – they belong to Walter Allen and Sitchin has no provenance over them. If you believe in your conspiracy theory then present proof of such. Is there a single eye-witness account/testimony that you can cite that claims Sitchin faked the Allen letter himself?

Quote

SC: You do understand the difference, Stower, don't you?

MS: As usual, Creighton, when you venture this style of ill-mannered sarcasm, it’s your understanding which is wanting.

SC: My “ill-mannered sarcasm”? Tut-tut. Go through this thread and the previous one, Stower, and you will find a litany of such from your own pen. So, by your standards, what does that tell us of your understanding? It tells me, Stower, that you lack this basic understanding - yae reap what yae sow.

Quote

MS: As when you ignore all of this:

Humphries Brewer ? William Marchant Brewer ? Helen Pattengill (née Brewer) ? Walter’s mother ? Walter M. Allen

What you’ve assumed is perfect transmission of Humphries Brewer’s words through several generations of oral tradition. And this you try to pass (dud banknote!) as the functional equivalent of formal, first-person testimony. Historians (you know, those people who really do understand sources) would laugh at you.

SC: Nice to see, dear boy, that you have now knocked off Sitchin's name from the end of your list--as you should have done in the first place which was my initial point. Oh, and for this being an oral tradition, they sure got a lot of things right, didn't they (even if the spellings of some names were a bit off - to be expected though in an oral tradition).

Quote

MS: To complete your analogy:

MS: The person who slips you the note is a known liar.

SC: Irrelevant because the "known liar" did not write the note.

MS: So you trust the known liar not to slip you a dud note? How trusting you are.

SC: The “dud note”? In my analogy, if you had been following with due attention, you would have noticed that it was a THIRD PARTY passing information on a note of paper (NOT A DUD BANKNOTE) that claimed they had seen the fraudster making banknotes that day. You’re getting your ‘notes’ mixed up.

Quote

MS: The known fraudster was never convicted of fraud.

SC: Charges were certainly leveled against him but he certainly wasn't formally convicted. However, he DID fraudulently secure for himself 932 votes in the 1807 election and, as such, he SHOULD have been convicted for it:

MS: He secured the votes. That he secured them fraudulently is your mere assertion. Have you studied the 1729 Act? Its specific provisions? Of course not! But you (as usual) know better than the people who actually administered the law.

SC: Surely you are not so dim, Stower? Why do you think Staple raised a Petition if such a practice wasn’t illegal? Raising such a Petition in Parliament was a costly business and not one to be taken lightly. Staple obviously felt he had sufficient grounds for so doing. And he did--932 of them to be exact.

Quote

SC: That's 932 crimes, 932 instances of electoral fraud, 932 fraudulent notes/votes.

MS: Hype, hype, hype. You know that the Act would count these as separate offences (if offences at all)? Of course you don’t! Your only criterion here is what sounds good to you as rhetoric: propaganda, not reasoned argument.

SC: Hype? Nah. Fraud. Lots of it.

Quote

SC: So, regardless of there not being a formal conviction (did partisan politics prevent Staple's Petition from succeeding as was often the case in those times? Did Tricky Dicky pay Staple to drop his Petition?),

MS: Where’s the evidence of Staple dropping his petition? Reduced to making it up again?

SC: Again? I haven't made anything up in the first place - just doing the basic research. You should try it. Now, note the (?) question mark at the end of my statement, Stower. I asked that particular question because, at that time in 1807, it was perfectly acceptable for Petitioners to simply withdraw their Petition and some took bribes to do so. The later act ensured Petitions could not be withdrawn in order to try and root out this corrupt practice.

Quote

SC: … the evidence is very clear that Tricky Dicky was a fraudster nonetheless, a view you evidently share, to wit:

MS: I suggest your refrain from telling me what my views are.

SC: Someone has to because you keep forgetting what you have said.

Quote

MS: Having considered the evidence at source, I consider it unlikely that Vyse or his agents did anything contrary to (the letter of) the 1729 Act, any more than Wilberforce did. So Parliament was technically correct in denying the petition.

SC: And so the back-peddling furiously begins in a desperate bid to try and defend the indefensible. No – you were right the first time. It was illegal and Tricky Dicky should have been found guilty as charged. Go with your gut instinct, Stower – generally you find it is usually correct. “Technically correct”?? What - is that like "technically pregnant"? Sheesh….

Quote

MS: I await with interest your evidence that 99% of those who entered Parliament in 1807 went on to perpetrate archaeological forgery some 30 years later. Seeing as how you are evidently claiming a systematic relationship between these things.

SC: I don’t give a hee-haw about 99% that entered Parliament. The focus here is Tricky Dicky. Stay focused.

Quote

MS: Experts say the banknotes he did pass are genuine.

SC: And incredulously they came to that conclusion without any forensic tests being done whatsoever. The experts simply accepted the fraudster on his word.

MS: Imagine here an impolite and dismissive expression.

SC: And once again, Stower, you demonstrate nothing more than your ability to lose a debate through your implied ad hominems. I do believe on GHMB ad hominems, explicit or implicit, are contrary to the Board rules.

Quote

MS: No, Creighton, they used their expertise in assessing the script and content.

SC: Aye right! Says he implying that "the Experts" are infallible of being deceived. How many ancient artifacts are later found to have been faked and had deceived “the experts”. A quick trawl of the Net will show you the shoogly nail upon which you rest your argument. Experts – don’t kid yourself.

SC



Post Edited (19-May-13 12:02)

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 990 Dr. Troglodyte 10-May-13 20:14
William Wilberforce, crook 463 Martin Stower 11-May-13 12:17
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 429 Nejc 11-May-13 16:15
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 422 Merrell 11-May-13 18:36
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 428 Scott Creighton 12-May-13 11:27
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 484 Merrell 12-May-13 22:37
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 437 Scott Creighton 13-May-13 11:03
Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, excavator 380 Merrell 13-May-13 13:11
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 421 Scott Creighton 13-May-13 13:21
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 440 Martin Stower 13-May-13 16:14
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 340 Scott Creighton 14-May-13 09:16
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 397 Merrell 14-May-13 09:41
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 415 Scott Creighton 14-May-13 09:47
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 425 Martin Stower 15-May-13 11:18
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 506 Scott Creighton 15-May-13 12:02
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 438 Martin Stower 15-May-13 14:26
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 376 Scott Creighton 15-May-13 15:00
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 461 Martin Stower 16-May-13 09:55
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 404 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 10:04
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 400 Martin Stower 16-May-13 10:34
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 348 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 10:43
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 395 Martin Stower 16-May-13 11:00
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 478 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 11:09
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 423 Martin Stower 16-May-13 11:31
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 391 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 11:36
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 390 cladking 16-May-13 15:14
Re: What are they so afraid of? 462 Thunderbird 16-May-13 15:55
Re: What are they so afraid of? 421 cladking 16-May-13 21:40
Calling Dr. Schoch 473 Dr. Troglodyte 16-May-13 16:04
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 468 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 16:26
Logbook doubts 405 Merrell 16-May-13 21:38
Re: Logbook doubts 462 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 22:46
Re: Logbook doubts 357 Merrell 16-May-13 23:25
Re: Logbook doubts 418 Scott Creighton 17-May-13 08:00
Re: Logbook doubts 414 Merrell 17-May-13 14:30
Re: Logbook doubts 395 Scott Creighton 17-May-13 14:56
Re: Logbook doubts 411 Martin Stower 17-May-13 16:11
Re: Logbook doubts 398 Scott Creighton 17-May-13 20:53
Re: Logbook doubts 361 MJT 17-May-13 22:31
Re: Logbook doubts 441 Merrell 18-May-13 11:23
Re: Logbook doubts 490 Scott Creighton 18-May-13 12:10
Re: Logbook doubts 512 Martin Stower 20-May-13 17:54
Re: Logbook doubts 339 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 00:20
Re: Logbook doubts 420 Morten 21-May-13 09:03
Re: Logbook doubts 462 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 10:22
Re: Logbook doubts 441 Merrell 21-May-13 10:26
Re: Logbook doubts 386 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 10:35
Re: Logbook doubts 408 Merrell 21-May-13 13:46
Re: Logbook doubts 338 Morten 21-May-13 10:40
Re: Logbook doubts 434 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 11:04
Re: Logbook doubts 434 Morten 21-May-13 11:29
Re: Logbook doubts 451 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 12:04
Re: Logbook doubts 413 Morten 21-May-13 13:19
Re: Logbook doubts 476 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 13:33
Re: Logbook doubts 415 Merrell 21-May-13 14:16
Re: Logbook doubts 422 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 14:27
Re: Logbook doubts 456 Merrell 21-May-13 23:48
Re: Logbook doubts 437 Morten 21-May-13 14:37
Re: Logbook doubts 421 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 14:54
Re: Logbook doubts 458 Morten 22-May-13 10:51
Re: Logbook doubts 481 Martin Stower 21-May-13 17:13
Re: Logbook doubts 348 Audrey 22-May-13 02:20
Re: Logbook doubts 425 Morten 22-May-13 08:18
Re: Logbook doubts 386 Martin Stower 22-May-13 15:02
Re: Logbook doubts 395 Audrey 24-May-13 01:32
Re: Logbook doubts 552 Martin Stower 24-May-13 13:43
Re: Logbook doubts 314 Audrey 24-May-13 01:10
Re: Logbook doubts 359 Scott Creighton 10-Jun-14 13:15
Re: Logbook doubts 443 eyeofhorus33 10-Jun-14 18:17
Re: Logbook doubts 455 Scott Creighton 10-Jun-14 22:01
Re: Logbook doubts 396 eyeofhorus33 10-Jun-14 22:15
Re:Khufu....Hyksos? 414 Thunderbird 11-Jun-14 01:36
Re: Logbook doubts 415 Audrey 11-Jun-14 20:47
Re: Logbook doubts 489 eyeofhorus33 11-Jun-14 22:18
Re: Logbook doubts 449 Audrey 12-Jun-14 21:22
Re: Logbook doubts 378 eyeofhorus33 12-Jun-14 22:20
Re: Logbook doubts 382 cladking 13-Jun-14 00:24
Re: Logbook doubts 382 eyeofhorus33 13-Jun-14 22:53
Re: Logbook doubts 379 cladking 13-Jun-14 23:23
Re: Logbook doubts 400 eyeofhorus33 13-Jun-14 23:48
Re: Logbook doubts 390 cladking 14-Jun-14 00:17
Re: Logbook doubts 403 Audrey 14-Jun-14 02:17
Re: Logbook doubts 433 eyeofhorus33 14-Jun-14 11:44
Re: Logbook doubts 410 cladking 14-Jun-14 15:25
context and customs 366 Audrey 14-Jun-14 19:25
Re: context and customs 342 cladking 14-Jun-14 21:23
Re: Logbook doubts 428 eyeofhorus33 14-Jun-14 21:29
Re: Logbook doubts 406 cladking 14-Jun-14 22:07
Re: Logbook doubts 401 eyeofhorus33 14-Jun-14 23:04
Re: Logbook doubts 424 cladking 15-Jun-14 00:29
Re: Logbook doubts 425 eyeofhorus33 15-Jun-14 18:35
Re: Logbook doubts 404 cladking 15-Jun-14 20:56
Re: Logbook doubts 406 eyeofhorus33 15-Jun-14 21:26
Language doubts 353 cladking 15-Jun-14 21:48
Re: Language doubts 374 eyeofhorus33 15-Jun-14 22:05
Re: Language doubts 394 cladking 15-Jun-14 22:51
Re: Language doubts 383 Audrey 16-Jun-14 04:17
Re: Language doubts 436 cladking 16-Jun-14 04:51
Re: Logbook doubts 309 cladking 12-Jun-14 22:57
Re:doubts 397 Thunderbird 11-Jun-14 23:36
Re:doubts 375 Audrey 12-Jun-14 19:54
Moderator Notice 354 Hoppy 22-May-13 01:32
Re: Logbook doubts 342 Audrey 22-May-13 02:52
Re: Logbook doubts 337 Martin Stower 18-May-13 13:37
Re: Logbook doubts 397 Scott Creighton 18-May-13 14:01
Re: Logbook doubts 380 Martin Stower 18-May-13 14:52
Re: Logbook doubts 369 Scott Creighton 18-May-13 17:16
Re: Logbook doubts 449 Martin Stower 20-May-13 16:57
Re: Logbook doubts 394 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 17:51
Re: Logbook doubts 369 Martin Stower 20-May-13 18:25
Re: Logbook doubts 245 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 18:49
Re: Logbook doubts 412 Martin Stower 21-May-13 15:42
Re: Logbook doubts 390 HungryHun 17-May-13 15:20
Re: Conspired.... 405 Thunderbird 17-May-13 15:47
Re: Conspired.... 396 HungryHun 17-May-13 16:04
Re: Conspired.... 368 Thunderbird 17-May-13 23:17
Re: Conspired....inspire d by money 398 Ratcho 03-Jun-13 05:57
Re: Logbook doubts 327 Martin Stower 17-May-13 16:23
Re: Logbook doubts 400 HungryHun 17-May-13 16:28
Re: Logbook doubts 395 Thunderbird 17-May-13 22:25
Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 371 LonelyAngel 29-May-13 14:41
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 341 Nejc 29-May-13 23:23
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 367 Merrell 30-May-13 09:25
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 412 Martin Stower 30-May-13 12:48
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 398 WINDINWATERS 30-May-13 14:40
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 301 Martin Stower 31-May-13 18:00
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 362 WINDINWATERS 31-May-13 21:47
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 346 LonelyAngel 30-May-13 17:43
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 343 Martin Stower 31-May-13 18:24
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 397 cladking 01-Jun-13 03:28
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 400 Merrell 01-Jun-13 11:02
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 319 LonelyAngel 03-Jun-13 20:59
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 350 LonelyAngel 03-Jun-13 20:47
Re: Logbook doubts 540 Martin Stower 17-May-13 15:51
Re: Logbook doubts 387 Scott Creighton 17-May-13 20:27
Re: Logbook doubts 405 Nejc 17-May-13 22:28
Re: Logbook doubts 726 Martin Stower 18-May-13 14:43
Re: Logbook doubts 580 Scott Creighton 18-May-13 17:12
Re: Logbook doubts 453 Merrell 19-May-13 16:43
Re: Logbook doubts 390 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 09:38
Re: Logbook doubts 368 Merrell 20-May-13 13:29
Re: Logbook doubts 463 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 13:58
Re: Logbook doubts 360 Merrell 20-May-13 14:55
Re: Logbook doubts 396 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 18:46
Re: Logbook doubts 433 HungryHun 20-May-13 22:02
Re: Logbook doubts 365 Thanos5150 20-May-13 23:05
Re: Logbook doubts 398 sfbey 20-May-13 23:23
Re: Logbook doubts 401 Thanos5150 20-May-13 23:35
Re: Logbook doubts 394 sfbey 21-May-13 15:41
Moghrah 414 Merrell 21-May-13 18:09
Re: Logbook doubts 279 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 23:38
Re: Logbook doubts 318 Merrell 21-May-13 21:34
Re: Logbook doubts 326 Audrey 22-May-13 02:34
Re: Logbook doubts 369 Merrell 21-May-13 21:58
Re: Logbook doubts 387 Sirfiroth 22-May-13 10:42
Re: Logbook doubts 355 Merrell 22-May-13 11:43
Re: Logbook doubts 323 Sirfiroth 22-May-13 17:44
Re: Logbook doubts 274 Nejc 22-May-13 23:18
Re: Logbook doubts 262 cladking 23-May-13 00:51
Re: Logbook doubts 264 Merrell 23-May-13 08:41
Re: Logbook doubts 304 Martin Stower 20-May-13 19:19
Re: Logbook doubts 197 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 19:35
Re: Logbook doubts 346 Martin Stower 21-May-13 17:59
Moderator Warning 393 JonnyMcA 21-May-13 20:12
Moderator Warning 314 JonnyMcA 21-May-13 20:11
Re: exercise elementary caution about sources 306 Thunderbird 20-May-13 19:36
Re: Logbook doubts 329 Audrey 22-May-13 02:50
Re: Logbook doubts 282 Merrell 22-May-13 12:53
Re: Logbook doubts 263 Audrey 24-May-13 01:48
Moderator Caution 212 Hoppy 22-May-13 12:55
Re: Logbook doubts 173 Martin Stower 22-May-13 16:06
Re: Logbook doubts 171 Audrey 24-May-13 01:41
Re: Logbook doubts 185 Martin Stower 24-May-13 13:56
Re: Logbook doubts 159 Thunderbird 17-May-13 22:40
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 245 Thanos5150 16-May-13 19:41
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 209 Dr. Troglodyte 16-May-13 21:56
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 197 Thanos5150 16-May-13 23:11
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 179 Dr. Troglodyte 17-May-13 00:01
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 222 Thanos5150 17-May-13 00:30
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 181 cladking 16-May-13 21:50
Moderator Caution 212 Hoppy 15-May-13 14:09
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 159 Martin Stower 13-May-13 16:53
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 185 Scott Creighton 13-May-13 17:40
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 156 Martin Stower 13-May-13 18:32
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 116 Scott Creighton 13-May-13 19:23
Moderator Caution #2 105 Hoppy 15-May-13 14:18
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 146 Martin Stower 15-May-13 14:52
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 164 Nejc 11-May-13 13:47
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 168 JonnyMcA 11-May-13 18:41
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 170 Audrey 12-May-13 07:59
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 157 JonnyMcA 12-May-13 09:58
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 202 HungryHun 12-May-13 13:00
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 148 HungryHun 13-May-13 12:46
Re: Caviglia's complaint.... 148 Thunderbird 13-May-13 16:20
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 145 HungryHun 13-May-13 19:36
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 139 Martin Stower 15-May-13 15:04
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 148 HungryHun 16-May-13 10:03
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 143 Martin Stower 16-May-13 10:47
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 129 Merrell 16-May-13 16:33
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 154 Martin Stower 18-May-13 15:02
Re: If fake, then... what? 166 MJT 16-May-13 12:45
More Vyse wickedness 169 Martin Stower 18-May-13 15:14
Re: More Vyse wickedness 214 Scott Creighton 19-May-13 09:01
Re: More Vyse wickedness 238 Martin Stower 20-May-13 16:44
Re: More Vyse wickedness 255 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 17:56
Re: More Vyse wickedness 279 jamesglory 21-May-13 10:26
Re: More Vyse wickedness 267 Audrey 22-May-13 02:42
Moderator Caution 174 Hoppy 20-May-13 17:57
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 190 Audrey 14-Jun-14 21:11
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 157 cladking 14-Jun-14 21:49
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 165 Scott Creighton 15-Jun-14 00:13
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 191 eyeofhorus33 15-Jun-14 00:58
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 160 cladking 15-Jun-14 01:12
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 157 Sirfiroth 15-Jun-14 19:09
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 191 cladking 15-Jun-14 20:40
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 174 Audrey 16-Jun-14 03:32
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 242 eyeofhorus33 16-Jun-14 18:38
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 173 Audrey 23-Jun-14 03:15
Australian Funeral 205 molder 15-Jun-14 05:03
Re: Australian Funeral 321 Audrey 16-Jun-14 03:56
Re: Australian Funeral 146 molder 16-Jun-14 12:06
Re: Australian Funeral 163 cladking 16-Jun-14 16:50
Re: Australian Funeral 128 Audrey 23-Jun-14 01:58
Re: Australian Funeral 167 molder 19-Jun-14 07:25
Re: Australian Funeral 151 molder 20-Jun-14 10:28
Re: Australian Funeral/North American Funeral 135 molder 22-Jun-14 06:53


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.