Return Home
It is currently Fri May 24, 2024 8:15 pm

All times are UTC-06:00


Forum rules


Do not make an initial post to start a new thread on this forum once you advance beyond the beginner level of posts. This forum is an experiment with the purpose of encouraging the participation of those who have so far only hung out in the background and looked over the bulletin board. It is intended to be a place where things are orderly for beginners without the free interaction of the main board. Post only with care for the recognition that we are welcoming a new member and not arguing with a fellow old timer. Your cooperation is appreciated.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 453 posts ]  Go to page Previous 115 16 17 18 1931 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:07 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:47 am
Posts: 98
Location: Malta
Tom says this at the end:

When the avatar dies, the FWAU merges during the transition back into its parent IUOC (the partition is deleted). The IUOC eventually decides on another experience packet and partitions off another FWAU representing the current quality of the IUOC (which has changed due to the last experience packet.)


The FWAU merges into its IUOC but what of your NPMR self? I thought that you go into NPMR when your avatar dies and make the decision yourself by free will.

Would you be self-aware in NPMR?

I am probably confusing the term IUOC with the NPMR avatar here.

_________________
Luke


Top
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:13 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Not sure what you mean when you say 'NPMR self". You, as your FWAU, never exist in NPMR any more than you exist within this PMR. You're just being fed a data stream that allows you to percieve that you are in this PMR, and from that point anything that you consciously percieve is nothing but a change in that incoming data stream.

When you 'go' to NPMR, you're not 'moving' from the PMR avatar to a NPMR avatar. Neither of those really exist. What is happening is that your consciousness (FWAU I suppose) gets fed a different data stream or different messages in the data stream. From the perspective of a FWAU, it appears that you are shifting from one reality to another, but the FWAU isn't going or moving anywhere. It's just recieving different incoming data streams.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:23 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 1644
Radagast wrote:When you 'go' to NPMR, you're not 'moving' from the PMR avatar to a NPMR avatar. Neither of those really exist. What is happening is that your consciousness (FWAU I suppose) gets fed a different data stream. From the perspective of a FWAU, it appears that one is shifting from one reality to another, but the FWAU isn't going or moving anywhere. It's just recieving different incoming data streams.
Yes, and I believe the FWAU and IUOC aren't really two different things. Just metaphors to describe different functions.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:26 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
The NPMR avatar is the closest we experience to the base IUOC as NPMR has the least tight rule set without the physical aspects of PMR. This is something which Tom has said not that long ago. You don't so much "go into NPMR" as your personality and learning is merged into your NPMR avatar by a matter of willful choice on the part of your NPMR avatar choosing what to integrate into itself as part of its continually developing personality. Your NPMR avatar is self aware.

The idea in creating an avatar in a VR is that you start with your base IUOC. Then a subset of your IUOC is selected as your FWAU for that incarnation which is based on any limitations placed upon your IUOC for this incarnation. Say you choose to reduce your intelligence in some way or to reduce some specific ability as perhaps dealing with space and geometry. Then the big computer enforces the PMR rule set and any specific bodily limitations or genetics or health problems you might have as that avatar. Finally you are fully reduced from what you might have been like as your IUOC to the avatar that you experience yourself as.

Any changes that occur in your IUOC as in changes in QOC or lowering of entropy apply directly to your IUOC. After your return to NPMR (your PMR avatar dies), your NPMR avatar makes changes to itself in effect by deciding what new traits you might have developed it wishes to integrate into its continually developing personality. This is the integration process that is referred to.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:08 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:47 am
Posts: 98
Location: Malta
Thanks everyone, it's more clear now.

Seems I got mixed up in the different metaphors!

_________________
Luke


Top
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:19 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
I want to revisit this notion about the IUOC not being conscious. It has been said that an IUOC is not conscious of itself. That it is not inherently conscious. But all IUOCs, beginning with the first split of AUO, are by definition inside a virtual reality because they can communicate with each other. The first proto VR being defined as simple communication rules over the RWW, IUOC to IUOC.

Therefore I will put forth that all IUOCs are inherently conscious by definition. If they are not in a VR, they can no longer be defined as an IUOC. Of course they are not conscious then, because they are not connected to the RWW and can neither send nor recieve messages. It is functionally dead at that point.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:05 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Radagast,

I have gone through this before. It is what I basically explained in the Wiki write up of Tom's model. That all of the IUOCs in Union as AUO make up what is in effect a VR which is AUO. That is, they receive and reply to messages over the RWW which are the 'thoughts' of AUO, not their own. They are at first developing their Union, their Oneness, as they develop into AUO/The One Consciousness. They are developing both their selves and AUO as they share developments which add to their 'internal' data/code contents as they spread functionality. But they are not doing this consciously but just as what they naturally do as a developing system and are on their way to becoming The One Consciousness. They are first sharing the first dim thoughts of AUO and then developing into The One Consciousness all simultaneously in one development effort. The as what I have called proto-IUOCs are first not conscious of these messages. They are what might be thought of as the developing neurons in the 'brain' of AUO/The One Consciousness. As such they are not self conscious or conscious of these messages but just processing these messages and setting up the neural networks over the RWW which is the developing AUO, creating and developing The One Consciousness.

I say that they are not individually conscious at this point because the messages that they are passing around and modifying are not their thoughts and actions as in a VR but they are the developing thoughts in the developing mind of AUO. At this point in the development of AUO, they are creating the first memories of AUO and using these developing memories to subjectively create the understanding of AUO. They are in Union, AUO, and are developing this Union and developing this Union into The One Consciousness. I see no basis for them to be conscious of either themselves or these messages that they create, pass around and respond to at this point. Consciousness as The One Consciousness is just now being created and developed within AUO as The One Consciousness. This is where they are developing their Union as a system into The One Consciousness by inventing Consciousness, the mind of AUO as the One Consciousness.

Does it make sense that they are doing this unconsciously and that the developing Consciousness is that of AUO as it develops into The One Consciousness as they in their Union as AUO develop and invent Consciousness. They gradually change from their state before there is Consciousness into their state as part of the Union that is AUO and create within this Union The One Consciousness as the first Consciousness is invented and developed.

At this point, they lack the messages being sent around that allow them to operate as full IUOCs within a Virtual Reality. Conditions are like a VR in a sense that messages are being passed around and responded to. But they are unlike a VR in the sense that the messages contain nothing for the IUOCs to be conscious of or to develop avatars. They are rather becoming in their Union The One Consciousness of AUO and it is the thoughts of AUO that are being passed around and responded to by what might be considered as the neurons in the developing mind of AUO.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:20 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
But AUO came before the IUOCs. Was it not conscious then? The first IUOC was the first split of AUO into two parts that could communicate with each other and have free will. This was also the first VR. Were those first IUOCs not conscious? If they are interacting with each other in a proto VR via RWW messages, and they have free will, how can they not be conscious?

I'm getting most of this from Tom's video posted here about how consciousness connects to the avatar by the way. In it, Tom describes the first VR and the first IUOC as the first split of AUO from one monolithic thing with free will and a mind to two monolithic things with free will and minds of their own. It seems to me that the entire purpose of the first and all subsequent IUOCs was for AUO to have other parts, with an awareness much like its own, with free will and their own separate mind to interact with.

In other words, how does AUO go from being 'one dimly aware monolithic thing dividing itself into smaller things that communicate with each other in a basic VR, those interactions defining consciousness' per Tom, to 'one conscious monolithic thing whose consciosness arises from unconscious smaller things communicating(but are
not really in a VR themselves)' per Ted?

It then seems like Tom is saying that AUO is not inherently conscious, at least not if consciousness requires free will and a VR to express that free will. AUO without IUOC is not in a VR. It can't be conscious because it has no way to express free will. It has only a dim awareness of itself, not a conscious communication with other consciousnesses. Consciousness and free will only arise when the first VR arises to allow interaction, which is done by the creation of the first IUOC and the RWW.

I see only one way to reconcile the two. IUOCs communicating with each other are what we call conscious by virtue of that ability to communicate and express free will. IUOCs, if not communicating with each other, are not conscious. Yet they are dimly aware in the same way that AUO was dimly aware when it was one monolithic thing.

All of this leads to one conclusion, which is that consciousness is not fundamental. Awareness is fundamental, while consciousness or conscious awareness is an emergent property.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Last edited by Radagast on Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:09 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Radagast wrote:But AUO came before the IUOCs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It seems to me that the entire purpose of the first and all subsequent IUOCs was for AUO to have other conscious parts with free will and their own mind to interact with.
If you look at Tom's last section of his third book, you will see a section giving short discussions of scientists and what they wrote about. Go to Book 3, Section 6 and scan the chapter titles. There you will find Chapter 91, Traveling in Good Company and following chapters which discuss extracts from the thinking of various scientists of note, starting with Albert Einstein. I am not going to attempt to outline all of that discussion here. I will just point out that there are a lot of fits out of others thinking but they lacked the concepts that Tom provides to put it all together. For instance, I see it that Albert Einstein failed in his attempt to create a Universal Field Theory as he was trying to use mathematics and trying to put space time and energy into one universal field. He did not think of Consciousness as the LCS as being the unifying field that united everything else, having no knowledge of the role that Consciousness played in everything in the creation of the PMR VR.

Tom stops his description of the LCS at a certain point but he includes ideas in this Section 6 which can be seen to expand this description if you look and apply them to do so. Tom did not choose to include in his outline of his theory, My Big TOE everything which might have gone into it. Many of those ideas are mentioned in Chapter 91 and following chapters. When Tom's Wiki was being created, I spent a lot of time discussing these things with Tom and extended the model beyond what Tom outlined in his first 5 sections of MBT. These extensions, already noted and outlined by Tom in his last Section 6 of book 3, are the basis for this extension. I'm sure that Tom might have made his own extensions if he had not already gotten to 800+ pages and many years of work and decided to stop at a certain point with only references beyond this point.

On page 784, Tom discusses Dr. Fredkin and his reference to cellular automata which I had already recognized as matching Tom's reality cells interacting by a rule set. I was fairly well familiar with CA since I had first read about them in an article in Scientific American from my teenage years by John Conway describing his Game of Life. He did not invent CA but he certainly popularized them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton I added this to Tom's description of his model and also added the concepts of self organization and emergent complexity to explain, within the model as described on Tom's Wiki, how a CA, where data travels in straight lines very locally until it crashes into other data, can be united into one thing where data can travel over the whole of the LCS without crashing and being destroyed. http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/The_MBT_Model_Link_Page

Thus was AUO actually created by the nature of pure mathematics which united the LCS into the 'all one thing' which is AUO. This actually created the IUOCs in the form of proto-IUOCs which I call them. http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/Proto_IUOCs_and_Proto_RWW Thus when Tom talks about AUO dividing itself to create the IUOCs, he is talking about AUO dividing itself by making use of the 'dotted lines' that were already there as the RWW which surrounded the proto-IUOCs and provided the universal communication buss which united them into AUO. Tom is not just being nice to me as an elderly man by letting me babble on but I am actually extending his theory to include details and explanations that he did not originally get around to. This is all there in his original trilogy but just not expanded into his description of his model in his 3 books.

I did not invent this, just expanded the ideas and explained them. I am working on other extensions of Tom's theory and model which I have mentioned here on the board and hopefully I will get finished before I am gone.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:26 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
I'm not questioning your competence Ted. It just seems to me like Tom envisions MBT as always being one 'thing', while the IUOCs and such are just names for functions of that one thing. While you seem to envision AUO and IUOCs as separate things with different inherent properties. That the difference between the two could cause some misunderstandings. Maybe I am mistaken, but that is what I am reading.

Ultimately whether an IUOC is conscious/aware in itself or not has no bearing on the functionality of MBT as a whole. It's more of a point of interest and discussion rather than a fight about who is wrong and who is right.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:32 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Radagast,

I am providing information to you, explaining why Tom says what he says as you reference and why I take this further, with Tom's complete understanding of this additional information. It is not a matter of argument or disagreement between Tom and I or anyone else but a matter of reconciling and explaining the reason for the apparent differences. Whether you choose to pay attention or agree is up to you.

You are mixing up MBT which is a book Tom wrote and to which he has made limited updates and revisions since and the model of Reality which is expounded in that book. That book will remain relatively static rather than being constantly rewritten and greatly expanded. It is basically Tom's introduction to the subject. Our understanding of the Reality Tom describes is intended to continually grow, whether Tom provides that growth, I provide some of it or those who follow us after we are gone. The full expectation is that once modern science has changed its Paradigm and accepted what MBT has to say about the nature of Reality, that considerable effort will be expended by science on expanding what we can presently say about the nature of Reality.

Perhaps Linda has one of her wonderful references at hand. I know that Tom has stated his intention and expectation that the information in MBT as a theory and understanding of Realty will continue to grow but a search of the board has so far not found it.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:16 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7224
Location: Ocala, FL
I think he has just said this a few times in passing. I don't have a reference for it though.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:58 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Linda:
"Tom, thanks for your time to post in this thread. However Bob and I are still asking the question that did not seem to get answered, and he just PM’d me about it.

Is there consciousness without an avatar? Can you participate in a VR without an avatar?

I am thinking about you saying that you have visited other PMRs without manifesting a body. And also if you are in contact with your guide during meditation, does the guide have an avatar? Or is it just data communication without the extra data of an avatar? I guess we really need some definition of an avatar. In my mind it is a body, and in Bob’s understanding it is personality.

It is my understanding that an avatar is the body one assumes in a VR. And that an avatar is not necessary for consciousness. A guide could surely use direct data communication in the VR with the person who is meditating, or whatever. The guide does not have to produce an avatar for communication.

Bob feels as though there must be an IUOC, an avatar, an a VR for consciousness.

Could you help us out here?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom:
This discussion reminds me of the Dark Ages argument about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Believe it or not, that actually was a serious hot topic for a while (one of the more notable philosophical clashes between science and religion). Furthermore, one's position on this question could be a life or death matter. Fortunately, we have evolved much since that time and this current discussion is no more than a friendly debate. The similarity between the two questions is that neither question is fundamentally important or significant -- it only seems significant from the perspective of those forcing logic deeper into a metaphor than is fundamentally useful. In other words, the answer has no fundamental relevance because it does not affect anyone's ability or desire to raise or lower their entropy. It doesn't add anything important to the knowledge-base that is needed to see one's reality from a big picture perspective. It’s a detail and a not particularly significant detail. Three or four hundred years after the big question of angels and pinheads went away, similar insignificant details created two or three versions of Catholicism and dozens of flavors of Protestantism. We humans do have a propensity to get in arguments about the details of how we interpret top level metaphors.

The above puts the following answer (more precisely defining terms and possible processes) into the perspective of personal opinion that is not critical to anything important. I will tell you how I see it -- but don’t confuse that with me telling you what is the right or wrong answer). We have no creed or dogma here (i.e., “right” answers that all must accept as being right). MBT is about being a catalyst to help you develop your Big TOE (using YOUR experience, words, and metaphors). It is a theory to be used in any way that an individual finds useful, not a set of facts or right answers to be accepted as correct or believed.

In MBT, I use the word “avatar” to mean a computed, dynamic, virtual object (defined by a rule-set that defines all the possibilities and probabilities, interactions and actions the virtual object could POTENTIALLY “experience”) that is used to constrain the experience of a consciousness who is allowed to ACTUALLY experience nothing other than the POTENTIAL computed experience (actions, interactions, and their consequences) of the avatar.

Consciousness uses an avatar to have experience and choices that are bound by the rule-set of a virtual reality. This makes “Consciousness” more fundamental than “avatar”. Thus consciousness exists independently of the existence of an avatar. “Consciousness” is the user and “Avatar” is a tool created by consciousness to be used by consciousness.

A consciousness exists to make free will choices. “Consciousness” and “free will choice” are logically necessary for each other to exist. If, for some reason, consciousness can no longer make free will choices, then it is only a potential consciousness, not an actual consciousness. Choice requires an experience to give context to the choice. Without experience, choice is meaningless. Without choice, experience is of little value.

A virtual reality is a rule-based construct that provides a context for both experience and choice. Experience without a rule based context is meaningless and incoherent (random). One could argue that experience without context is not actually covered under the word “experience” others could argue that it is – a useless argument that is not important.

The simplest and most basic virtual reality is no more than the rule-set needed to define communication protocols – perhaps with very basic syntax and words -- more complex syntax, words, and protocols will evolve. When the IUOC were created a VR delivering communication protocols was probably created as well (waiting for such protocols to develop out of randomness would have been unnecessarily tedious since the LCS was already communication within itself. Developing the rules and infrastructure to support communication between IUOC (the RWW) would seem an obvious thing for the LCS (as the executive function or operating system) to eventually provide. Thus the LCS creates the first VR and all the IUOC are netted. Whether this VR was produced (evolved) before, during, or after (or all of the above) the IUOC were produced is not important.

Consciousness removed from all VRs (including com protocols – i.e., taken off the RWW) becomes a potential consciousness. A potential IUOC can be actualized or re-actualized, by being connected to a VR wherein it can communicate, experience, and make choices. All VRs (like the communication protocol VR) do not define avatars. Only more complex rule-sets can define a VR simulation that evolves objects with potential choices (all such objects are NPCs played by the LCS-computer while the simulation initially evolves). When the NPC objects evolve to the point that they are making choices that are of interest and value to IUOC evolution, then IUOCs log onto the simulation-VR to play an object-avatar. That avatar-object is now being played by an IUOC and is no longer an NPC being played by the LCS-computer. Eventually, all the object-avatars are being played by IUOCs except for special cameo roles as needed.

Hopefully pulling together all these related concepts from the various places I have discussed them will be helpful to this discussion.

Tom


Top
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:06 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:47 am
Posts: 173
Thanks again Linda and Tom,

Here are some of my thoughts on Tom’s most recent posts which have provided insight to me.

1. Tom reminds us (me) that we are supposed to be developing our own Big TOEs. The insight here for me is to really accept that “the world” is not objective. And while not objective, it is (virtually, which is to say actually) real nonetheless. Intellectually I can conceive this to be the case; that the world is a subjective reality. For me, it is more difficult emotionally to do so. I see now more clearly how often my thinking unconsciously falls back into “objective” mode.

2. With respect to our friendly debate or argument over how we interpret top level metaphors, I’d qualify the notion further as more of a searching for understanding and less of an exposition of certain assertions. It’s easy to forget that when making certain statements we are often looking for correction or modification leading to more accurate understanding. Perhaps it’s just me, a very left brained individual, who wants to really know how things are. So I am reminded to re-read #1 just above.

3. Tom explains that without experience, free will choices are meaningless. He goes on: Free will choice is logically necessary for consciousness to exist. I conclude that experience is what makes consciousness meaningful and for me, consciousness devoid of meaning is oxymoronic. So how does experience happen? Tom says that “consciousness uses an avatar to have experience.” For me then, and for my big TOE, the notion that an avatar is a function that is a necessary part of how experience is generated seems valid. But I can certainly see how I could be forcing logic deeper into a metaphor than is fundamentally useful for many. It just makes things hang together for me.

4. Finally, Tom explains that the RWW is perhaps the first and simplest VR created by the LCS:
The simplest and most basic virtual reality is no more than the rule-set needed to define communication protocols – perhaps with very basic syntax and words -- more complex syntax, words, and protocols will evolve. When the IUOC were created a VR delivering communication protocols was probably created as well (waiting for such protocols to develop out of randomness would have been unnecessarily tedious since the LCS was already communication within itself. Developing the rules and infrastructure to support communication between IUOC (the RWW) would seem an obvious thing for the LCS (as the executive function or operating system) to eventually provide. Thus the LCS creates the first VR and all the IUOC are netted. Whether this VR was produced (evolved) before, during, or after (or all of the above) the IUOC were produced is not important.
I must admit that I never considered the RWW to be a VR, however basic. But it makes sense to me now that it is pointed out. And I can see how one might conclude, on the basis of this quoted paragraph, that IUOCs communicating with each other over the RWW (in a VR) would be doing so without an avatar. But when I combine this explanation with the other things that Tom has described about experience, choice and consciousness I naturally add the function of the avatar (yes the function of the most basic avatar in the case of the RWW) to the mix of what is required for consciousness, for there to be a self. For my big TOE, I can make the further leap that this most basic avatar is non-physical. It therefore operates in an NPMR VR. The RWW could be that NPMR VR. Maybe it didn’t start out that way, but the notion that the RWW is one and the same VR where/how our “continuous NPMR avatars” experience consciousness not only makes sense to me, it would seem to be an economical approach for the LCS. At any rate, I am not suggesting that anyone subscribe to my conclusion but I am open to any identification of flaws in this line of thinking that matters more than knowing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Having Tom pull together many of these concepts which he has discussed in various places had proved helpful to me, thanks again.
Bob


Top
 Post subject: Re: Who am I?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:14 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7224
Location: Ocala, FL
I can make the further leap that this most basic avatar is non-physical.
All avatars are non-physical.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 453 posts ]  Go to page Previous 115 16 17 18 1931 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited