Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fitna vs Expelled – Is Islamofascism similar to Darwinian fascism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Are there parallels between the effects of “Big Science” Darwinism severe job discrimination against non-Darwinists as shown in Expelled, and recent terrorism by Jihadists?

The very controversial film Fitna offers a view on radical Islam and the Qur’an by by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV). It was just released today March 27th on the Internet, and already has over one million downloads each in English and Dutch. Wilders alternates verses from the Qur’an with terrorist events and statements by radical jihadists. Blogpulse of Fitna already lists 2110 messages or 0.1% of messages, compared to 1618 for Blogpulse Expelled Stein.

Compare prominent Darwinist PZ Myers Insisting:

“Don’t tell me to be dispassionate or less unreasonable about it all because because 65% of the American population think creationism should be taught alongside evolution,. . .
I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. If you don’t care enough for the truth to fight for it, then get out of the way.”

Perspective, Pharyngula, Thursday, August 04, 2005

Similarly PZ Myers advocates:

“Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians”(objecting to a creationist high school biology teacher and the education commissioner seeking instruction in “intelligent design creationism”)

What differences are there between imposing the beliefs of believers in Darwinism on others, with imposing the beliefs of radical Islam on others? Is either compatible with constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and speech?

Do we need to describe and strongly oppose such tactics as Darwinian Fascism?

Describing September 11, 2001, Stephen Schwartz defined:

“Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama’atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.”

See: What Is ‘Islamofascism’? A history of the word from the first Westerner to use it. The Daily Standard 08/17/2006. See: Islamofascism at Wikipedia.

What do we need to do to vigorously uphold our rights to religious expression and speech? See:

fn2 [ Annotations ]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Human Rights Week, 2001

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

  • Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
  • Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, nonselfgoverning or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
  • Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The film Fitna is available as follows (warning, disturbing themes and visuals):

{PS DLH added “radical” to Islam}

Comments
“ Those who spend in ease as well as in adversity and those who restrain (their) anger and pardon men. And Allah loves doers of good (to others).” (3:133).mohammed.husain
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Verses of the Qur'an of some interest: “O ye who believe! stand steadfast to God as witnesses with justice; and let not ill-will towards people make you sin by not acting with equity. Act with equity, that is nearer to piety, and fear God; for God is aware of what ye do.” (From Sura 5 - The Table) “Verily, God bids you do justice and good, and give to kindred (their due), and He forbids you to sin, and do wrong, and oppress; He admonishes you, haply ye may be mindful!” (From Sura 16 - The Bee)mohammed.husain
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him): "None of you will truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself". (narrated by Bukhari). Nawawi the famous of the 13th century says that brother here means brother in humanity. God loves kindness when you deal with any matter" (narrated by Bukhari and Muslim) "You will not enter Paradise until you have faith and you will not have faith until you love one another. Do you want me to tell you something you can do to make you love one another? Make it a habit to greet one another with "Asalamu Alaykum" - peace upon you". (narrated by Muslim) "Give gifts to each other, as this will make you love one another." (narrated by Muslim) "Where are those who love each other for the sake of My glory? Today I will shelter them with My shade, as there is no shade today except My shade"." (narrated by Muslim) (with reference to the Day of Judgement. "God Almighty said: "My servant draws near to Me with nothing more loved by Me than the acts of worship that I have enjoined upon him. My servant continues to try to draw near to Me with more devotion, until I love him. When I love him, I will be his hearing with which he hears, his sight by which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, his feet on which he walks. When he asks Me for something, I will respond and when he takes refuge in Me, I will grant it to him. I do not hesitate in doing anything I intend to do as much as I hesitate in seizing the soul of My faithful servant; he hates death and I hate hurting him. But death is a must for him"." (narrated by Bukhari)mohammed.husain
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
DLH -
leo stotch 55, Bob O’H at 60, sparc 63 etc. I agree with you on “Darwinian Lysenkoism”, so I deleted “Darwinian” above.
Can we just be clear - are you now admitting that you were wrong when you wrote in post 7
Consider some Characteristics of Darwinian Fascism/Totalitarianism … * Imprisoning or killing objectors.
and you will rescind this accusation?Bob O'H
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT
DLH
leo stotch 55, Bob O’H at 60, sparc 63 etc. I agree with you on “Darwinian Lysenkoism”, so I deleted “Darwinian” above.
But by writing
I am trying to point out fascist and/or totalitarian imposition of world views with consequential loss of freedoms, and that those regimes were also undergirded by Darwinian principles and/or imposing them.
in the next sentence you repeat the argument or shouldn't
those regimes
refer to Naziism and Stalinism?sparc
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
Update: LiveLeak pulls film because of coercive threats:
Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers. This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else.
The threat that Geert Wilder sought to publicize by his film about the Quran appears to have been realized in Britain. Blogpulse (Fitna) has increased to 0.23% of blogs with 3199 messages. "Al-Qaeda proclaims death penalty Jihad against Wilders" Radio Netherlands Published: Wednesday 27 February 2008 09:33 UTC DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
-----Turner Coates: Are you aware that relativity was attacked from the pulpit for a number of years? Preachers saw the Einsteinian universe as a contradiction of the Bible. Now almost everyone is comfortable with relativity — seeing the explosion of an A-bomb is compelling. Prior to the Hiroshima, naysayers might have gotten away with calling relativity a just-so story. Yes, I am well aware of that episode. Untrained preachers say a lot of silly things. You have not been very specific, but I assume you are referring to the fact that some misguided fundamentalists, who did not understand the General Theory of relativity, mistakenly equated it with “moral relativism.” That is hardly commensurate to what I have put on the table.” -----“So what is special about neo-Darwinism, that you call it to task on moral grounds? I say that scientific theories attempting to account for the diversity of living things on earth should be treated just as other scientific theories. People may use those theories to “bomb” culture immorally, but the theories themselves remain morally neutral.” Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific theory, because it asserts that design in nature is “illusory.” So, I am taking Darwinism and you seriously by pointing to the implications involved in denying teleology in nature. The founding fathers were design theorists. The Declaration of Independence, for example, insists that design in nature is real, as is the “natural moral law,” “natural rights,” a Divine lawgiver” and the “inherent dignity of the human person.” Further, it makes the argument that these things are self-evident and, because they are self evident, we ought to base our freedoms on them. In other words, “the laws of nature” and “natures God” mandate freedom and also provide the rational justification for it. Darwinism, on the other hand, negates all of this by claiming that all of these things are unreal, that any hint of self evident design in nature is misleading. Therefore, Darwinism undoes the very bases of political freedom by insisting that nature cannot possibly reveal those self evident truths that Jefferson and company were talking about. To deny design in nature is to deny evidence of morality, natural laws, and natural rights. Thus, to deny design is to deny natural rights.StephenB
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
StephenB (78) asks,
Again, you are not addressing the issue. How do you provide the moral justification for freedom?
Fallacy of the complex question. It is not a foregone conclusion that the justification must be moral, or that a justification is required at all. For instance, Sartre said that we are condemned to freedom. My thoughts on personal freedom are irrelevant here. What I consider relevant is that science does not provide an adequate basis for ethical or moral beliefs. The fact that some magpies work Darwinism into their belief systems in bizarre ways is not an indictment of the scientific theory. There are New Agers invoking quantum mechanics to thatch their nests. Shall I attack QM in response to how they use it? Are you aware that relativity was attacked from the pulpit for a number of years? Preachers saw the Einsteinian universe as a contradiction of the Bible. Now almost everyone is comfortable with relativity -- seeing the explosion of an A-bomb is compelling. Prior to the Hiroshima, naysayers might have gotten away with calling relativity a just-so story. Now we all accept relativity and QM as excellent scientific theories (despite their conflict). No one asks what they do or do not morally justify. The big moral question connected to relativity is whether Truman should have used the technology based on the theory as he did. So what is special about neo-Darwinism, that you call it to task on moral grounds? I say that scientific theories attempting to account for the diversity of living things on earth should be treated just as other scientific theories. People may use those theories to "bomb" culture immorally, but the theories themselves remain morally neutral.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Yeah, and when he put that thing in about their Creator (captial C) he was just goofing.tribune7
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
DLH (76): You previously said that the NAS defined ID not to be science. Now you're saying what is correct, namely that the NAS does not accept revised notions of science coming from ID theorists. I think Mike Gene's characterization of ID as proto-science is reasonable. It's going to take a lot of scholarly work to build a case for revising the demarcation of science. It's not good enough for ID advocates to proclaim passionately, "Darwinism is BAD and the only remedy is to make science include ID," and then whisper, "OK, and astrology, too." (I'm alluding, of course, to Behe's Dover testimony.) I believe that the scientific establishment indeed should be very conservative in its view of what constitutes science. Members of the ID movement have energized many of you here with talk of a "design revolution," but I have to say on general principle -- not as a response to ID in particular -- that when you seek radical change in the definition of science, you should expect to labor long and hard to realize that change.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
DLH:
Ethic of reciprocity Wikipedia (which is happy to mention the Dalai Lama, but has an aversion to Jesus.)
I don't get your claim that Wikipedia "has an aversion to Jesus" in this context. The article sites nearly a dozen verses, all Jesus' words. More is quoted of Jesus than of the Dali Lama (one small quote). Though Jesus is not specifically mentioned, his message is clearly stated, and the quotes are clearly attributed to him by anyone who looks up the citations in a red-letter edition of the Bible, or anyone who reads in context. {DLH - yes, but the attribution to Jesus is in a footnote, not in the main text.}bFast
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
-----Turner Coates: "Do you really see yourself doing unto Mohammed Husain as you would have him do unto you? It seems to me that the Golden Rule can be offered only gently. You certainly can’t use it as a cudgel. When Confucius offered the “rule,” he phrased it as a question in response to a question." I am responding to the theme of the thread. If everyone wants to put aside the discussion about Islam and focus on Darwinism threat to freedom, I will be happy to do that. Meanwhile, I don’t appreciate your insinuation that I am violating the golden rule by pointing out that Islam makes no provisions for it. I haven’t done anything TO Mohammed other than present facts to him. Is it your opinion that withholding truth is a loving thing to do? As a point of interest, I would be willing to drop the matter altogether at this point and join forces with Mohammed to criticize the destructive world view of Darwinism.StephenB
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
And everything in between. ;)DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
79, If you go to the ISCID website and check out the society fellows. There really is a diverse set of Design supporters, you have everthing from theists and deists to Buddhists and agnostics. That is the way it should be.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Turner Coates at 73 has a good point on the Golden Rule. Lets work to apply it. More on the Golden Rule Harry S. Gensler (Dissertation etc. on the GR) Ethics 08 The Golden Rule Gensler Statements of the Golden Rule The Golden Rule at Teaching Values Ethic of reciprocity Wikipedia (which is happy to mention the Dalai Lama, but has an aversion to Jesus.)DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
-----Turner Coates: "The United States is, as a nation, very much a product of Enlightenment thought. When Thomas Jefferson wrote of self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence, he meant truths that could be arrived at by capital-R Reason. In those days, conservative religious belief was that monarchs ruled by divine right, and the American leaders of the revolution did not believe that people should be self-governing on the basis of any holy book, but indeed on the basis of human reason." As it turns out, that simply is not true. That is the politically correct version of history. If you want to know what the founding fathers really thought, just read the inscriptions on the monuments in Washington D. C. The one phrase you will not find is, “In reason do we place our trust.” Read all of the state constitutions. I each case, they fall all over themselves to pay tribute to the “God” who has provided “blessings.” Further, all of the enlightenment ideas about natural rights were derived from Biblical principles. I suggest that you read, “How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Rodney Stark.” Or, read “Triumph of reason,” by the same author. Again, you are not addressing the issue. How do you provide the moral justification for freedom? To say that it is based on “reason” is to beg the question. The Declaration of Independence is less about reason and more about the self-evident principles that reason points to. What are those principles? We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights. They come from “the laws of nature” (the natural moral law) and “natures God” (The lawgiver) For Darwinism there is no “natures God,” no “natural moral law,” no “natural rights” or no “design.” According to that mind set, all these things are “illusory,” meaning, of course, that they could hardly be self evident.StephenB
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Not to belabor the obvious…but there is indeed a link between Darwin and totalitarianism. And that link is theory. Theory totalizes value. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Plato’s theory of the Ideas, or Descartes’ theory of the affections, or Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection, or Nietzsche’s theory of the will to power—or, for that matter, a certain very famous scientist’s theory of spacetime. In each instance, theory uses the mind’s capacity for qualitative resistance to totalize value and suppress the varieties of experience. Or to put it more positively (we’ll force ourselves to be kind), theory seeks to unify experience through a dialectical concept of value. Now as it happens, there is a direct link between Nazi fascism and Darwin through Nietzsche and the will to power, which is based on the survival of the fittest. Naziism is a political expression of the superman; it is futile to claim otherwise. Whether or not Hitler actually “understood” Nietzsche is a moot point. He understood him in his own way, and that’s where the trouble began. But more germane to the present discussion is the link between Natural Selection and the totalitarianism on display in our universities. Darwin’s theory facilitates totalitarianism for the very reason that it is a theory. Just as Plato’s theory of value led to the totalitarianism of the Republic, where no dissent was tolerated, so the totality that is Darwinism cannot tolerate any discontents. Dissenters must be labeled madmen to preserve the integrity of the façade of power and absolute certainty. Unfortunately all theories are vulnerable to one little fact of existence: observation. The totalitarian façade that is Darwinism is crumbling because of a virtual outpouring of toney high-tech studies in basic science that clearly indicate design. Those who report these study results are not able to utter the word “design”—after all, they do want to get published—but the design inference is clearly evident in their results. The totalitarianism on display in Darwinism is being undermined by hard science; by the varieties of experience, which become more interesting than the theory with each passing day. The more we study nature, the more obvious it becomes that Darwin’s quaint little story about value is suspect. And this makes it increasingly difficult to enforce orthodoxy (which accounts for the rhetoric seen in Dawkins, Harris, Myers, et al).allanius
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Turner coates at 72 Re NAS "ID violates the methodological naturalism that almost all scientists require of scientific investigation." "Methodological naturalism" is reasonable if you are looking purely at natural laws, excluding all intelligent causation. However, we are now on the bring of the "second scientific revolution" which has to address the coded data in DNA, apparent design and irreducible complexity within the cell etc. To do so, tellic intelligent causation is one option while atellic naturalism is the other. Models of intelligent causation may well fit this empirical data better than atellic nature. To test for this, methodological naturalism needs to be relaxed. A priori forbidding that option, leaves those who do so only able to examine the smaller universe of atellic models. They cannot then validly comment on tellic models of intelligent causation. Intelligent causation models and can be developed by examining known intelligent causation by human agents. In this post, it is the coercive aspect that is particularly troubling that the NAS lumps the lot together and says "not science". Furthermore, those at the Smithsonian Institute were some of the worst offenders in that effort to evict Richard Sternberg, discredit him, and ruin his career.DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Turner Coates, you make some very good points here in your comment above. I think it is very important to make sure people realize ID and Evangelical Christianity are not one and the same.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Turner Coates at 71
The United States is, as a nation, very much a product of Enlightenment thought. When Thomas Jefferson wrote of self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence, he meant truths that could be arrived at by capital-R Reason.
See Wallbuilders for the story behind that spin and more actual history. Particularly see:David Barton's book: Uncommon Descent ISBN-10: 1414311613. I am afraid you will have a hard time justifying Endowed by their creator with unalienable rights" from "reason". See also "laws of Nature's God", reliance on Providence, and the appeal to Judge of the world.DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
StephenB (69): When I took Bible courses in college, I learned what awful shenanigans preachers had been up to with their "proof texts." To compare a negative proof text from another person's holy book to the most positive you can find in your own, and leave the impression that you've nailed the other person, is ugly. Do you really see yourself doing unto Mohammed Husain as you would have him do unto you? It seems to me that the Golden Rule can be offered only gently. You certainly can't use it as a cudgel. When Confucius offered the "rule," he phrased it as a question in response to a question.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
DLH says,
The executive of NAS has defined ID as not “science.”
Those fascists! It's been some time since I looked at the NAS statement, but my recollection is that it explains that ID violates the methodological naturalism that almost all scientists require of scientific investigation. Thus the statement did not define ID as not science, but pointed out that ID violates a definition of science that was in place before creation science went belly-up (1987). Few members of the NAS believe in God, but that is hardly prima facie evidence that they're anti-religion.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
StephenB (50) says,
Thus, true freedom, that variety which was provided for by the founding fathers, is the right “to follow the dictates of our conscience.”
The United States is, as a nation, very much a product of Enlightenment thought. When Thomas Jefferson wrote of self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence, he meant truths that could be arrived at by capital-R Reason. In those days, conservative religious belief was that monarchs ruled by divine right, and the American leaders of the revolution did not believe that people should be self-governing on the basis of any holy book, but indeed on the basis of human reason. Personally, I believe that the Church of Reason is a cold and sterile place, but I wouldn't say that the ideological errors of the Founders made our nation corrupt.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
----mohammed: "No equivalent to the golden rule in Islam? really? You must not know Islam very well. “Hal jazaa ala ihsaan-e illal ehsaan.” Paraphrased roughly as “Is the recompense of good anything but good.” This is a verse of the Qur’an. Now proceed on to explain it away." There is nothing to explain away. That passage does not even come close to replicating the golden rule. The Islamic community has responded to the "Universal Declaration of Human rights on two different occasions. In neither case did they acknowledge the freedom to worship as one chooses. "There is for you an excellent example to follow in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: 'we are clear of you and whatever ye worship besides Allah: We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, emnity and hatred forever, unless you believe in Allah and him alone." Qur'an 60:4StephenB
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
DLH says,
Darwinian Lysenkoism
Absurd. Don't just link to the article -- read it! Lysenkoism ran contrary to the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and Darwinism we now call neo-Darwinism.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
leo stotch 55, Bob O'H at 60, sparc 63 etc. I agree with you on "Darwinian Lysenkoism", so I deleted "Darwinian" above. I am trying to point out fascist and/or totalitarian imposition of world views with consequential loss of freedoms, and that those regimes were also undergirded by Darwinian principles and/or imposing them. Note that Darwin's "Origin of Species" was instrumental in turning Stalin from the priesthood to a tyrant. See: E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12.DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
DLH,
Do you acknowledge the coercive items noted at DLH 7 or do you hold that they do not happen?
I think you need to look up strong words like coercive in the dictionary before using them for effect. There has been some ugly infringement on the academic freedom of ID advocates. There have also been some cases in which ID advocates were rightfully denied tenure because of substandard scholarship -- tenure committees have the legal right to maintain orthodoxy, and that's why some of the "expelled" will fare better on the big screen than in open court.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
The link between the Holocaust and Darwinism is stronger than the proposed Soviet - Darwin linkage.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Turner Coates at 59 Consider 1998, 7% NAS scientists believe in God while 72% disbelieve in God. 5.5% of NAS Biologists believe in God. National Academy of Science The executive of NAS has defined ID as not "science." It a priori excludes any explanation from intelligent causation, rather than allowing evaluation of empirical evidence against competing models to see which better explain and predict the evidence.DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
“Darwinian Lysenkoism” is an oxymoron.
Unfortunately, DLH's comment is only moros without any sign of being oxy.sparc
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply