View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 25th, 2014, 2:34 am



Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Another conversation with Nancy Malik 
Author Message
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Alan C. wrote:
Edited to ask Nervanam.
How important do you think it is that the homeopathic potion is banged 10 times against a leather bound lump of wood?


With a request, taking liberty to answer the above question:

Sucussion is a very specific and carefully controlled process which along with serial dilution, forms the basis of the potentization process, it is not some haphazard 'bottle shaking' as you seem to think. In Succussion those drugs that are soluble in Alcohol or Water are serially diluted with the media either alcohol or water and every dilution is followed by vigorous shaking which allows uniform mixing of drug substance in alcohol or water.

Gone are the days when you have a leather bound lump of wood. Now you have K-machines doing it

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


December 17th, 2009, 12:11 pm
Profile
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Nirvanam wrote:
Lifelinking wrote:
As to all this concern with 'areas of expertise'. If I may point out, critical thinking is not something restricted to one area of expertise.
Life, "critical-thinking" without expertise in a subject cannot take you far and if you choose to conclude about the subject then it means narrow-mindedness. Critical-thinking only questions stuff, it does not conclude. Conclusion is derived from experimentation and conjecture. Conclusion necessarily requires an element of subjective interpretation (you are aware that nothing can be proved, right? So, how does one make a decision, then? This is where subjective conjecture comes in).

And yes before dismissing something off, it is very reasonable to expect the dismisser to have some background in it.

Lifelinking wrote:
Spend your money on this stuff if you want to Nirvanam. Really. Go for it.
Life, to be honest I acknowledge that every human being no matter whether he is Einstein or mentally-retarded, has irrational beliefs and find comfort in many things. Homeopathy works for my sweating problem, it works for my fevers, and other such ailments. So I use it. I, as an individual, prefer not to ingest third or fourth degree artificially made chemicals. Does it make me any less rational than you are?


The true meaning of a skeptic is one who has not concluded or make up his mind. One who hasten to make conclusions has his or her mind closed for further "critical thinking". Should we still call you a skeptic

Sources of most (if not all) conventional medicine is synthetic chemicals tested in test tubes, sick people or on animals (mostly rats)

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


December 17th, 2009, 12:17 pm
Profile
Banned
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2008, 11:38 am
Posts: 212
Location: Gurgaon, India
Alan H wrote:
You will find that we have been far kinder to her here than many other sites.

And unless you have already read all the posts, how do you know she has not abused us? Nancy has certainly abused our goodwill and patience, as well as insulting us.


We have been far kinder to her.....: Thank you very much. What more I can expect from you?

Nancy abused our goodwill............: Guilty person accusing the innocent

_________________
Real (Homeopathic) medicine cures even when Conventional conventional Medicine (CAM) fails


December 17th, 2009, 12:23 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
It's also a news to me that this is private space owned by Madam Maria. So I need to be careful too, otherwise she will ban me, you know.
Nancy

You obviously didn't bother reading the: 'About us' page.


I was not aware that you can not write against the wishes of owners of this forum. But on the top of the page it's written "An independent forum for those................" otherwise you will be banned. only one track discussion is allowed , to see the other side of the coin is prohibited.

But let me tell you, you are living in your own world and feel good by patting each other's back after ridiculing homeopathy. Open your eyes and see the world has moved, and homeopathy has emerged as the second largest mode of treatment in the world after conventional medicine.
Nancy

You are talking nonsense. Who is saying you can't 'write against the wishes of owners'? There are some basic rules that are there to facilitate good discussion. You continually seem to ignore them and are chastised for it. Or do you really think that your 'debating style' helps persuade others of the merit of your argument?

Open your eyes, Nancy. Provide evidence that is not ad populum nor anecdote. Evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny. As I've said before to you: most here understand the scientific method and if you were to present good evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy that can be replicated, then we would embrace it. I'm sure you (and perhaps others) will say the latter would never happen, but I can assure you we would all love to see the world's health problems disappear at a stroke. However, knowing what I do about homeopathy, I don't see that as particularly likely. Persuade me otherwise, not by posting links to single case studies or anecdotes but to robust scientific evidence.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 1:27 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Alan H wrote:
It's not up to me to decide what might be the best evidence you can find: you provide the evidence and argue it and try to convince us with facts and rational argument.


I am not here to convince or force anyone to believe that homeopathy works. Each one of us is mature enough to decide for ourselves. I will put up only an evidence. It's upto you to accept or reject it citing any reason.
We've already told you why we reject anecdote, Nancy. I have a very high regard for people's health and relying on anecdote and poorly conducted trials is no where good enough — not when people's health and lives are at stake. Do you understand that? If you did, perhaps you'd be better able to see why your 'evidence' just is no good enough.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 1:36 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm
Posts: 1023
Location: Bangalore
Alan H wrote:
Open your eyes, Nancy. Provide evidence that is not ad populum nor anecdote. Evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny. As I've said before to you: most here understand the scientific method and if you were to present good evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy that can be replicated, then we would embrace it. I'm sure you (and perhaps others) will say the latter would never happen, but I can assure you we would all love to see the world's health problems disappear at a stroke. However, knowing what I do about homeopathy, I don't see that as particularly likely. Persuade me otherwise, not by posting links to single case studies or anecdotes but to robust scientific evidence.
Alan, instead of asking Nancy (or me or anyone else) to produce evidence after evidence that you don't seem to consider as evidence, why not do the following: In another post Nancy has given some info about Homeopathy in Europe. I am sure there would be some senior well-trained, well-learned Homeopathic doctors in the UK and organizations (pharma ones) that support Homeopathy research. Why not just approach them, if you are truly interested in knowing whether Homeopathy works or not.

Just like we cannot prove a believer that god does not exist (because the individual has to see it himself), similarly no one can prove something like this. Its for you to search with an open mind, provided you are inclined enough to do it. Else leave it. Why bother?


December 17th, 2009, 1:37 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Lifelinking wrote:
I don't think the onus to provide evidence lies with Maria and Alan here N.


They can not prove that homeopathy does not work, even if they wish to.
Nancy

Don't you read anything anyone says? jdc provided links to several high quality papers that concluded that homeopathy didn't work.

As has been said on many occasions, you came here asserting that homeopathy works. Prove it.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 1:38 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm
Posts: 3985
nirvanam wrote:
Is Nancy holding a knife to anybody's neck here and asking them to take homeopathic medicine or else...? If she is being asked to provide evidence of whether h-pathy works or not, it would be fair for her to know whether the people asking for evidence are capable of understanding the evidence or subject, no?

I am asking for evidence. Are you saying that I am not capable of understanding? Again, I will reiterate: you of all people should know that one can have an opinion about something without being an expert in the subject.


Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
fAccording to Homeopathy, fever or a pain is not a disease. It is an indication by the body that something is wrong with the system (body). A fever is the body’s attempt to activate the immune system’s white blood cells and defend itself from infection? If a person is given a symptom-suppressing medication — fighting the fever — too soon, they will be less able to fight the actual infection. Fever is the answer to the infection which has get into your body. Body raised its temperature in response to the infection so as to kill the infection. Homeopathy treats fever or pain as a symptom for an underlying disease. The homeopathic medicine will treat the underlying cause not the fever or pain. And if the cause is removed, the symptoms (fever or pain or both) will automatically be removed

Conventional medicine teaches that fever/pain is an indication of something wrong in the body. The body does send white blood cells to the 'site' of the issue. We agree on this. Here is where the problem starts: 'The homeopathic medicine will treat the underlying cause not the fever or pain.'
So, my child who had a fever of 104 degrees at 1 year of age is going to be treated for what? You know it's an infection but there are no other real symptoms except lethargy and fever.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
orget about all theories, rely on your personal experience for awhile, have the skeptics ever tried Homeopathic remedies before discrediting them. You must try the remedies, because at the end of the day, we learn with our bodies....
The world is divided into the haves and have nots: those who have tried homeopathy and those who have not. Those who have tried it--the millions of people in the world who use homeopathy--know that it works. They didn’t decide that based on years of research. The people who disparage homeopathy, have no personal experience with it. There’s no excuse for that, since this is not a debate about life on Saturn. Homeopathic remedies are readily available. It would require no commitment for them to put a remedy where their mouth is.


(my bold) Wrong! Two members of my family, including me, have tried homeopathy. We tried it over a period of time. The practitioner (can't be called Dr over here) was very nice and explained what she was doing. But in the end, it did not work. So I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold water. I have had personal experience and it does not work.
Of course, it will be easy to just gloss over that as a one-off but the point is you make vast, erroneous assumptions about those who don't like homeopathy and personally, I find this very unbecoming of a Dr. Those who are given that title in earnest, understand the power inherent in that role and thus ought to live up to high standards. After all, you worked hard to get there, didn't you?

This may not be a debate about Saturn but it is about life and death, literally in some cases. Sure, conventional medicine is far from perfect and no doctor can know everything. Some are good, some are not so good and a whole bunch are in-between but they are not using the unproven idea that 'like is cured by like'. When they assess a patient, it's based on symptoms which may or may not be indicative of underlying physical issues depending on the situation in question, knowledge gained from years of clinical experience, text book learning etc. I trust this more than I trust someone to write down all the points/issues of my life, plus symptoms, go back to their secret laboratories and determine which plant might best match said issues/points etc.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
It is typical of ignorance to dismiss, and criticise without education.
I am neither ignorant, nor uneducated.

_________________
Transformative fire...


December 17th, 2009, 1:39 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Every system of medicine has it's own limitations including homeopathy. Homoeopathy has a limited role when surgery is the only option left before a patient.Even, homoeopathic medicines taken during surgical procedures, it can enhance the recovery (faster healing) of the patient.

fAccording to Homeopathy, fever or a pain is not a disease. It is an indication by the body that something is wrong with the system (body). A fever is the body’s attempt to activate the immune system’s white blood cells and defend itself from infection? If a person is given a symptom-suppressing medication — fighting the fever — too soon, they will be less able to fight the actual infection. Fever is the answer to the infection which has get into your body. Body raised its temperature in response to the infection so as to kill the infection. Homeopathy treats fever or pain as a symptom for an underlying disease. The homeopathic medicine will treat the underlying cause not the fever or pain. And if the cause is removed, the symptoms (fever or pain or both) will automatically be removed

orget about all theories, rely on your personal experience for awhile, have the skeptics ever tried Homeopathic remedies before discrediting them. You must try the remedies, because at the end of the day, we learn with our bodies.

The world is divided into the haves and have nots: those who have tried homeopathy and those who have not. Those who have tried it--the millions of people in the world who use homeopathy--know that it works. They didn’t decide that based on years of research. The people who disparage homeopathy, have no personal experience with it. There’s no excuse for that, since this is not a debate about life on Saturn. Homeopathic remedies are readily available. It would require no commitment for them to put a remedy where their mouth is.

There is a proud tradition of scientists using their own bodies in research. Dr. Max von Pettenkofer drank a broth containing cholera and Dr. Jesse Lazear allowed mosquitoes infected with yellow fever to bite his arm. Surely we can ask our critics to try a little sugar pill. It seems absurd to argue about a point that can so easily be resolved.

By riducling me, it won't serve the purpose of the skeptics. It is typical of ignorance to dismiss, and criticise without education. Best to say you just don't understand. If they are really worried about the progress of homeopathy, they should talk to govt. of various nations.

All I am asking you to do, is to attempt to research homeopathy with an open mind. Choosing to believe or disbelieve after that is your choice.
Nancy

We are ridiculing the way you try to persuade us (and you are trying to persuade us, despite your claims to the contrary).

You keep making assertions and then fail to back them up.

What is it about the scientific method that you find so abhorrent that you either don't want to understand it or think homeopathy should never be subjected to it? Is it because you know it would not survive the process? Of course, homeopathy has been subjected to good scientific process...and failed...miserably. Why not address those trials that have shown homeopathy useless. Why did that happen? What was 'wrong' with the trial? Was it the method? Was it biased? How could it be improved, perhaps even to the point it might show that homeopathy works? I'm trying to be helpful: jdc (and others) have provided scientific proof that does not show homeopathy works; you have poor evidence that it works. I doubt you could find any good scientific evidence that it does work, so why not try to demolish the papers that show it has no effect?

And I think it a bit rich for you to be talking about putting our money where our mouths are. What about the trial that you said you'd do?

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 1:50 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
What about the totality of the symptoms?
Eh?

Quote:
You are the owner of the forum. So who is having the axe?
Ad hom not required.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 1:52 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Who does blood letting? Conventional Medicine.
Utter nonsense. It was done in a time when people thought that was the best thing to do. They were wrong, based on a complete misunderstanding of how human biology works.
Quote:
Who opposed such barbaric treatments? Samuel hahnemann, father of homeopathy
He's the guy who believed in the four humours, isn't it? Another outdated and totally misconceived, pre-scientific view that has no merit whatsoever. Is that still what homeopaths believe in?

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 1:58 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Skeptics think what they do is good and what others did is bad. They live in their own world having superioirty complex.
You have completely misunderstood this in an attempt to divert from your seeming inability to either understand the scientific method or failure to provide scientific evidence for homeopathy.

Quote:
They even do not know the basic laws of homeopathy, what to talk of nitty-gritty details. They interpret the basic tenets of homeopathy in their own way.
If you care to look back at the myriad of posts before, you'll find that some of us DO understand the 'laws' of homeopathy. What you have failed to do is explain them in any meaningful way that explains why these 'laws' should be true.

If you want to go down this route, choose one of the 'laws' of homeopathy, explain it and explain why it is true.

Quote:
If i really start asking them about homeopathy, they will having nothing but excuses. But that's not my way of doing things. I will only discuss things on which they could have some say
No. We will answer what you say robustly. And I'm not sure why you think you know what we could 'have some say'. That's a bit presumptions, isn't it?

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 2:05 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
For skeptics, all those studies which support homeopathy are poor trials and those are against homeopathy, are good ones................inspite of the fact that studies in favour as well as against homeopathy are published in the same journal.
You just don't seem to even be trying to understand. A bad trial being published in the same journal as a good trial does not make the conclusions of the bad trial more correct and valid, now do they?

I think it should be clear to you what makes a good trial for a sceptic: perhaps you could tell us what you think a good and a bad trial is to you?

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 2:07 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Status of homeopathy in India

India is a world leader in Homoeopathy, with over 2.5 lakhs registered homeopath physicians giving their services in 2,860 hospitals, with a total of 45,720 beds. The country churns out no less than 13,000 homeopaths every year.

etc

etc

etc
Nancy

Yet again, more ad populum fallacies! This is unbelievable.

As I've said before, the fact that many people think they have been cured by something may help persuade that proper trials should be carried out, but it carries no weight in any argument about whether that treatment is efficacious! It may be an indication that something is going on, but it does not help to define what that is. Only proper, unbiased trials can do that. Do you not understand this?

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 2:13 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
I hope this will help you in understanding the physics behind homeopathy

http://excalibur.110mb.com/physics.htm
http://lewfh.tripod.com/electromagnetic ... y/id4.html
I will have a look at those sites and respond later. I promise. But it would be helpful (as has been pointed out many, many times before) if you could explain things in your own words instead of just giving us whole websites to go and read. What's the main points you'd like to bring out? What's the essential data and/or theories that these sites propound?

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 2:17 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
I am not interested in telling again and again the side effects and deaths caused by orthodox/conventional medicine, that would fill more pages in this forum than anyone else, until you will force me to say so.
Quote:
And the lives saved and misery and pain lessened by proper medicine would fill more pages than all the stuff ever written about homeopathy. Don't forget those.

Quote:
As far as evidence based medicine is concerned,

EBM is ''an approach to health care that promotes the collection, interpretation, and integration of . . . patient-reported, clinician-observed, and research-derived evidence. The best available evidence, moderated by patient circumstances and preferences, is applied to improve the quality of clinical judgments.''

Quote/Source/Reference: McKibbon KA, Wilczynski N, Hayward RS, et al. The medical literature as a resource for evidence based care. Working paper from the Health Information Research Unit, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada, 1995. Online document

At: http:==hiru.mcmaster.ca=hiru=medline=asis-pap.htm.
Invalid URL.

Quote:
The double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial (DBRCT) was meant originally as part of an evidence ''package'' derived from multiple sources. David Sackett, one of EBM's founders, emphasized this in 1992: ''Evidence-based medicine is not restricted to randomised trials and meta-analyses. It involves tracking down the best external evidence with which to answer our clinical questions....If no randomised trial has been carried out for our patient's predicament, we follow the trail to the next best external evidence and work from there.''

Quote/Source/Reference: Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Muir Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996;312:71-72.

EBM as currently practiced, now concentrates solely on the ''gold-standard'' double-blind randomized-controlled trial (DBRCT) and meta-analyses as the only acceptable scientific evidence for a therapy or procedure.

Quote/Source/Reference: Kaptchuk, T. J. "The double-blind randomized controlled trial: Gold standard or golden calf?" Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001;54:541-549.
I don't see your point.

Unless you are falling into the same trap as other AltMed proponents have done: RCTs are proven to be a good way of deciding the worth of a treatment (but with systematic reviews of RCTs above that). But what David Sackett's hierarchy does not say is that you should dismiss RCTs and reviews in favour of something lower down the list just because you don't like the outcome. Reviews of RCTs have been done (<sigh> as jdc has shown) and they show homeopathy to be no better than placebo. Mountains of anecdote or foor trials do not and cannot trump that.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 2:25 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
The patient goes to a doctor who according to him is competent in curing him. The patient goes to a doctor only if the last time when he visited the same doctor, the doctor was able to cure him. What the patient expects from any doctor is a rapid cure, less pain, no side effects, no recurrence and cost effective medicine/procedure. For a patient, his comfort is important. So long as homeopathic medicine keeps on curing people, there will always be ardent believers for homeopathy. And in dismissing this bottom-line, conventional medicine only fuels the supporters of homeopathy.
Nonsense. Doctors here are generally less arrogant. None claim to be able to cure everything. None claim that medications have no side effects. None claim to be able to provide rapid cures for everything. That is a complete straw man, Nancy. Besides, it adds not one iota to the evidence for homeopathy.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 2:31 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Homeopathic medicines are available for a wide range of conditions, from acute to chronic (longstanding).
No one disputes that! But being available does not mean they work! Do you not understand that?

I'm glad to see that you, at least, understands the meaning of 'chronic': many AltMed proponents do not.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 2:44 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Sucussion is a very specific and carefully controlled process which along with serial dilution, forms the basis of the potentization process, it is not some haphazard 'bottle shaking' as you seem to think. In Succussion those drugs that are soluble in Alcohol or Water are serially diluted with the media either alcohol or water and every dilution is followed by vigorous shaking which allows uniform mixing of drug substance in alcohol or water.

Gone are the days when you have a leather bound lump of wood. Now you have K-machines doing it
Carefully controlled? Do you mean the impact is carefully adjusted to be a certain number of Joules (+/- a given tolerance) and a controlled and accurate deceleration? If so, what are those values? What would constitute a too gentle knock? Or one too hard? What is the specification for a K-machine? What tests have been done to work out what is too hard and too soft?

As for leather-bound bibles or whatever...this is how it is done in one major UK homeopathic potion manufacturer.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 2:52 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15157
Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
The true meaning of a skeptic is one who has not concluded or make up his mind. One who hasten to make conclusions has his or her mind closed for further "critical thinking". Should we still call you a skeptic

Sources of most (if not all) conventional medicine is synthetic chemicals tested in test tubes, sick people or on animals (mostly rats)
We are more than willing to accept homeopathy as the saviour of the world: just provide the evidence. That's all any sceptic asks.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


December 17th, 2009, 2:54 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

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 Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.