Prove this wrong
Your mom goes to college?
Its wrongDoms wrote:
Prove this wrong
no she doesntstacky24af wrote:
Your mom goes to college?
and for the earlier envelope one, if ones got twice as much money in, you pick the envelope with the biggest fucking bulge in it obv
Once in radius, it is absolutely impossible to escape a Supermassive blackhole
01010000011011110110111101110000 is the Binary code for the word "poop"
Just yesterday I travelled to far far away from here faster than light thus arriving there before the light which came from big bang. So technically I saw it happen.Stormscythe wrote:
The Big Bang is a theory. Infact we do not know what was before the Planck epoch which is about 10^-43 seconds after the origin of the universe.NooBesT wrote:
Big Bang.Stormscythe wrote:
We do not know how from what our universe originates.
I'm sorry, but this statement can not be proven wrong.
Meh whatever.Stormscythe wrote:
Laser is not only light but polarized and bundled. As your cornea is convex, your eye will not reflect a single beam but many rays. His statement is furthermore correct as the moon also doesn't shine (which would be actively carried out) but only reflects the sun's (and to a certain extent also the other stars') light. sfarrar never intended to reflect laser beams/rays but claimed he couldn't shoot them which is an active action.NooBesT wrote:
Laser is light + Light reflects from your eyes => Your eyes are pointed with laser = Laser from eyes.sfarrar33 wrote:
I cannot shoot laser beams with my eyes
You can in your dreams.sfarrar33 wrote:
I cannot shoot laser beams with my eyes
You didn't say in radius of what. So if I'm in the radius of earth's gravity, I can easily escape your Supermassive blackhole.namsdrawkcaB wrote:
Once in radius, it is absolutely impossible to escape a Supermassive blackhole
Actually that's "Poop", not "poop" which is "01110000011011110110111101110000"namsdrawkcaB wrote:
01010000011011110110111101110000 is the Binary code for the word "poop"
damn you winNooBesT wrote:
You can in your dreams.sfarrar33 wrote:
I cannot shoot laser beams with my eyes
BUT i reckon the dreams argument should not be allowed to be used any more since it is technically the answer for everything and anything
"I cannot fly" "you can in your dreams"
"I am not a super model" "you are in your dreams"
etc etc
I just thought the same. I think NooBesT used it as a last resors.sfarrar33 wrote:
damn you winNooBesT wrote:
You can in your dreams.sfarrar33 wrote:
I cannot shoot laser beams with my eyes
BUT i reckon the dreams argument should not be allowed to be used any more since it is technically the answer for everything and anything
"I cannot fly" "you can in your dreams"
"I am not a super model" "you are in your dreams"
etc etc
But: When laser is pointed at your eyes, reflected light will basically shoot out of your eyes. thus your eyes shoot laser.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
Meh...DeathUnlimited wrote:
I just thought the same. I think NooBesT used it as a last resors.sfarrar33 wrote:
damn you winNooBesT wrote:
You can in your dreams.
BUT i reckon the dreams argument should not be allowed to be used any more since it is technically the answer for everything and anything
"I cannot fly" "you can in your dreams"
"I am not a super model" "you are in your dreams"
etc etc
But: When laser is pointed at your eyes, reflected light will basically shoot out of your eyes. thus your eyes shoot laser.
That's what I said first.
Double fine then.NooBesT wrote:
Meh...DeathUnlimited wrote:
I just thought the same. I think NooBesT used it as a last resors.sfarrar33 wrote:
damn you win
BUT i reckon the dreams argument should not be allowed to be used any more since it is technically the answer for everything and anything
"I cannot fly" "you can in your dreams"
"I am not a super model" "you are in your dreams"
etc etc
But: When laser is pointed at your eyes, reflected light will basically shoot out of your eyes. thus your eyes shoot laser.
That's what I said first.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
If I may quote you here:
btw, a new satement.
With all the energy in the universe minus 1eV (assuming that our universe is infinite and thus bears infinite energy) you could not accelerate any particle with a rest mass greater than 0 to light speed.
But anyway, you can't prove that wrong
Could we agree on the fact that there is indeed a difference between light shooting out of your eyes and your eyes shooting light (one time your eyes are the passive part and one time the active).DeathUnlimited wrote:
reflected light will basically shoot out of your eyes. thus your eyes shoot laser.
btw, a new satement.
With all the energy in the universe minus 1eV (assuming that our universe is infinite and thus bears infinite energy) you could not accelerate any particle with a rest mass greater than 0 to light speed.
But anyway, you can't prove that wrong
Stormscythe wrote:
If I may quote you here:Could we agree on the fact that there is indeed a difference between light shooting out of your eyes and your eyes shooting light (one time your eyes are the passive part and one time the active).DeathUnlimited wrote:
reflected light will basically shoot out of your eyes. thus your eyes shoot laser.
He said with the eyes, not from the eyes.sfarrar33 wrote:
I cannot shoot laser beams with my eyes
Our univesse is nit infinite thus doesn't bear infinite energy.Stormscythe wrote:
btw, a new satement.
With all the energy in the universe minus 1eV (assuming that our universe is infinite and thus bears infinite energy) you could not accelerate any particle with a rest mass greater than 0 to light speed.
But anyway, you can't prove that wrong
It is not infinite but endless. Einstein said this well. Compare the Universe to a ball. Both are endless, because you cannot leave them. you can go around them infinite times but not leave.
But the ball and the universe are not infinite, because they aren't everywhere.
Something like that. You should get the idea.
Last edited by DeathUnlimited (2007-06-19 10:26:26)
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
OK, whatever...Stormscythe wrote:
If I may quote you here:(1) Could we agree on the fact that there is indeed a difference between light shooting out of your eyes and your eyes shooting light (one time your eyes are the passive part and one time the active).DeathUnlimited wrote:
reflected light will basically shoot out of your eyes. thus your eyes shoot laser.
btw, a new satement.
(2) With all the energy in the universe minus 1eV (assuming that our universe is infinite and thus bears infinite energy) (a.) you could not accelerate any particle with a rest mass greater than 0 to light speed.
(b.) But anyway, you can't prove that wrong
(1.) I am not going to do this, but it is possible to shoot lasers beams out from/with your eyes. All you need to do is sacrifice some (or all) your sight, and have a laser emiter installed behind your retina. While there will be damage to your field of vision, it might be only partial... and then you can literally shoot laser beams out of your eyes.
(2.) You failed to mention that the speed of light can be slowed down. You know, you need to be specific in this thread. So you're wrong.
Slowing down light:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/199 … light.html
Basically if I set up a race between me in a Porsche vs light moving through a high vacuum pressure near frozen atomic medium. I will accelerate (me & the Porsche's mass) to a speed faster than the light (moving only 38 miles per hour). And, I will get to the finish line with a top speed of 3 to 5 times the speed of light (depending on how long the race is).
(2.a) So basically you're wrong.
(2.b) And this statement is wrong as well, as (a.) was proven false, so you're wrong at least twice.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-19 11:29:46)
I refuse to accept that this is an eye any longer, but he didn't define his claim carefully enough, so this might well work.topal63 wrote:
OK, whatever...Stormscythe wrote:
If I may quote you here:(1) Could we agree on the fact that there is indeed a difference between light shooting out of your eyes and your eyes shooting light (one time your eyes are the passive part and one time the active).DeathUnlimited wrote:
reflected light will basically shoot out of your eyes. thus your eyes shoot laser.
btw, a new satement.
(2) With all the energy in the universe minus 1eV (assuming that our universe is infinite and thus bears infinite energy) (a.) you could not accelerate any particle with a rest mass greater than 0 to light speed.
(b.) But anyway, you can't prove that wrong
(1.) I am not going to do this, but it is possible to shoot lasers beams out from/with your eyes. All you need to do is sacrifice some (or all) your sight, and have a laser emiter installed behind your retina. While there will be damage to your field of vision, it might be only partial... and then you can literally shoot laser beams out of your eyes.
I wanna see your Porsche and you work at those temperatures and air pressures given in that article. I somehow regret that I didn't add something like "within the same inert medium", but again, I wasn't specific enoughtopal63 wrote:
(2.) You failed to mention that the speed of light can be slowed down. You know, you need to be specific in this thread. So you're wrong.
Slowing down light:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/199 … light.html
Basically if I set up a race between me in a Porsche vs light moving through a high vacuum pressure near frozen atomic medium. I will accelerate (me & the Porsche's mass) to a speed faster than the light (moving only 38 miles per hour). And, I will get to the finish line with a top speed of 3 to 5 times the speed of light (depending on how long the race is).
So let's say the maximum speed of light in the medium that allows the highest speed of light (highest is a superlative and literally means that you can't know of any higher speed and it, to our knowledge does not exist) can not be reached by any particle but photons without an infinite supply of energy.topal63 wrote:
(2.a) So basically you're wrong.
(2.b) And this statement is wrong as well, as (a.) was proven false, so you're wrong at least twice.
Go find the flaw now - and be sure, I'll adjust this statement another few times, if necessary...
Accept thy Rules
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
Oxygen, to humans, is an element found on, but not limited to, Earth.
Uhm, i don't wanna switch sides but basically you only find oxygen in molecules. There's no such thing as 'elementary' Oxygen although it's an element. You can of course produce an uneven number of oxygen in chemical processes so that one atom would be left, but until you literally 'find' it, it will have reacted with something elsexBlackPantherx wrote:
Oxygen, to humans, is an element found on, but not limited to, Earth.
seeing as everything is both particals and wave (and light itself is both) and waves (well light waves and EM waves etc.) travel @ the speed of light (though said medium) and while photons can reach the speed of light so can others (well close enough as makes no diffreance )Stormscythe wrote:
So let's say the maximum speed of light in the medium that allows the highest speed of light (highest is a superlative and literally means that you can't know of any higher speed and it, to our knowledge does not exist) can not be reached by any particle but photons without an infinite supply of energy.
Go find the flaw now - and be sure, I'll adjust this statement another few times, if necessary...
and what about wormholes etc.?
and what about the paritcals which are faster than the speed of light? the ones which speed up as they loss energy? (have thee been disproved yet?)
oh and as EVERYTHING is relative doesnt that mean that speed is relative as well? so whlst YOU may not be moving that fast you can be moving fast enough RELatice to someone else
please correct me if im worn gusy lol (likely )
on AND in ur statement is not compleatxBlackPantherx wrote:
Oxygen, to humans, is an element found on, but not limited to, Earth.
Finland won the eurovision song contest 2006. right or wrong?
thats a questionAgradhan wrote:
Finland won the eurovision song contest 2006. right or wrong?
Finland won nothing, Lordi won.[PTG]shogun wrote:
thats a questionAgradhan wrote:
Finland won the eurovision song contest 2006. right or wrong?
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
(1.) On the "laser - eye" issue - here are a few (easily found) flaws bound within the "shoot lasers with my eyes" statement.Stormscythe wrote:
I refuse to accept that this is an eye any longer, but he didn't define his claim carefully enough, so this might well work.topal63 wrote:
OK, whatever...Stormscythe wrote:
If I may quote you here:
(1) Could we agree on the fact that there is indeed a difference between light shooting out of your eyes and your eyes shooting light (one time your eyes are the passive part and one time the active).
btw, a new satement.
(2) With all the energy in the universe minus 1eV (assuming that our universe is infinite and thus bears infinite energy) (a.) you could not accelerate any particle with a rest mass greater than 0 to light speed.
(b.) But anyway, you can't prove that wrong
(1.) I am not going to do this, but it is possible to shoot lasers beams out from/with your eyes. All you need to do is sacrifice some (or all) your sight, and have a laser emiter installed behind your retina. While there will be damage to your field of vision, it might be only partial... and then you can literally shoot laser beams out of your eyes.I wanna see your Porsche and you work at those temperatures and air pressures given in that article. I somehow regret that I didn't add something like "within the same inert medium", but again, I wasn't specific enoughtopal63 wrote:
(2.) You failed to mention that the speed of light can be slowed down. You know, you need to be specific in this thread. So you're wrong.
Slowing down light:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/199 … light.html
Basically if I set up a race between me in a Porsche vs light moving through a high vacuum pressure near frozen atomic medium. I will accelerate (me & the Porsche's mass) to a speed faster than the light (moving only 38 miles per hour). And, I will get to the finish line with a top speed of 3 to 5 times the speed of light (depending on how long the race is).So let's say the maximum speed of light in the medium that allows the highest speed of light (highest is a superlative and literally means that you can't know of any higher speed and it, to our knowledge does not exist) can not be reached by any particle but photons without an infinite supply of energy.topal63 wrote:
(2.a) So basically you're wrong.
(2.b) And this statement is wrong as well, as (a.) was proven false, so you're wrong at least twice.
Go find the flaw now - and be sure, I'll adjust this statement another few times, if necessary...
It doesn't matter if you consider it an eye or not - the laser emitter behind the eye is a device, it is not the eye. The "eye" was not removed, nor is it completely dysfunctional - just partially. The laser shoots out from the inside the human eye - it can even be controlled by a feedback mechanism. When specific rods or cones transmit a particular signal the retina informs the device to shoot lasers - this completely satisfies the concept "with," which implies a direct relationship of some kind of control of the laser shot. Also, it is possible to replace the eye with a completely prosthetic eye - or mechanical eye. This would still be your "eye," as that would be "owned by you," thus it is your eye. I could buy 2 lasers and buy 2 prosthetic eyes, cut a hole in the back of both, and place the lasers behind the prosthetic eyes - set them on a coffee table - and "shoot lasers with/from my eyes." As I own them they are "my eyes," 2 natural ones in my head and 2 prosthetic ones on a coffee table I can "shoot lasers with/from. "
(2.) You're modifying your statement, that is a violation of the rules. No biggie though. This thread (IMO) is about having fun with ideas in a subjective way. BUT(!) You're merely making the same error in another form.
(a.) This "the medium that allows the highest speed of light" - is non specific. Oops(!). You should have specified either what medium, as in "a medium" not "the medium." And/or, you should have said "the abstraction of space-time as the medium." And, you should have said "free from matter matrixes that could cause the speed of light to slow..."
(b.) The theory of relativity defines an upper limit to the speed of light, not a lower limit. As you are trying to incorporate this into your "revised rule-breaking" modified statement/idea. But, you still said "the medium" not "a medium" and you did not define "the medium." So the proof stands as is. As the maximum speed allowed by that particular Bose-Einstein condensate ("the medium") is 38 mph. And, the Porsche's max speed is far above that. Also, they do not have to travel in the same medium as that (as you have acknowledged) was not specified. It does not matter if the car was a: Ford Escort, a Honda Accord, or whatever... the top speed of those cars also exceed 38 mph.
(c.) Lets assume the for moment that we can accept your modified statement - to mean this: So let's say the maximum speed of light in a medium that allows the highest speed of light (highest is a superlative and literally means that you can't know of any higher speed and it, to our knowledge does not exist, that medium being the abstraction of space-time free from matter matrixes that could cause the speed of light to slow) cannot be reached by any particle but photons without an infinite supply of energy.
Guess what - you're still wrong. You forgot to exclude the abstraction of "virtual particles." You excluded photons but not these (or this theoretical idea). You are familiar with entanglement. This involves the instantaneous transmission of information (virtual particles) from two entangled particles separated by any distance. Changing the state of one particle causes an instantaneous state change in the other entangled particle. The virtual particles are not moving at light speed that is extremely slow in comparison to an "instantaneous" change in a particle’s state regardless of the distance separating them. Einstein famously referred to this as "spooky action at a distance." The informing particles (virtual particles) are moving basically at an infinite speed with basically no apparent energy signal whatsoever.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-21 10:57:13)
Resistance is futile.topal63 wrote:
(1.) On the "laser - eye" issue - here are a few (easily found) flaws bound within the "shoot lasers with my eyes" statement.Stormscythe wrote:
I refuse to accept that this is an eye any longer, but he didn't define his claim carefully enough, so this might well work.topal63 wrote:
OK, whatever...
(1.) I am not going to do this, but it is possible to shoot lasers beams out from/with your eyes. All you need to do is sacrifice some (or all) your sight, and have a laser emiter installed behind your retina. While there will be damage to your field of vision, it might be only partial... and then you can literally shoot laser beams out of your eyes.I wanna see your Porsche and you work at those temperatures and air pressures given in that article. I somehow regret that I didn't add something like "within the same inert medium", but again, I wasn't specific enoughtopal63 wrote:
(2.) You failed to mention that the speed of light can be slowed down. You know, you need to be specific in this thread. So you're wrong.
Slowing down light:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/199 … light.html
Basically if I set up a race between me in a Porsche vs light moving through a high vacuum pressure near frozen atomic medium. I will accelerate (me & the Porsche's mass) to a speed faster than the light (moving only 38 miles per hour). And, I will get to the finish line with a top speed of 3 to 5 times the speed of light (depending on how long the race is).So let's say the maximum speed of light in the medium that allows the highest speed of light (highest is a superlative and literally means that you can't know of any higher speed and it, to our knowledge does not exist) can not be reached by any particle but photons without an infinite supply of energy.topal63 wrote:
(2.a) So basically you're wrong.
(2.b) And this statement is wrong as well, as (a.) was proven false, so you're wrong at least twice.
Go find the flaw now - and be sure, I'll adjust this statement another few times, if necessary...
It doesn't matter if you consider it an eye or not - the laser emitter behind the eye is a device, it is not the eye. The "eye" was not removed, nor is it completely dysfunctional - just partially. The laser shoots out from the inside the human eye - it can even be controlled by a feedback mechanism. When specific rods or cones transmit a particular signal the retina informs the device to shoot lasers - this completely satisfies the concept "with," which implies a direct relationship of some kind of control of the laser shot. Also, it is possible to replace the eye with a completely prosthetic eye - or mechanical eye. This would still be your "eye," as that would be "owned by you," thus it is your eye. I could buy 2 lasers and buy 2 prosthetic eyes, cut a hole in the back of both, and place the lasers behind the prosthetic eyes - set them on a coffee table - and "shoot lasers with/from my eyes." As I own them they are "my eyes," 2 natural ones in my head and 2 prosthetic ones on a coffee table I can "shoot lasers with/from. "
(2.) You're modifying your statement, that is a violation of the rules. No biggie though. This thread (IMO) is about having fun with ideas in a subjective way. BUT(!) You're merely making the same error in another form.
(a.) This "the medium that allows the highest speed of light" - is non specific. Oops(!). You should have specified either what medium, as in "a medium" not "the medium." And/or, you should have said "the abstraction of space-time as the medium." And, you should have said "free from matter matrixes that could cause the speed of light to slow..."
(b.) The theory of relativity defines an upper limit to the speed of light, not a lower limit. As you are trying to incorporate into this "revised rule-breaking" modified statement/idea. But, you still said "the medium" not "a medium" and you did not define "the medium." So the proof stands as is. As the maximum speed allowed by that particular Bose-Einstein condensate ("the medium") is 38 mph. And, the Porsche's max speed is far above that. Also, they do not have to travel in the same medium as that (as you have acknowledged) was not specified. It does matter if the car was a: Ford Escort, a Honda Accord, or whatever... the top speed of those cars also exceed 38 mph.
(c.) Lets assume the for moment that we can accept your modified statement - to mean this: So let's say the maximum speed of light in a medium that allows the highest speed of light (highest is a superlative and literally means that you can't know of any higher speed and it, to our knowledge does not exist, that medium being the abstraction of space-time free from matter matrixes that could cause the speed of light to slow) cannot be reached by any particle but photons without an infinite supply of energy.
Guess what - you're still wrong. You forgot to exclude the abstraction of "virtual particles." You excluded photons but not these (or this theoretical idea). You are familiar with entanglement. This involves the instantaneous transmission of information (virtual particles) from two entangled particles separated by any distance. Changing the state of one particle causes an instantaneous state change in the other entangled particle. The virtual particles are not moving at light speed that is extremely slow in comparison to an "instantaneous" change in a particle’s state regardless of the distance separating them. Einstein famously referred to this as "spooky action at a distance." The informing particles (virtual particles) are moving basically at an infinite speed with basically no apparent energy signal whatsoever.
but the laser would not be a part of my eye, prosthetic or not, it would simply be attatched to it, if the device were to be moved inside the eye it would then simply be "a laser emitting device inside the eye" but still not a part of the eye itself. Therefore my original statement that "I cannot shoot lasers from my eyes" still stands (or whatever the original statement actually was)topal63 wrote:
(1.) On the "laser - eye" issue - here are a few (easily found) flaws bound within the "shoot lasers with my eyes" statement.
It doesn't matter if you consider it an eye or not - the laser emitter behind the eye is a device, it is not the eye. The "eye" was not removed, nor is it completely dysfunctional - just partially. The laser shoots out from the inside the human eye - it can even be controlled by a feedback mechanism. When specific rods or cones transmit a particular signal the retina informs the device to shoot lasers - this completely satisfies the concept "with," which implies a direct relationship of some kind of control of the laser shot. Also, it is possible to replace the eye with a completely prosthetic eye - or mechanical eye. This would still be your "eye," as that would be "owned by you," thus it is your eye. I could buy 2 lasers and buy 2 prosthetic eyes, cut a hole in the back of both, and place the lasers behind the prosthetic eyes - set them on a coffee table - and "shoot lasers with/from my eyes." As I own them they are "my eyes," 2 natural ones in my head and 2 prosthetic ones on a coffee table I can "shoot lasers with/from. "
Read please OK... it doesn't have to be part of your natural eye. You never specified that. "My eyes" merely implies you claim them as yours, and that can include ownership. The FACT you have yet to purchase or construct "laser shooting eyes" is irrelevant, because in fact you "can shoot lasers with my eyes" (owned by you) as soon as you construct/purchase them.sfarrar33 wrote:
but the laser would not be a part of my eye, prosthetic or not, it would simply be attached to it, if the device were to be moved inside the eye it would then simply be "a laser emitting device inside the eye" but still not a part of the eye itself. Therefore my original statement that "I cannot shoot lasers from my eyes" still stands (or whatever the original statement actually was)topal63 wrote:
(1.) On the "laser - eye" issue - here are a few (easily found) flaws bound within the "shoot lasers with my eyes" statement.
It doesn't matter if you consider it an eye or not - the laser emitter behind the eye is a device, it is not the eye. The "eye" was not removed, nor is it completely dysfunctional - just partially. The laser shoots out from the inside the human eye - it can even be controlled by a feedback mechanism. When specific rods or cones transmit a particular signal the retina informs the device to shoot lasers - this completely satisfies the concept "with," which implies a direct relationship of some kind of control of the laser shot. Also, it is possible to replace the eye with a completely prosthetic eye - or mechanical eye. This would still be your "eye," as that would be "owned by you," thus it is your eye. I could buy 2 lasers and buy 2 prosthetic eyes, cut a hole in the back of both, and place the lasers behind the prosthetic eyes - set them on a coffee table - and "shoot lasers with/from my eyes." As I own them they are "my eyes," 2 natural ones in my head and 2 prosthetic ones on a coffee table I can "shoot lasers with/from."
____________________________________
No buts, no biggie, butt...sfarrar33 wrote:
ok it feels like your winning on technicality but it's in the rules so i can't really complainDeathUnlimited wrote:
Ney seriously listen. "from my eyes" means from the eyes, not from the natural eyes.
If I shoot somebody from a car, It doesn't mean I'd be a part of the car. I still can shoot "from the car".
I consider this done, let's move on.
I should probably think it through a bit more 'cos it sounds a bit like a winner, but...
There is not just one type of eye, nor does a single definition in the dictionary, or wiki, or whatever cover all the possibilities.
There is a natural human eye.
There is a natural octopus eye.
Euglenids have eye-spots.
Bees have eyes (and can see in a different spectrum:UV)
Many cave dwelling organisms (living in complete darkness), have eyes, that well can't see a damn thing; their eyes are non-functional.
There are non-functional prosthetic eyes; glass eyes.
There are symbolic religious eyes; the eye of Horus.
In a sense a radio is mechanical eye (sensitive to non-visible light waves : long waves of electromagnetic radiation).
Etc...
In many ways every technological mechanical construction (or tool), created by humans is an extension of what is natural, modified by mind, imagination and sheer will. A hammer is an extension of my hands capability enhanced by the creative human mind/will. If I want to look into the past and see history, the history of the beginnings of this Universe, my natural eyes will not suffice. I will need radio-eyes and then have those eyes translate those signal into color patterns of visible light so that my eyes can look through/with other eyes, so I can see the remnant cosmic microwave background radiation (that is 15+ billion years old).
____________________________________
Updated [for what was posted below]...
Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-21 10:54:59)