AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-07-16, 08:40   Link #29661
Thunder Book
Endless Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
I guess Thunder Book means the EP4 thing about "Battler is Ushiromiya Asumu's Son", which did not apply to the Battler we know, but to the stillborn child instead who is also named Battler.
I was talking about what haguruma mentioned, actually. Though I was under the impression the change in terms first happened in the anime or manga adaptations of Episode 3.
Thunder Book is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 09:01   Link #29662
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
The knock, if a lie in red based on a Definite Description error, is debatably possible to speak about in red. I used the "Present King of France" trick jokingly in Battler Solves the Logic Error to have Battler talk about aliens in red when (more than likely) there are no aliens of the type and in the place that he described. Going by the rules as established in ep5, however, I think this sort of wordplay is red-compatible.

There is an argument to the contrary by various philosophers, but it's a complex question of formal logic and reference. The question is, what does "the knock" refer to when used by the characters who talk about it with authority? We presume as a matter of course that these statements refer to a specific existent concept, but as the letter debate sort of shows that isn't necessarily true.

However, if we divorce "the knock" from any physical action, how exactly can we talk about what it was or was not at all? If it's not a reference, what is it? If it's a symbol, are some of the things Lambda said about it actually safe to say in red?

It's probably not a question Ryukishi got too deeply into given his philosophical shallowness in other areas. A bit hypocritical, I think, coming from someone willing to employ semantic trickery.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 09:38   Link #29663
GuestSpeaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Renall, I have to admit I have almost no idea what you were trying to say there. My laymancy is catching up with me.


Quote:
Shouldn't be too hard to find the patch on Google. I think Witch Hunt would frown on me if I linked it here.
Apart from the fact I have already given the Witch Hunt as much money as they have asked for, I thought all the better graphic versions were on different systems than the PC, or do you mean to use an emulator? Also low blow to whoever stole their text for the patch.
GuestSpeaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 10:57   Link #29664
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker View Post
Renall, I have to admit I have almost no idea what you were trying to say there. My laymancy is catching up with me.
Alright, let's try to break this down.

Let's say I want to make a statement in red, "The current King of France is bald." Obviously, I can't say something that isn't true in red. So is this statement true or false?

...Well, that's the problem. As I'm sure you're well aware, there is no current King of France. But the statement I'm actually making isn't "there is a current King of France," it's a statement about the current King of France. Or the First Man on Mars. Or Santa Claus's Brother. The point is, these things don't exist, but the truth value of the statement has nothing specifically to do with that.

The truth value we're looking at is "is he bald?" The problem is that he doesn't exist, so we can't say that he is bald... on the other hand, he doesn't exist, so we can't say that he isn't bald. He's neither, because the subject of the red doesn't exist. So the statement is (assuming you don't delve into logic like Bertrand Russell does) neither true nor false, an apparently unresolvable logical statement. Some philosophers believe this to be the case, others believe they can use formal logic to prove the statement is either true (that is, you can talk about the properties of a nonexistent entity, but they don't mean anything) or false (that you accept the statement is logical, but as the subject doesn't exist, anything said about the subject is a false statement).

Given apparent precedent in ep5, Ryukishi himself holds that a statement about a thing which does not exist is true. In other words, "the knock" is the same as "the current King of France." Neither exists, but he is permitted to talk about it as if it were and make true statements about it. Note here that we're talking only about those reds which specifically address the knock as a subject; some of the other statements Lambda makes are indirectly referring to the incident in a manner that is entirely true and also happens to tell us nothing about whether a knock actually happened.

However, arguably, this means anything is possible to say in red as long as the subject doesn't exist. In other words, not only can we say "no one in the mansion made the knock," we can also say "all cellular phones on Rokkenjima are functional" and "the space aliens in the hallway didn't cause the knocking sound" and even "the witch on the island is definitely named Beatrice." This is because Ryukishi has adopted the "true, but meaningless" interpretation of the definite description error, whether he's realized it or not.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 11:46   Link #29665
UsagiTenpura
Echo of Noise
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
Send a message via Skype™ to UsagiTenpura
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
~
Are you sure about that? I mean, I think you might have broken the limit of your reasoning. If this is correct Ryuukishi could've said "a witch did it" (since witches doesn't exist).

Or to give a more practical example, when "Kanon was killed by someone else" it could be that the someone else it refers to doesn't exist at all for instance. The truth concerning that red isn't much better, I admit, but this just seems a bit too much.

I do agree you can probably say things in red with no truth value like the laugh and such but I don't think, at the very least, that this was used much. This actually sorta suggest Yasu doesn't even exist, you know (if she doesn't exist then the red could've easily be said during all of Umineko to make her into the most probable culprit)?


Quote:
Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker View Post
Apart from the fact I have already given the Witch Hunt as much money as they have asked for, I thought all the better graphic versions were on different systems than the PC, or do you mean to use an emulator? Also low blow to whoever stole their text for the patch.
Well I think you're sorta confused here. 07th expansion makes Umineko. The "better graphic versions" (ps3 or psp) are however releases belonging to Alchemist. WitchHunt, we're just the translation group. In that logic it's just forum rules beyond anything else that prevents posting a link to a software that isn't legal.
UsagiTenpura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 11:52   Link #29666
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
However, arguably, this means anything is possible to say in red as long as the subject doesn't exist. In other words, not only can we say "no one in the mansion made the knock," we can also say "all cellular phones on Rokkenjima are functional" and "the space aliens in the hallway didn't cause the knocking sound" and even "the witch on the island is definitely named Beatrice." This is because Ryukishi has adopted the "true, but meaningless" interpretation of the definite description error, whether he's realized it or not.
Japanese grammar doesn't have articles, so there is no distinction between "the knock" and "a knock" in the first place. The two phrases are totally ambiguous.
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 11:56   Link #29667
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
It's a little different, Renall, but close.

During the night, between 24:00 and morning, a living Kinzo could not have existed anywhere outside Natsuhi's room!!

So for your statement of the Bald King you should have rather said.

There is no King of France outside of a bald one.

And that's consistent with

None of the characters misidentified a knocking sound.

For your other statements they should be:

there are no cellular phones that are unfunctional on Rokkenjima

other than space aliens in the hallway noone could have caused the knocking sound

Other than the Witch Beatrice there is no witch on this island.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
Japanese grammar doesn't have articles, so there is no distinction between "the knock" and "a knock" in the first place. The two phrases are totally ambiguous.
That apart it could work even with the article because you could interpret that as "the knocking sound you are talking about" rather than "the knocking sound that actually happened".
The examples above show that according to Ryuukishi's logic you can mention unexistent things in red, you just cannot directly imply that they exist. So if you say that the space alien did or is something you do it wrong. But you can say that the space alien isn't or didn't do something.

What is really disagreeable is the way you are allowed to "partition" the truth, making half statements that certainly many persons would consider half lies.
__________________


Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2012-07-16 at 12:08.
Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 12:05   Link #29668
Xenon_gun
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura View Post
Are you sure about that? I mean, I think you might have broken the limit of your reasoning. If this is correct Ryuukishi could've said "a witch did it" (since witches doesn't exist).
I think Renall might be onto something, and the quoted reminded me of several snippets where (if I remember correctly) Beatrice states that she could support that witches exist in red, but that it would also be meaningless because it would not make Battler understand. Then, there is episode 3, where she says something to EVA-Beatrice that destroys her. Note that Battler doesn't hear what she said in this case either.

Right now, I'm thinking the reason why she doesn't make such an obviously ambiguous statement is because it would give away the whole trick behind the red. If there is a trick, anyway.
Xenon_gun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 12:43   Link #29669
Drifloon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Apart from the fact I have already given the Witch Hunt as much money as they have asked for, I thought all the better graphic versions were on different systems than the PC, or do you mean to use an emulator? Also low blow to whoever stole their text for the patch.
There's no emulation involved, it's just a straight patch that replaces the graphics, like the one for Higurashi. The reason it's not okay to post is because it's considered illegal to benefit from the PS3-specific content when you didn't actually buy the PS3 version. (The patch is actually intended to be played only by people who have both the PS3 and the PC version, but I'm pretty sure almost none of the people who use it actually do.)
Drifloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 12:46   Link #29670
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura View Post
Are you sure about that? I mean, I think you might have broken the limit of your reasoning. If this is correct Ryuukishi could've said "a witch did it" (since witches doesn't exist).

Or to give a more practical example, when "Kanon was killed by someone else" it could be that the someone else it refers to doesn't exist at all for instance. The truth concerning that red isn't much better, I admit, but this just seems a bit too much.
No, actually, you're taking it further than it's allowed to go. "The current King of France is bald" is different from "the current King of France gave me a haircut." When you ascribe action to a nonexistent entity you essentially construct its asserted existence into the truth value of the statement. For the latter statement to be true, not only must I have been given a haircut, but a specific actor must have given it to me or the sentence is false. Since there is no such actor as the current King of France, the statement is false.

However, describing a nonexistent entity or asserting it did not do something doesn't construct its existence, creating a logical problem where we can't say whether the King of France is bald or not because he doesn't exist. The answer to the former question is not "True" or "False," but "uhhh, well there is no such guy, so it's really neither."

You can't say "a witch committed the murders" because it creates a falsifiable logical statement which can be disproved. If you show who did commit the murders, then you need only observe that they were not a witch (or were a witch), in which case the statement is either true or false. You can't do this for all the cell phones on Rokkenjima, because in 1986 there weren't any there so you can't confirm whether all of them were working. But they also weren't not working, because they didn't exist at all. This appears to create a circumstance where you can declare in red that any cell phone on the island worked, but only because there weren't any and you aren't suggesting that any actor actually used them for any purpose. It's like saying "Krauss's boat cannot get you off the island" when Krauss doesn't have a boat. Ryukishi appears to view this as fair game to state in red, but only because there isn't any subject for it to apply to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
Japanese grammar doesn't have articles, so there is no distinction between "the knock" and "a knock" in the first place. The two phrases are totally ambiguous.
That only really makes it easier to discuss something nonexistent as you can be intentionally non-specific while creating the impression of specificity. That is, as long as the thing you are describing is nonexistent; as long as there was no knock, any discussion of a knock essentially follows these rules, and this would hold for any nonexistent subject described in any degree of specificity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
It's a little different, Renall, but close.

During the night, between 24:00 and morning, a living Kinzo could not have existed anywhere outside Natsuhi's room!!

So for your statement of the Bald King you should have rather said.

There is no King of France outside of a bald one.

And that's consistent with

None of the characters misidentified a knocking sound.
To structure it more closely with the Japanese formulation, perhaps, but grammatically there's no real difference in English. I was careful with my formulations to refer to everything as directly as possible, e.g. "the space aliens in the hallway" are a singular descriptive unit of a nonexistent entity, not an assertion that the aliens do actually exist there. It's just misleading.

Also changing it to "other than the space aliens in the hallway, no one could have caused the knocking sound" is actually a different sentence. Although it's a particularly good example of a misleading statement because instead of saying, as I did, "the nonexistent entity did not cause a knock" (which is obvious, because something that doesn't exist can't cause anything), you've said "other than an entity that doesn't exist, no one could have caused the knock," which is logically equivalent to "no one caused the knock." Mine leaves open the possibility that a knock was caused, but makes a meaningless-but-true statement that a nonexistent being didn't cause it.

The "living Kinzo" is a more direct and apparent example of this, and it was obviously intentional on Ryukishi's part. The reason that one is different is because you can't really formulate it the opposite way because doing so would create the direct assertion that Kinzo is somewhere, which asserts being on his part and therefore ceases to be a definite description error (even if it is factually wrong). You might be able to get away with "during those hours, Kinzo could only possibly have been in Natsuhi's room." The reason why this is true is simple: If Kinzo existed, there's only one place he could have been, but that doesn't mean he actually was there. Same thing as the actual statement as written, just flipped around. Again, it implies existence but doesn't actually assert it. However, many a philosopher would probably argue that's the wrong way of looking at it. But in Ryukishi's work I guess we gotta follow Ryukishi's rules, and he has many instances of a true-but-meaningless statement being made in red which means he believes a meaningless statement has a truth value of true.
Quote:
That apart it could work even with the article because you could interpret that as "the knocking sound you are talking about" rather than "the knocking sound that actually happened".
The examples above show that according to Ryuukishi's logic you can mention unexistent things in red, you just cannot directly imply that they exist. So if you say that the space alien did or is something you do it wrong. But you can say that the space alien isn't or didn't do something.
I disagree. I think you can imply the existence of something - and Ryukishi does - but you can't directly state it through definition or action.

For example, you can't say "space aliens were in the hallway and they didn't cause the knock" because it's a direct assignment of existence. You can't say "space aliens in the hallway caused the knock" because it's a direct statement of an action undertaken (which in turn asserts the existence of both actor and action). But you can say "space aliens in the hallway didn't cause the knock" because "space aliens in the hallway" is a description of an actor that doesn't exist and the actor is not stated to have taken any action. An actor not existing cannot take action, so stating that no such action was undertaken by such an actor is a true statement.

Articles shouldn't affect this in any way. You don't need a definite article to run upon this logical problem. If anything, it makes the problem easier to construct, as Ryukishi can talk about "knocks" without the implication of definite existence or numbering (another thing a definite article would do that the Japanese will not; "the knock" implies one, but lack of a definite article means it's not clear if there was one knock, many knocks, or any knock).
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 12:57   Link #29671
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
For example, you can't say "space aliens were in the hallway and they didn't cause the knock" because it's a direct assignment of existence.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
You can't say "space aliens in the hallway caused the knock" because it's a direct statement of an action undertaken (which in turn asserts the existence of both actor and action).
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
But you can say "space aliens in the hallway didn't cause the knock" because "space aliens in the hallway" is a description of an actor that doesn't exist and the actor is not stated to have taken any action. An actor not existing cannot take action, so stating that no such action was undertaken by such an actor is a true statement.
Agreed.

But your statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
"The current King of France is bald."
Assigns a quality to something that doesn't exist. And that directly implies its existence because that which doesn't exist cannot be said to have any quality in red.

Or at least there is no evidence that you can do that... not like I'd be surprised if Ryuukishi broke even that barrier.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 13:10   Link #29672
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
"Is" in that statement is a descriptor, not an assignment of existence. When I say "some cows are brown," that doesn't necessarily mean I have in mind a specific existent cow that is brown, or indeed that I am even actively aware that such a cow really does exist anywhere. As it so happens, that particular statement is formulated in a manner that permits it to be verified (through the production of at least one example of a brown cow that obviously must exist to be produced), but it's not true because the subject I was using exists ("some cows" is a hypothetical subject), but rather because the hypothetical can be verified.

Anyway don't blame me for the King of France example, blame Bertrand Russell.

EDIT: Also consider the negation of "The present King of France is bald" if we were to just say "that's false." If that's false, the negation is true, so "The present King of France is not bald" is true. Obviously that's not the case either, so it can't be a simple matter. Ryukishi (and others, he's hardly alone in this) get around this by just letting you claim either statement is true, but without any meaning.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 13:51   Link #29673
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Well I disagree with that, saying that "some cows are brown" in red directly implies that cows exist. Because it affirms the existence of brown cows.

The problem here is that red by definition can only be used for real statements. Stating facts about hypotetical or fictional concepts is forbidden. Or at least it should be forbidden.

Bertrand Russel is not at fault here because his logic works in a contest where there isn't any assumption of realism in the statements.

For example "some cows are lilac" could be a true statement when there isn't anything that forbids me from talking about fictional cows.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 14:02   Link #29674
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Well I disagree with that, saying that "some cows are brown" in red directly implies that cows exist. Because it affirms the existence of brown cows.

The problem here is that red by definition can only be used for real statements. Stating facts about hypotetical or fictional concepts is forbidden. Or at least it should be forbidden.
Unfortunately, Umineko appears to permit this. It also allows speculative statements, intent statements, and statements with no possible truth value at all. So why not?

Also bear in mind this only applies in ep5 to descriptive statements about "knocks" themselves, such as sounds made etc. It doesn't apply to a statement like "no one heard a knock" or "no one could have produced a knock." In those cases it wouldn't matter if a knock existed at all. Although in those cases they're still describing an allegedly nonexistent event while sort of implying it happened, but those are more obvious cases of the example.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 14:10   Link #29675
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
But those are claims that deny the existence of purely hypothetical concepts which is absolutely legit to say in red. In fact that's the main purpose of red.


As for making statements about "knocks" it's fine because it isn't hypotetical at all. Knocks exist in Rokkenjima. "Knocks performed by witches" do not.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 14:32   Link #29676
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
But you can say things like this

someone said they saw a brown cow
Some cows are brown
But we don't have any brown cows here

No one would misinterpret a knocking sound
sorry if you misunderstood, but there was no knocking sound

In this case it's not about something that doesn't exist. But the absence of something that can exist, but isn't present in the actual mystery.

I can say some cows are brown til the cows come home. But there are no cows in my yard is also true.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 14:43   Link #29677
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
In this case it's not about something that doesn't exist. But the absence of something that can exist, but isn't present in the actual mystery.
Something that can exist but doesn't is the same as something that can't exist and doesn't. It's just easier to spot when a statement is being made about it, since the reader will immediately realize it cannot have existed or happened.

A knock could have occurred in ep5, but all evidence and all statements surrounding it suggest it did not. Whether it did or did not, the statements of fact are true. Some are true because they would be true whether the knock occurred or didn't. A few would be true because the truth value of a statement about something that doesn't or didn't exist is essentially meaningless, which Umineko appears to consider to be equivalent to true.

If I can say ahahahahahah in red, I may as well be able to state anything with a meaningless truth value in red too. The difference being, a statement with apparent content has greater capacity to mislead someone than a statement which obviously has none (such as laughter).
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 14:57   Link #29678
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Something that can exist but doesn't is the same as something that can't exist and doesn't. It's just easier to spot when a statement is being made about it, since the reader will immediately realize it cannot have existed or happened.
Probably should have Quoted Jan-Poo.

I was replying to this

Quote:
"some cows are brown" in red directly implies that cows exist. Because it affirms the existence of brown cows.
I guess what I'm trying to say is. If you talk about something in red, sure it does imply it exists or it happened somewhere, but if you also declare it's not where/when you are that can also be true, and it would be similar to the knock situation.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 15:38   Link #29679
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Spoiler for Erika battles cows:

Last edited by Kealym; 2012-07-16 at 16:14.
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 16:56   Link #29680
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
I guess what I'm trying to say is. If you talk about something in red, sure it does imply it exists or it happened somewhere, but if you also declare it's not where/when you are that can also be true, and it would be similar to the knock situation.
Then what about "some cows are lilac" then? Is it possible to state that in red because some lilac fictional cows exist or is it impossible because for that red to be effective there must be real lilac cows somewhere?

And to inquire further:

Let's take:

"The purple dragon that lives in the forest doesn't exist"

I suppose there's nothing wrong with saying that in red. Then what about:

"The dragon that lives in the forest isn't purple."

Is that legit to say it?
And going further down you get:

"The dragon that lives in the forest is purple."

And this last statement is hardly possible to justify in red, but according to Renall's logic it should be perfectly possible to say it in red according to the rules in Umineko because since a dragon that lives in the forest doesn't exist in the first place the statement is devoid of any meaning.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.