Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 459 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
flashman (2274 D(G))
09 Jan 10 UTC
One more needed...
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=18369#gamePanel

2 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
03 Jan 10 UTC
The Quibble With Christians
WHY, whenever on this site or in real life, when I ask a Christian to talk about ANYTHING philosophical, be it anything about God,HOW and IF you can know something, Free Will, How We Should Run A State... ANYTHING... They always, ALWAYS fall back on the dogma, can't leave it aside for two seconds! "God works in mysterious ways"= BIG cop out!
Page 2 of 5
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
PeregrinTook (0 DX)
03 Jan 10 UTC
@otto--yes, i'm sure everything could not have come from nothing. if you try to think of nothing, you'd be thinking of some random thing, or the concept of nothing, which is something. and besides, let's say there was nothing, then, POOF! everything came into existance. something had to have caused that poof to happen. cause and effect, no?
dave bishop (4694 D)
03 Jan 10 UTC
not necessarily... there are no rules like "cause and effect" in nothing.
anything could happen...
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
That's why I DO think that, if we accept thought and emotion as the most basic WE can get, and obviously WE didn't create everything...

Something did.

And here we go, now we have to define that something.

Let's not say "God," quite yet, as we generally attribute that to the Judeo-Christian figure, and let's not call "gods" or "Big Bang"...

Let's call this creating force- if we all agree that something DID create at least te beginnings of Somethingness- let's call this force "Marvin."

(That poor Paranoid Android deserves SOME respect after all he's been through!) ;)

So- what may we then ascribe to Marvin, if we agree it/he/she creates Somethingness.

(There's a start with wondering it/He/She...)
Ursa (1617 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
I'm a christian. Where do you want to talk about?

Some of my fellow believers indeed use the argument you phrased above, 'God works in mysterious ways'. It may be used to deaden discussions or for needlessly protection. But also accept there are things 'we' don't know, we don't have all the answers. And then it's true God's ways are unknown to man.
Ursa (1617 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
Wait a minute, why should everything come from something? I smell a false presupposition. Everything could just have been there always. We experience space and time but the idea that both have a beginning is er... rather Greek/christian. So why should the universe as we experience it have a beginning?
PeregrinTook (0 DX)
04 Jan 10 UTC
haha. Marvin. i like it
Timur (673 D(B))
04 Jan 10 UTC
existEnce
Timur (673 D(B))
04 Jan 10 UTC
If time is merely relative, which can be argued, then the beginning is already the end.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
But unless you want to say that our present state has always been/always is, then something must have started the State of Being, whether it is a flow from beginning to end or a continuous, endless loop.

And Ursa, the point is we should NOT "accept there are things we don't know." We should try to figure them out!
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
But unless you want to say that our present state has always been/always is, then something must have started the State of Being, whether it is a flow from beginning to end or a continuous, endless loop.

And Ursa, the point is we should NOT "accept there are things we don't know." We should try to figure them out!
ottovanbis (150 DX)
04 Jan 10 UTC
ursa, i'm with you on your point of everything having a beginning or an end, it's kinda lame in my opinion
warsprite (152 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
Beginning or End? Endless loop? What about an endless line. Why must there be a beginning and a end. Even with continues change there need be no beginning or end just infinate variation with infinite increments of change.
EvilPotato700 (100 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
Funny. When you said Marvin, I immediately thought of Marvin Lewis, the coach of the Cincinnati Bengals. I knew that man had powers... >.<
baumhaeuer (245 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
They (we) always like Bible verses because, like you said, we cannot be certain about anything on our own. After all, we are finite. In order to get any result for certain, one cannot rely one's self. One, by one's self, cannot claim absolute certainty. But, one cannot claim absolute uncertainty either, because one cannot be sure that one can be absolutely uncertain. There may be something that one missed, or some line of thought that had not occured to one. Instead, what is needed is total commitment to dependence, not independence. Only by going to Marvin, the only infinite thing, can one be sure of anything. Not sure by one's own conviction, but by Marvin giving one that conviction. That is why Christians like quoting Bible verses. It is a source beyond themselves, not something that they decided on by themselves. Regardless of how it feels, our commitment is in Christ. [AAARRGH! HE DREW JC BACK INTO IT!!!!!] ;)

For your first block, I assume that you're keeping in mind that our feelings could also be reinforced by creating other ideals as well, such as independence making one feel good, so one doesn't like God breathing down your neck and telling you what you should and should not be doing.
People do do that and act soley on what makes them feel good. Depending on where you are comming from, that would be called egoism or original sin.

Even if the universe were temporally static or a loop, what would be "holding it up?"
Why would it not instantaneously (forgive the adverb and verb references to time) cease to exist? It would be making no effort to keep itself in existence. Like you said, the same issue would keep the temporal universe from existing soley on its own.

Also, one needs to determine the source of Marvin as well.
Marvin cannot be subject to time, or he would need a beginning, thus would be created, and not be Marvin after all. Again, he would need a support, instead of temporally floating like that.

I always found this interesting.
Here is an analogy I came up with:
God [Marvin] would be like a planet floating in space. He does not need to rest on anything ( is not created ). He is self-substantient (did I spell that right?). One can not pull anything out from under him and cause him to fall. All other things rest on the surface of that planet.
It would be the creator-creature distinction: he by simply being there sustains their position. If he withdrew himself, they could not stand. They cannot exist without him or even without his permission. He is fundamental. The (forgive me for capitalizing it) Factor. They are derived. The products. He is the premise of the proof, while they are the result ( I can't remember the correct terminology for the result of a proof ).

Thanks for making this thread. I liked comming up with that analogy. I enjoy analogies.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
Have to be logging off now. I'll be back to see the replies.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
baumhauer, are you going with the idea that God is Everything (as opposed to the Nothingness) and as such we all just... "live" ontop of God?

Er, sorry, Marvin.

If that's the case, then what created Marvin, because surely if Marvin is physical in form, then he cannot be the infinite creator... just really, really powerful...
ottovanbis (150 DX)
04 Jan 10 UTC
all fear marvin, he shall smite ye! tremble under the gaze of the magical marvin, grrrrr!
Hmmm. I thought of Marvin the Martian.

So we're at emotion. The feelings (internal) that we have are evidence that there must be a drive within us. We do not have thirst is there is no need for water. Hunger is there is no need for food. Anger could be a need for justice. Sorrow a need for solace. These internal feelings/conditions must be a signpost to outward solutions. It would seem reasonable that with every need there is something that would assuage it.
**Hunger if**
Centurian (3257 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
"I think therefore I am" is the first part of a logical argument that is supposed to logically prove the existence of a benevolent supreme being. It does not reference dogma.

Also, to me, Science works in mysterious ways. Just because I can't adequately explain science doesn't make it false necessarily. Its like arguing with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know the science behind explosions or building collapses, but I still think they are idiots.

I thought I should mention those things in reference to obiwan's opening post.
Centurian (3257 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
In case my "science works in mysterious ways" thing wasn't clear. I think that this argument can be applied to religion. So I don't think it is a cop out. Nor do I think it is proof.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
@Crazy Anglican:

That's sort of where I'm heading- if we have these emotions/feelings (hunger, thirst, anger, sorrow, etc.) and thought to go with it, THEN it may be assumed that all that follows is, in fact, our own constructs of the mind, soul, and the physical world.

Let's explore this with hunger.

We experience hunger, through thought we are able to identify that as a sensation we would rather be rid of, and from this we gather to seek a way to be rid of this feeling of hunger.

What do we do?

Well, to start, we've a feeling and we feel its unpleasant, but now we have to find the feeling... where is it coming from, and why?

And thus begins our first construction of the physical world.

Well, our mind has been established as having already contained the concepts of emotion and thought, and now we need to combine those two to construct a map of ourselves, so that we might find, label and solve the problem, and to do this, we have to first LINK the emotion to the thought.

This is the first instance of systems, that is, the mind working with something else that makes up our being.

So we experience hunger, a feeling, and have connected that to thought, which produces a link of systems between the two that in turn produces the first sensational data- empiricism is born.

So, as we feel hunger, "touch" is the closest we come to a first sense, and is really a sense that may be most vital in finding our way in the nothingness, for, as there is nothing yet, if we come across a Something, we'll be able to feel it sensually, and thus process it as an existing object; the other four senses can identify Somethings, too, but they generally depend on the idea of Reality of an Object, that is, if we were to see something now, as we are today as human beings, than we would associate properties with it, so if I see a soda can, I'm thinking of something silver, cylindrical, shiny, cold, and filled with fluid. However, if my hand passes right through this image and there is in fact no subastance to it, I would thus categorize it as a mirage, and so not real.

So we link the emotion hunger with the thought of how to be rid of this feeling, and from this we link the systems of emotion and thought together, which then work together to create a Reality for our feeling that we might be rid of it, and so we arrive at the closest thing to hunger, that being touch, or physical feeling, in addtion to the mental/emotional feeling we've been doing.

So we have touch, and now the sensation is localized in a part of our being... but what do we call it? What is this region? And, as it doesn't affect all our being, it certainly is not the only part of our being, as now that we have touch we become aware of the form of our anatomy to some extent... but we need more.

So thought kicks in again, and with the primary feeling to stop hunger, and the secondary feeling to figure out how to use this form we have to satisfy objective #1.

So now we need another sense, and now that we can feel things physically I posit that we then become aware next of sight, as it is next most vital to our cpnstruction and awareness of the self- we can now touch objects, and so now we need another way of experiencing them.

Now think for a moment- why sight this time, it doesn't follow from an emotional base feeling, as touch came from hunger and thought combining?

Well, consider two things. Firstly, we are still exploring and inventing this world we are creating, and as we have just created a new physical plane of existance (or at least the physical self) this now needs depth, for without depth there is no substance, and without that we have no way to cease the hunger, as that is a WANTING FOR substance. Secondly, as this is truly the retrospective thinking of an already constructed human being- consider the rest of the senses. We just have touch... will hearing anything help us quicker in defining our world and finding a solution to hunger through the creation/location of substance? What would we think to hear, after all, we're still in a sightless, mute world. Smell? This might help us to add a layer of depth to the world, but can we create/locate substance through smell; we CAN, but smelling is an act of tracking, and while sight does that as well, sight also gives us visual constructs of the physical world, and smell just adds a layer to that. Taste? This is the same as smell, it adds a layer to the world, but we cannot create merely through taste.

So sight it is- our thinking and emotions work together to build on the objective of finding a way to stop hunger and building/locating ways to do that in, and as we have the groundwork in touch, now we come up with the concept- if this thing is here and exists, and as do I, if I am able to locate it and give dimension ontop of dimension (sight ontop of sound) then this will work well.

And so now we can touch, and now we see.

Which raises a question before we go further- how, then do we assign shapes, textures, colors, etc. to things never before seen?

Again, we have emotion and thought to help us, and touch as well.

This can be most easily dealt with when constructing colors.

Think of blue- what EMOTIONAL reaction do you get from blue?
Generally calm? Peaceful? Smooth?
Now we feel something... it makes us feel calm, and peaceful... it feels not quite warm or cold, but just right... it's smooth, and, moreover, easy-going; it moves about with ease and is not rigid.

We've found water... and as we associate in the emotional part of our mind all the attributes we've already mentioned WE as constructed beings take as blue, the thinking part of the mind thus assigns this new substance that we have found the color blue.

This can work for any and all colors (we near a fire, and feel intense heat and an emotional passion, particularly if we are burned, and thus we have a shade of red for fire) and textures, as already explained with the water feeling a certain way.

But back to our central problem- hunger, solving it. Well, now that our object has depth and is easily detectable and recognizable by us, we can now see it, think it to be a substance, and touch it to be sure.

It's substance- maybe this will help us?

So think, and now, as we've seen our anatomy in the reflection, we now know what we look like; how we arrive at the human form is a mystery to me, and the best guess I can have is that if we have jsut constructed all the materials for a physical world, then things may be constructed, as could we have been, as we are adding to our emotional and mental awareness, but we did not CREATE IT.

So I must (for the moment) assume that this form is another material for construction, and that our minds and emotions were constructed by something else... perhaps Marvin, but we don't have an idea of what Marvin might be yet, we still only care about filling our emptiness.

So we see our anatomy, and now the thoughts kick in, and we put touch and sight together to give ourselves depth, and become aware, simultaneously, of our own depths. We can feel our heart beating, we see our reflection and, most importantly right now for us, we feel the rumbing coming from our tummy, and have a sense, constructed through touch and logical thought, that the mouth, that gagping whole on our face, is an opening into which substance might go, and from this we infer that if substance can go in there, it might just wind up in the spot we're trying to fill, the stomach.

So we graps the water, to try and bring it (as we know it to be substantial) to our mouths to put it in- and the water slips through our fingers. We observe the visual and sensual clues on how water works and make a cup with our hands, and this keeps some of the water.

We bring the water to our mouth and let it in and, and touch registers it there and senses it must be somewhere else, we swallow.

So, we've consumed our very first substance.

It didn't help- it's water, not food, so we're still hungry.

Well, at least now, however, our mouth feels a bit better, having been watered, and we note the sensation as pleasant- when our mouth is dry again from what we might later call thirst, we will know how to fix it, with water.

And now we know that THIS sensation, hunger, can't be cured by water. On we go.

So we continue our search, but we have, in advertantly, in our contact with the water being swallowed, come across some new sensations through emotion, feeling, and thought processing together, and they need explaining.

We swallowed water... let's say, just for the sake of argument, it was from a lake (even though our being doesn't know what a lake is yet, has not formed that word, or even language.) So we swallowed water, and a new sensation comes as the water from a lake hits our mouth and tongue.

We now discover, inadvertantly, taste, and categorize it according to emotional feeling; we felt a little better with water but it didn't help our main problem, and as taste generally tells us what we like and don't like, and thus what to consume and not consume, we assign water a mildly pleasant taste (had the water been poison it would have been a bad taste, and had it filled our need, had we been suffering from thirst, we would have assigned it a more positive taste.)

So we now have touch, sight, and taste.
We approached another body and made contact with it, and from contact of two bodies arises sound, which we again categorize as mildy OK for water.

4 senses.

As we now defer to our thought and physical feeling we find that taste is linked to another sensation altogether on reflection- smell. Water has a very mild smell, and on we go.

5 senses- we've got our tools, and now we've jsut got to use them.

On we go, assigning things colors and feelings as we pass; there's the grass below us, a mild and earthy green, not threatening, there's a fire a bit south of us, that's hot and red and sounds and smells unpleasant, so we stay away...

Here's something red, but not a threatening red, and its not flashing or smelling fouly like the fire, it actually smells sort of nice, sort of a funny shape, smooth, hanging from a bigger something, which is made up of earthy greens and browns all put together in a package that is visually, auditorilly, and otherwise unthreatening.

We grasp at the object, and pluck it from where it was... it's a substance let's try it... it can't fit in our mout all at once, we need smaller pieces, so those sharp things in our mouth are set in action by touch and thought and we bite off a chunk, chew until its tiny and easily swallowed like the water, swallow and-

Hey!

That helps... that helps our hunger... its filling the space!

It nworks! We've discored food... we've jsut bit the Apple, ladies and gentlemen! ;)

PURCELL (100 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
...and you just got waaayy to complicated...
EvilPotato700 (100 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
There is a sixth sense - To be.

But it isn't necessary to discuss that, methinks.
Thucydides (864 D(B))
04 Jan 10 UTC
You know I have a theory:

All I know for sure is that I exist. Everything else is speculation. So all I can really do, then, is exist. My personal choice is that I will act normal. That's just how I deal with it. I just exist. What else is there? You can't know anything beyond that so why pretend you do?
orathaic (1009 D(B))
04 Jan 10 UTC
@Thuc: i think beyond accepting that i personally exist, i can accept as a valid the idea that you exist, and that we share a common universe which exists.

I also have to accept the idea that i did not always exist, which betrays the idea of time/change. And thus also that perhaps i will cease to exist at some point.

If all can agree to this then we can start to build up and idea of what these I, you and the Universe is.
Ursa (1617 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
@ obiwanobiwan: Partially I agree with you. We were made as a curious species with understanding of how the world works. But we cannot understand even part of God's existence. What I'm saying is in accepting there is a God is accepting there are things outside our perspective, things we cannot know. Even our mind isn't endless and easily fooled. There's nothing wrong with asking questions but don't expect all answers.
jman777 (407 D)
04 Jan 10 UTC
I agree with you that at times that answer is a total BS cop-out. But there are other times when it is true. Like Ursa said, accepting a God means accepting something outside our realm of understanding, because if we knew everything, then we would be God ourselves. There is also the fact that if we assume the bible is correct, then God is not inside our physical laws of function. So the whole argument of "God needed someone to create him" doesn't work because it is only inside of time that things need to be created, outside of time things simply *are*.

But yeah, even being a Christian myself I've had to deal with that response quite a few times and most of the time it's just BS. Basically, for the most part, when someone says that they are just saying they have absolutely no clue what's going on.

And to be honest I do not think we can actually KNOW anything. Because our tools for understanding are so defective.
Timur (673 D(B))
04 Jan 10 UTC
@obiwanobiwan: "But unless you want to say that our present state has always been/always is, then something must have started the State of Being, whether it is a flow from beginning to end or a continuous, endless loop."
I think it's a movement from merely 'being' to 'being with knowledge of the other'.
orathaic (1009 D(B))
04 Jan 10 UTC
"let's say there was nothing, then, POOF! everything came into existance. something had to have caused that poof to happen. cause and effect, no?"

why did you assume we had nothing? In principle I am willing to assume there is something at the moment. I don't see why you're assuming nothing.

If i'm not wrong you are falling into the common assumption that all 'things' have a begining. When We are trying to drop all assumptions firstly.

@jman: RE: "outside of time" outside of time things are beyond your comprehension, you can't claim to understand what it means because it isn't defined. All our knowledge and understanding is based on evidence we have gathered from a world which is in 'time' we have no understanding of what it means to be ouside of time. So i hesisitantly disagre with you on that point.

I do think we can know many things, at least knowing them with enough confidence to risk our lives on them. (or not risking our lives on faulty assumptions which we we are confident are wrong, like 'food is unnecessary' - all the philosophers which made this assumption have died.)

Page 2 of 5
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

141 replies
Plastic Hussar (1375 D(B))
02 Jan 10 UTC
Team Canada (World Cup) organizing
Time to organize final team submissions to represent Canada. Details inside.
25 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
08 Jan 10 UTC
Team California: One More...
Either Tolstoy, you need to send me your info, or we have room for one more on team California, either playing a Standard or Guboat map (the illustrious Samedi has us on Public Press.)
25 replies
Open
Stukus (2126 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
Who says live games can't be awesome?
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=18569
Just finished a pretty intense live game. Went all the way to the end of 1917, a personal record for me. So many ups and downs. He who was high fell and he who was low came to victory. Pretty fun. Check it out if you're interested.
1 reply
Open
`ZaZaMaRaNDaBo` (1922 D)
08 Jan 10 UTC
Diplomacy Forte
50 D, Anon
Also, a Ghost-Rating based game like the game recently created. I'll PM the password to all interested with a ghost-rating better than mine, 268.
4 replies
Open
plbrmn (165 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
need one more
Need one more player. Game id: 18469. Password is nicename. (one word)
0 replies
Open
jimgov (219 D(B))
09 Jan 10 UTC
Public press game
Live 5 min turns, 15 D, public press only, gameID=18584
Starts in 30
9 replies
Open
T-Hubs (100 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
Anyone for a live game?
Someone start one up and i will join
1 reply
Open
T-Hubs (100 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
JOIN GAME NOW! 5 MINUTES TO START, 5 MINUTE PHASES
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=18581
0 replies
Open
Gianbirus (100 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
Live Game!!
Let`s play a live game.
1 reply
Open
Gianbirus (100 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
Lets play!
I have created the game HAbruxaxas, with 5 mim turns.
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=18576
0 replies
Open
Geofram (130 D(B))
09 Jan 10 UTC
Need help with a rule.
I know it is not proper to talk about ongoing games, but this is more a question about rules.
gameID=16735
Can France retreat to Tuscany in this case?
3 replies
Open
PatDragon (103 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
Sketchy Game - MODS TAKE A LOOK
http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?userID=21869
6 replies
Open
Paulsalomon27 (731 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
Live Sail Ho! Game on Goon Dip. public press only
http://goondip.com/board.php?gameID=330

Really fun. 4 players 10 Scs to win or something. really quick;
4 replies
Open
jimgov (219 D(B))
09 Jan 10 UTC
New gunboat game
gameID=18574 5 minute phases, 15 D, winner takes all. Starts in 30.
5 replies
Open
jimgov (219 D(B))
08 Jan 10 UTC
Game stats question
I know that this is a minor point, but why are defeats listed first in your game stats? I think that it is more natural to go wins, draws, survivals, and then losses. Mind you, I am not asking anyone to go out on their own valuable time and change this. I am just wondering why its done this way.
11 replies
Open
C-K (2037 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
Gunboat game?
Looking for players to play a fast Gunboat. I'd like to get 7 players together and make the game with a 10 min start time so I don't have to stay up all night. I'd like 5 min phases, WTA, Anom. I'm thinking 25point bet but I'm flexible about this. Please post interest here.
24 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
05 Jan 10 UTC
The Greatest Baseball Team Ever (According to RBI Baseball) Week 2
So, after a Week 1 out of 3 for this regular season of best World Series Champions (one per decade save the 40's as the boys were off to war, and one team allowed per franchise) that saw huge scoring, the 2004 Red Sox pound the 1927 Yankees, the "Big Red Machine" come from behind to beat the "Gashouse Gang," what does Week 2 hold? See inside...
25 replies
Open
Stukus (2126 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
CD Germany, 3 SC, live game
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=18569
0 replies
Open
pfranklin51 (140 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
Live Game
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=18568
10 point entry
need 4
2 replies
Open
PatDragon (103 D)
09 Jan 10 UTC
Live game - wanna play?
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=18569
2 replies
Open
DJEcc24 (246 D)
22 Dec 09 UTC
World Cup of Diplomacy signups coming soon!
just thought I'd post to get you all thinking about your teams. find your fellow Russians or Brits or whatever you are. the sooner the teams are signed up in January the sooner we can start! Also i still need some people to help me with emailing out when people need to join games and with organization of the tournament. This would be greatly appreciated. Thank You
146 replies
Open
jazzguy1987 (0 DX)
08 Jan 10 UTC
New Live Game!!!!!
Here is a new live game!!! It is a Classic Game of Diplomacy!!! Only 8 D to join!! 5 min phases!! Join now!!!
Here is the game I.D.: gameID=18555
7 replies
Open
denis (864 D)
31 Dec 09 UTC
I did not vote draw!!!!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=17872
I didn't vote draw in this game!
195 replies
Open
I know it was you, Fredo!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=18537#gamePanel
4 replies
Open
Sendler (418 D)
08 Jan 10 UTC
Phase length?
1 day, 1 hours
2 days, 1 hours
why??
and why are they after 10 days?
4 replies
Open
VVinston Smith (0 DX)
08 Jan 10 UTC
Live Game - joy division - 5min/anon/no msg/WTA
yay
7 replies
Open
Rubetok (766 D)
08 Jan 10 UTC
Come on Live Game ! ! !
who is up for a live game??

gameID=18551
3 replies
Open
Panthers (470 D)
08 Jan 10 UTC
Rules question....
see below...
6 replies
Open
Page 459 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top