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 1051 Dr. Troglodyte 10-May-13 20:14
William Wilberforce, crook 489 Martin Stower 11-May-13 12:17
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 457 Nejc 11-May-13 16:15
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 461 Merrell 11-May-13 18:36
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 460 Scott Creighton 12-May-13 11:27
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 538 Merrell 12-May-13 22:37
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 495 Scott Creighton 13-May-13 11:03
Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, excavator 408 Merrell 13-May-13 13:11
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 457 Scott Creighton 13-May-13 13:21
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 470 Martin Stower 13-May-13 16:14
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 367 Scott Creighton 14-May-13 09:16
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 441 Merrell 14-May-13 09:41
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 452 Scott Creighton 14-May-13 09:47
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 457 Martin Stower 15-May-13 11:18
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 545 Scott Creighton 15-May-13 12:02
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 464 Martin Stower 15-May-13 14:26
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 405 Scott Creighton 15-May-13 15:00
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 505 Martin Stower 16-May-13 09:55
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 445 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 10:04
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 438 Martin Stower 16-May-13 10:34
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 383 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 10:43
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 444 Martin Stower 16-May-13 11:00
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 516 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 11:09
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 453 Martin Stower 16-May-13 11:31
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 419 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 11:36
Re: Wilberforce, abolitionist; Vyse, 418 cladking 16-May-13 15:14
Re: What are they so afraid of? 500 Thunderbird 16-May-13 15:55
Re: What are they so afraid of? 450 cladking 16-May-13 21:40
Calling Dr. Schoch 517 Dr. Troglodyte 16-May-13 16:04
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 524 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 16:26
Logbook doubts 433 Merrell 16-May-13 21:38
Re: Logbook doubts 493 Scott Creighton 16-May-13 22:46
Re: Logbook doubts 389 Merrell 16-May-13 23:25
Re: Logbook doubts 452 Scott Creighton 17-May-13 08:00
Re: Logbook doubts 448 Merrell 17-May-13 14:30
Re: Logbook doubts 436 Scott Creighton 17-May-13 14:56
Re: Logbook doubts 441 Martin Stower 17-May-13 16:11
Re: Logbook doubts 429 Scott Creighton 17-May-13 20:53
Re: Logbook doubts 393 MJT 17-May-13 22:31
Re: Logbook doubts 484 Merrell 18-May-13 11:23
Re: Logbook doubts 533 Scott Creighton 18-May-13 12:10
Re: Logbook doubts 554 Martin Stower 20-May-13 17:54
Re: Logbook doubts 371 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 00:20
Re: Logbook doubts 451 Morten 21-May-13 09:03
Re: Logbook doubts 494 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 10:22
Re: Logbook doubts 492 Merrell 21-May-13 10:26
Re: Logbook doubts 420 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 10:35
Re: Logbook doubts 461 Merrell 21-May-13 13:46
Re: Logbook doubts 378 Morten 21-May-13 10:40
Re: Logbook doubts 462 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 11:04
Re: Logbook doubts 468 Morten 21-May-13 11:29
Re: Logbook doubts 489 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 12:04
Re: Logbook doubts 457 Morten 21-May-13 13:19
Re: Logbook doubts 532 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 13:33
Re: Logbook doubts 458 Merrell 21-May-13 14:16
Re: Logbook doubts 456 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 14:27
Re: Logbook doubts 500 Merrell 21-May-13 23:48
Re: Logbook doubts 484 Morten 21-May-13 14:37
Re: Logbook doubts 450 Scott Creighton 21-May-13 14:54
Re: Logbook doubts 483 Morten 22-May-13 10:51
Re: Logbook doubts 511 Martin Stower 21-May-13 17:13
Re: Logbook doubts 385 Audrey 22-May-13 02:20
Re: Logbook doubts 453 Morten 22-May-13 08:18
Re: Logbook doubts 415 Martin Stower 22-May-13 15:02
Re: Logbook doubts 426 Audrey 24-May-13 01:32
Re: Logbook doubts 610 Martin Stower 24-May-13 13:43
Re: Logbook doubts 344 Audrey 24-May-13 01:10
Re: Logbook doubts 386 Scott Creighton 10-Jun-14 13:15
Re: Logbook doubts 487 eyeofhorus33 10-Jun-14 18:17
Re: Logbook doubts 479 Scott Creighton 10-Jun-14 22:01
Re: Logbook doubts 426 eyeofhorus33 10-Jun-14 22:15
Re:Khufu....Hyksos? 450 Thunderbird 11-Jun-14 01:36
Re: Logbook doubts 445 Audrey 11-Jun-14 20:47
Re: Logbook doubts 526 eyeofhorus33 11-Jun-14 22:18
Re: Logbook doubts 475 Audrey 12-Jun-14 21:22
Re: Logbook doubts 417 eyeofhorus33 12-Jun-14 22:20
Re: Logbook doubts 422 cladking 13-Jun-14 00:24
Re: Logbook doubts 406 eyeofhorus33 13-Jun-14 22:53
Re: Logbook doubts 407 cladking 13-Jun-14 23:23
Re: Logbook doubts 422 eyeofhorus33 13-Jun-14 23:48
Re: Logbook doubts 415 cladking 14-Jun-14 00:17
Re: Logbook doubts 442 Audrey 14-Jun-14 02:17
Re: Logbook doubts 476 eyeofhorus33 14-Jun-14 11:44
Re: Logbook doubts 437 cladking 14-Jun-14 15:25
context and customs 388 Audrey 14-Jun-14 19:25
Re: context and customs 372 cladking 14-Jun-14 21:23
Re: Logbook doubts 453 eyeofhorus33 14-Jun-14 21:29
Re: Logbook doubts 432 cladking 14-Jun-14 22:07
Re: Logbook doubts 422 eyeofhorus33 14-Jun-14 23:04
Re: Logbook doubts 448 cladking 15-Jun-14 00:29
Re: Logbook doubts 454 eyeofhorus33 15-Jun-14 18:35
Re: Logbook doubts 428 cladking 15-Jun-14 20:56
Re: Logbook doubts 434 eyeofhorus33 15-Jun-14 21:26
Language doubts 396 cladking 15-Jun-14 21:48
Re: Language doubts 400 eyeofhorus33 15-Jun-14 22:05
Re: Language doubts 416 cladking 15-Jun-14 22:51
Re: Language doubts 416 Audrey 16-Jun-14 04:17
Re: Language doubts 463 cladking 16-Jun-14 04:51
Re: Logbook doubts 332 cladking 12-Jun-14 22:57
Re:doubts 435 Thunderbird 11-Jun-14 23:36
Re:doubts 399 Audrey 12-Jun-14 19:54
Moderator Notice 387 Hoppy 22-May-13 01:32
Re: Logbook doubts 381 Audrey 22-May-13 02:52
Re: Logbook doubts 362 Martin Stower 18-May-13 13:37
Re: Logbook doubts 425 Scott Creighton 18-May-13 14:01
Re: Logbook doubts 403 Martin Stower 18-May-13 14:52
Re: Logbook doubts 405 Scott Creighton 18-May-13 17:16
Re: Logbook doubts 490 Martin Stower 20-May-13 16:57
Re: Logbook doubts 420 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 17:51
Re: Logbook doubts 392 Martin Stower 20-May-13 18:25
Re: Logbook doubts 269 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 18:49
Re: Logbook doubts 451 Martin Stower 21-May-13 15:42
Re: Logbook doubts 414 HungryHun 17-May-13 15:20
Re: Conspired.... 431 Thunderbird 17-May-13 15:47
Re: Conspired.... 420 HungryHun 17-May-13 16:04
Re: Conspired.... 392 Thunderbird 17-May-13 23:17
Re: Conspired....inspire d by money 424 Ratcho 03-Jun-13 05:57
Re: Logbook doubts 358 Martin Stower 17-May-13 16:23
Re: Logbook doubts 425 HungryHun 17-May-13 16:28
Re: Logbook doubts 421 Thunderbird 17-May-13 22:25
Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 401 LonelyAngel 29-May-13 14:41
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 371 Nejc 29-May-13 23:23
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 393 Merrell 30-May-13 09:25
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 442 Martin Stower 30-May-13 12:48
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 430 WINDINWATERS 30-May-13 14:40
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 326 Martin Stower 31-May-13 18:00
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 385 WINDINWATERS 31-May-13 21:47
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 373 LonelyAngel 30-May-13 17:43
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 373 Martin Stower 31-May-13 18:24
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 433 cladking 01-Jun-13 03:28
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 420 Merrell 01-Jun-13 11:02
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 359 LonelyAngel 03-Jun-13 20:59
Re: Would you buy a used cartouche from this man? 373 LonelyAngel 03-Jun-13 20:47
Re: Logbook doubts 580 Martin Stower 17-May-13 15:51
Re: Logbook doubts 416 Scott Creighton 17-May-13 20:27
Re: Logbook doubts 439 Nejc 17-May-13 22:28
Re: Logbook doubts 797 Martin Stower 18-May-13 14:43
Re: Logbook doubts 655 Scott Creighton 18-May-13 17:12
Re: Logbook doubts 487 Merrell 19-May-13 16:43
Re: Logbook doubts 425 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 09:38
Re: Logbook doubts 390 Merrell 20-May-13 13:29
Re: Logbook doubts 519 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 13:58
Re: Logbook doubts 393 Merrell 20-May-13 14:55
Re: Logbook doubts 419 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 18:46
Re: Logbook doubts 458 HungryHun 20-May-13 22:02
Re: Logbook doubts 418 Thanos5150 20-May-13 23:05
Re: Logbook doubts 434 sfbey 20-May-13 23:23
Re: Logbook doubts 429 Thanos5150 20-May-13 23:35
Re: Logbook doubts 429 sfbey 21-May-13 15:41
Moghrah 441 Merrell 21-May-13 18:09
Re: Logbook doubts 320 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 23:38
Re: Logbook doubts 345 Merrell 21-May-13 21:34
Re: Logbook doubts 349 Audrey 22-May-13 02:34
Re: Logbook doubts 396 Merrell 21-May-13 21:58
Re: Logbook doubts 418 Sirfiroth 22-May-13 10:42
Re: Logbook doubts 376 Merrell 22-May-13 11:43
Re: Logbook doubts 352 Sirfiroth 22-May-13 17:44
Re: Logbook doubts 301 Nejc 22-May-13 23:18
Re: Logbook doubts 297 cladking 23-May-13 00:51
Re: Logbook doubts 302 Merrell 23-May-13 08:41
Re: Logbook doubts 334 Martin Stower 20-May-13 19:19
Re: Logbook doubts 246 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 19:35
Re: Logbook doubts 376 Martin Stower 21-May-13 17:59
Moderator Warning 442 JonnyMcA 21-May-13 20:12
Moderator Warning 359 JonnyMcA 21-May-13 20:11
Re: exercise elementary caution about sources 329 Thunderbird 20-May-13 19:36
Re: Logbook doubts 367 Audrey 22-May-13 02:50
Re: Logbook doubts 315 Merrell 22-May-13 12:53
Re: Logbook doubts 290 Audrey 24-May-13 01:48
Moderator Caution 238 Hoppy 22-May-13 12:55
Re: Logbook doubts 208 Martin Stower 22-May-13 16:06
Re: Logbook doubts 208 Audrey 24-May-13 01:41
Re: Logbook doubts 208 Martin Stower 24-May-13 13:56
Re: Logbook doubts 184 Thunderbird 17-May-13 22:40
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 271 Thanos5150 16-May-13 19:41
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 237 Dr. Troglodyte 16-May-13 21:56
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 226 Thanos5150 16-May-13 23:11
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 207 Dr. Troglodyte 17-May-13 00:01
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 246 Thanos5150 17-May-13 00:30
Re: Calling Dr. Schoch 212 cladking 16-May-13 21:50
Moderator Caution 264 Hoppy 15-May-13 14:09
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 180 Martin Stower 13-May-13 16:53
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 217 Scott Creighton 13-May-13 17:40
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 212 Martin Stower 13-May-13 18:32
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 145 Scott Creighton 13-May-13 19:23
Moderator Caution #2 137 Hoppy 15-May-13 14:18
Re: William Wilberforce, crook 168 Martin Stower 15-May-13 14:52
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 202 Nejc 11-May-13 13:47
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 192 JonnyMcA 11-May-13 18:41
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 198 Audrey 12-May-13 07:59
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 180 JonnyMcA 12-May-13 09:58
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 229 HungryHun 12-May-13 13:00
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 172 HungryHun 13-May-13 12:46
Re: Caviglia's complaint.... 185 Thunderbird 13-May-13 16:20
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 178 HungryHun 13-May-13 19:36
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 167 Martin Stower 15-May-13 15:04
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 173 HungryHun 16-May-13 10:03
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 174 Martin Stower 16-May-13 10:47
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 155 Merrell 16-May-13 16:33
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 179 Martin Stower 18-May-13 15:02
Re: If fake, then... what? 209 MJT 16-May-13 12:45
More Vyse wickedness 193 Martin Stower 18-May-13 15:14
Re: More Vyse wickedness 258 Scott Creighton 19-May-13 09:01
Re: More Vyse wickedness 263 Martin Stower 20-May-13 16:44
Re: More Vyse wickedness 285 Scott Creighton 20-May-13 17:56
Re: More Vyse wickedness 321 jamesglory 21-May-13 10:26
Re: More Vyse wickedness 298 Audrey 22-May-13 02:42
Moderator Caution 230 Hoppy 20-May-13 17:57
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 215 Audrey 14-Jun-14 21:11
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 180 cladking 14-Jun-14 21:49
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 193 Scott Creighton 15-Jun-14 00:13
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 214 eyeofhorus33 15-Jun-14 00:58
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 182 cladking 15-Jun-14 01:12
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 184 Sirfiroth 15-Jun-14 19:09
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 214 cladking 15-Jun-14 20:40
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 205 Audrey 16-Jun-14 03:32
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 286 eyeofhorus33 16-Jun-14 18:38
Re: Audrey - How to photoshop a cartouche a la Vyse 199 Audrey 23-Jun-14 03:15
Australian Funeral 235 molder 15-Jun-14 05:03
Re: Australian Funeral 346 Audrey 16-Jun-14 03:56
Re: Australian Funeral 174 molder 16-Jun-14 12:06
Re: Australian Funeral 186 cladking 16-Jun-14 16:50
Re: Australian Funeral 159 Audrey 23-Jun-14 01:58
Re: Australian Funeral 211 molder 19-Jun-14 07:25
Re: Australian Funeral 180 molder 20-Jun-14 10:28
Re: Australian Funeral/North American Funeral 163 molder 22-Jun-14 06:53


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.