Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

Liste des GroupesRevenir à t origins 
Sujet : Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam
De : rokimoto557 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (RonO)
Groupes : talk.origins
Date : 03. Jan 2025, 17:54:26
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vl94o2$5dq$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 1/3/2025 1:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:56:50 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
 
On 1/1/2025 1:30 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:27:08 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
On 12/30/2024 4:07 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 09:38:20 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
On 12/29/2024 2:59 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting
>
>
For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".
>
>
I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.
>
The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.
>
>
Once again, follow your own advice...
>
>
Projection is something I do not understand.
>
But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.
>
See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
>
I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.  Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
>
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:56:50 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
 
On 1/1/2025 1:30 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:27:08 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
On 12/30/2024 4:07 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 09:38:20 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
On 12/29/2024 2:59 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting
>
>
For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".
>
>
I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.
>
The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.
>
>
Once again, follow your own advice...
>
>
Projection is something I do not understand.
>
But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.
>
See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
 You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.
It was your trusted source and you removed the material several times and ran.
REPOST:
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard.  You put something about Galileo.  Claiming support for your interpretation.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.
QUOTE:
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system.
END QUOTE:
Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the 1615-1616 event and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy when Copernican writings were added to the Index.
QUOTE:
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory. Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
END QUOTE:
It looks like your source has changed it's tune, but those events still do not have anything to do with papal decrees.  It was obviously a heresy without papal recognition.
END REPOST:
I was quoting from your source.  How many times did you snip out this material and run before accusing me of running from the evidence?  How many times did you snip out and run from the rest of the evidence?

 
>
I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.
 So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.
No, I just quoted the sources, and they were all catholic sources except for the Geocentric wiki.  Even your recent quote made the distinction between "formal heresy" and "heresy".  The anti-neogeocentric catholic site also made the distinction between the two, and claimed that it mattered.  It admitted that Galileo had been charged with formal heresy in 1616, but it claimed that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been adopted in 1633, and that Galileo was only facing a heresy charge, and that the word "formal" did not occur in his sentencing.
Your quote and that anti-neogeocentric source claimed that there is a very real difference between "formal heresy" and "heresy".  A formal heresy seems to involve central canonical church doctrine, and heresy seems to just be against some church beliefs.
Ron Okimoto

 
Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
>
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
>
REPOST:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
>
QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
 What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?
The claim was not that the charge was trumped up by any of the sources. the anti-neogeocentric catholic site just wanted the sentencing to have been misinterpreted for centuries.  In order to protect papal infallibility they wanted Galileo to not be charged with formal heresy, and claimed that even if Galileo had been charged with heresy, that it was never claimed to be a "formal heresy" charge.  They wanted it to not be a formal heresy charge so that the pope's involvement and actions after the case would not be as fallible as they are now known to be.
Their claim that it was not a formal heresy charge seems to be pretty thin, since their claim of "misinterpretation" of the Galileo affair wants to claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition, and that he was not found guilty of heresy as the sentencing clearly indicates.  The stupid thing seems to be that in order to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy, they claim that the 1616 inquisition judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court, but was only cited by that court.  In breaking that oath, Galileo would have been guilty of formal heresy.
None of the sources claimed that it was a trumped-up charge.  One source did claim that it was misinterpreted, and that the sentencing was poorly written.  The misinterpreted claim seems to be pretty thin because that same source claims that the pope had the sentencing and judgement distributed throughout the church in order to quash the growing heliocentric heresy, but they claim that that papal act was not official and did not mean that the pope could be fallible.
The sentencing does not seem to be poorly written, but does not call it a formal heresy, but Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty.  In order to absolve himself he had to deny and condemn the heresies that he had committed.
Your post seems to have multiple cut and paste issues that cause duplications.
Ron Okimoto

 
>
Ron Okimoto
>
>
Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
>
Ron Okimoto
>
 
REPOST:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
>
QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
 What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?
 
>
Ron Okimoto
>
>
Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
>
Ron Okimoto
>
 

Date Sujet#  Auteur
1 Dec 24 * Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam107RonO
1 Dec 24 `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam106Kestrel Clayton
1 Dec 24  +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam104erik simpson
1 Dec 24  i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam103RonO
2 Dec 24  i `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam102Kestrel Clayton
2 Dec 24  i  +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam100RonO
3 Dec 24  i  i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam99Martin Harran
3 Dec 24  i  i +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam87RonO
3 Dec 24  i  i i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam86Martin Harran
3 Dec 24  i  i i `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam85RonO
4 Dec 24  i  i i  `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam84Martin Harran
4 Dec 24  i  i i   +- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1erik simpson
5 Dec 24  i  i i   `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam82RonO
7 Dec 24  i  i i    `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam81Martin Harran
7 Dec 24  i  i i     `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam80RonO
8 Dec 24  i  i i      `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam79Martin Harran
8 Dec 24  i  i i       `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam78RonO
9 Dec 24  i  i i        +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam7Martin Harran
9 Dec 24  i  i i        i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam6Martin Harran
4 Feb 25  i  i i        i `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam5erik simpson
5 Feb 25  i  i i        i  +- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
5 Feb 25  i  i i        i  +- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
5 Feb 25  i  i i        i  +- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
5 Feb 25  i  i i        i  `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
9 Dec 24  i  i i        `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam70Martin Harran
9 Dec 24  i  i i         `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam69RonO
10 Dec 24  i  i i          `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam68Martin Harran
10 Dec 24  i  i i           +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam2Kerr-Mudd, John
10 Dec 24  i  i i           i`- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
10 Dec 24  i  i i           `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam65RonO
11 Dec 24  i  i i            +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam3Martin Harran
11 Dec 24  i  i i            i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam2RonO
12 Dec 24  i  i i            i `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
12 Dec 24  i  i i            `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam61Martin Harran
12 Dec 24  i  i i             `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam60RonO
12 Dec 24  i  i i              `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam59Martin Harran
26 Dec 24  i  i i               `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam58RonO
28 Dec 24  i  i i                `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam57Martin Harran
28 Dec 24  i  i i                 +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam6RonO
28 Dec 24  i  i i                 i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam5Martin Harran
29 Dec 24  i  i i                 i `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam4RonO
29 Dec 24  i  i i                 i  `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam3Martin Harran
29 Dec 24  i  i i                 i   `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam2RonO
1 Jan 25  i  i i                 i    `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
29 Dec 24  i  i i                 `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam50jillery
29 Dec 24  i  i i                  `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam49RonO
29 Dec 24  i  i i                   +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam43Martin Harran
29 Dec 24  i  i i                   i+- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1RonO
30 Dec 24  i  i i                   i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam41jillery
30 Dec 24  i  i i                   i `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam40RonO
1 Jan 25  i  i i                   i  `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam39Martin Harran
2 Jan 25  i  i i                   i   +- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
3 Jan 25  i  i i                   i   `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam37RonO
3 Jan 25  i  i i                   i    `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam36Martin Harran
3 Jan 25  i  i i                   i     `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam35RonO
3 Jan 25  i  i i                   i      +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam3Martin Harran
4 Jan 25  i  i i                   i      i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam2RonO
6 Jan 25  i  i i                   i      i `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
6 Jan 25  i  i i                   i      `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam31Martin Harran
6 Jan 25  i  i i                   i       `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam30RonO
6 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam26erik simpson
6 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i+* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam6Martin Harran
6 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        ii+* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam4Kerr-Mudd, John
6 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        iii`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam3Martin Harran
7 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        iii `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam2Kerr-Mudd, John
7 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        iii  `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1RonO
7 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        ii`- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1RonO
7 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i+- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1RonO
7 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam18jillery
7 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam3Kerr-Mudd, John
7 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i i+- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1erik simpson
8 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i i`- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
7 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam14erik simpson
8 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam12Martin Harran
8 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i+- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
8 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam10erik simpson
8 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam2Bob Casanova
9 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i i`- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
9 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam6LDagget
9 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i i+- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
9 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam4jillery
10 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i i `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam3jillery
10 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i i  `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam2LDagget
14 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i i   `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
9 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  i `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
8 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        i  `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
8 Jan 25  i  i i                   i        `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam3Martin Harran
9 Jan 25  i  i i                   i         +- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
9 Jan 25  i  i i                   i         `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1RonO
29 Dec 24  i  i i                   +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam4Martin Harran
30 Dec 24  i  i i                   i`* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam3jillery
7 Feb 25  i  i i                   i `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam2Kerr-Mudd, John
8 Feb 25  i  i i                   i  `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
30 Dec 24  i  i i                   `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1jillery
3 Dec 24  i  i `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam11Vincent Maycock
4 Dec 24  i  i  `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam10Martin Harran
4 Dec 24  i  i   +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam2G
4 Dec 24  i  i   i`- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
4 Dec 24  i  i   `* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam7Vincent Maycock
4 Dec 24  i  i    +* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam5Ernest Major
4 Dec 24  i  i    i+* Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam3Vincent Maycock
5 Dec 24  i  i    i`- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
5 Dec 24  i  i    `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1Martin Harran
2 Dec 24  i  `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1William Hyde
1 Dec 24  `- Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam1RonO

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal