Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Matt Giwer · Guest

Kendall K Down wrote:
[quote]In message <48e94a34$0$6162$2318a52a@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

In citing Israel>s own position as to the number of survivors there
clearly could have been no such thing.

The is Matt the Pratt, renowned interpreter of international treaties,
liar extraordinaire, dim wit par excellence.
[/quote]
Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination: 27 million Jews
survived the holocaust

....

There were slightly fewer than 9 million Jews in Europe at the start of the
war.

In 2004 Israel issued a more refined number still alive in that year,
1,092,000, for the purpose of actually filing lawsuits. So 59 years after
the event 16/75s were still alive. That leaves us with 5,118,750 alive in
1945 if none were killed for inability to work and the birthrate were the
same as it was in peacetime. If we go with those under 13 being killed we
have 27,300,000 holocaust survivors alive in 1945. This is nearly twice as
many Jews as were in all the world in 1938 and three times those in all of
Europe in that same year.

=====

The entire article at http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml

Please feel free to demonstrate you are ignorant of elementary algebra by
disagreeing. But if you do disagree source your input numbers and provide
your calculations.

--
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend when
his strategy is divide and conquer.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4067
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <48eadbff$0$8510$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[quote]Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination:
[/quote]
Needless to say, Israel declares no such thing.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <48eadac4$0$8510$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[quote]The is Matt the Pratt, renowned interpreter of international treaties,
liar extraordinaire, dim wit par excellence.

Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination:
[/quote]
As I said, this is Matt the Pratt, renowned interpreter of
international treaties, dim wit par excellence.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <48eadb5e$0$8510$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[quote]As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows there was
no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII
[/quote]
Come over here and say that.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Garry Denke · Guest

[quote]Whatever happened to scientific integrity?
[/quote]
Integrity? In Britain? Are you kidding? Stonehenge is one big fat lie.
Look at the facts. First the British go to Wales and steal Welsh
rocks. Then the British spread a worldwide lie British rocks can heal
you. Foreigners bearing cattle, pigs, gifts come to Britain to be
healed. British know rocks are just rocks. Welsh rocks fail to heal
them. Foreigners die and the British feast on cattle, pigs, gifts.
Families of deceased ask why. Welsh switched the rocks British say.
Integrity? In Britain? Are you kidding?

Garry Denke

GDenke · Guest

[quote]Whatever happened to scientific integrity?
[/quote]
Integrity? In Britain? Are you kidding? Stonehenge is one big fat lie.
Look at the facts. First the British go to Wales and steal Welsh
rocks. Then the British spread a worldwide lie British rocks can heal
you. Foreigners bearing cattle, pigs, gifts come to Britain to be
healed. British know rocks are just rocks. Welsh rocks fail to heal
them. Foreigners die and the British feast on cattle, pigs, gifts.
Families of deceased ask why. Welsh switched the rocks British say.
Integrity? In Britain? Are you kidding?

Garry Denke

LloydB · Guest

On Oct 4, 7:21 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
[quote]Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

The charter IS amatuerish and is almost useless when it comes to
defining what is and what isn>t allowed. To some extent that is not
surprising as even within the profession there is a wide disparity of
views as to what is and what isn>t archaeology.

You say "potato", I say "archaeology".

The charter sounds like a document written by actual, working
archaeologists, perhaps after several Friday nights sitting
around the local watering hole over beers and burgers, thinking
about what actual, working archaeologists could use in this new
Usenet thingamabob. It is not amateurish in the slightest to me.

That Usenet grew like Topsy in the intervening millennia (in Net
time), and let in lots of the unwashed, ignorant, enthusiastic
and impatient does not make the charter amateurish. It merely
makes it a wistful desiderata for those of us who could actually
have made use of the ng it founded to talk about interesting stuff.

I don>t see any point in reopening all these arguments once again.
What is really needed is a certain amount of good-humoured tolerance
and the willingness to ignore irritating threads.

What is needed is a place where actual archaeology is discussed;
a place where the very people who could make archaeology
interesting, clear and useful to the unwashed, ignorant,
enthusiastic and impatient are not chased off by an overwhelming
tide of bullshit.

But that>s just me.

--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
[/quote]
Gosh, Tom , you know perfectly well that it isn>t *just* you ;-)

There is such a place... well there *could* be. In practice,
the present machinations of sci.archaeology.moderated
are so cumbersome that 'discussion' (despite the original
welcoming statement by Doug Weller) appears to be non-
existant. Mostly, one or 2 posters us it as a bulletin board,
and the posts are one original--no replies. Is that "discussion"?
It might have been (and could still be) so much more.

I>d still like to see a discussion HERE about how to
accomplish the changes needed THERE. Certainly,
SAM has effectively kept out most of the nut-cases,
but there>s no life there, no encouragement for the timely
exchange of archaeological information. Surely there>s
a middle ground?

imipak · Guest

On Oct 6, 8:45 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Kendall K Down wrote:
In message <48e3e623$0$8477$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
As long as that restaurant has one member of the Israeli
military, on or off
duty, active or reserve, it is a lawful military target and the
rest are
collateral damage.
Again, no. The possibility of killing or injuring civilians must
be weighed against the value of the target. It *might* be
legitimate to kill a restaurant-full of civilians to get Osama bin
Laden - note the "might" - but it certainly is not worth it just
to get one (possibly unwilling) conscript.
Do not complain to me. I never wrote a treaty in my life.
And on present showing you have not the least idea of how to
interpret them either.
I agree you are ignorant of international law. Your ignorance has
no bearing
upon what I may be nor does it give you license to post
mischievous lies.
That you are a nasty little nazi is not a lie but the plain truth.
If you want to contest the matter, come over here. One of your
fellow-travelling holocaust deniers was arrested yesterday as soon
as his plane touched down at Heathrow.
On a European warrant. Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany,
understandably, but not in England and Wales or most of Europe. The
whole isssue is clouded by imprecise use of language. Strictly
speaking, there was no holocaust because European Jewry was not
wiped out. Indeed, the number of survivors was the precise reason
the white settlers in Palestine were able create Israel. I have
tried to convince our friend time and time again that there was a
concerted attempt to do so, stemming from pseudoscience. I am not
sure he is a Nazi: holocaust denial may be a separate pathology.
If you look up hardcore neo-Nazi groups, such as Combat 18, most of
them wish to resume the operation.
You may present anything you want. Algebra is the same for
everyone. Israel gave the number of survivors for a particular year.
That tells us how many survivors there were in 1945.
No amount of argumentation can change either the arithmetic or
the average human lifespan.
But please feel free to point out the "pseudoscience" in my use
of the human lifespan in the elementary demographic calculation.
Like Mr. Spock, I am all ears.

You have misread me yet again. Nazi racism was based on
pseudoscience. Frankly, I don>t think you are too bright.

In regard to the last sentence, what you say is Nazi racism was
the norm in Europe at the time. The Nazis were not different in that
regard. I have given you several examples of it in England. You should
not have a problem finding the English view of the Irish race in those
days, and even today, on your own.

I did not say that, and it was not so. Certainly some kind of racism
was widely disseminated, but the theories of the notorious Helena
Petrovna Blavatsky were a minority interest. There were very few
English people who actually wanted to exterminate the Irish. Today
there are so many English people wholly or partially of Irish descent
that any holder of such views has to keep very quiet.

In the matter of racial superiority I suggest the English openly discussing
their natural fitness to rule the world.

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows there was
no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII, there is no cause for an
invented claim about the Irish.

--
There is no archaeological evidence of any Jews or
Judeans prior to the late 2nd c. BC.
The Iron Webmaster, 4050
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtmla2
[/quote]
The English (who technically do not exist, the inhabitants of Britain
are genetically descended from the original Ice Age settlers and not
the Angles from whom the word "English" is derived) are not fit to
rule much more than a cabbage patch, and I speak as an Englishman.
Although we are more civilized than many (the Magna Carta defining
many constraints on legal proceedings and - at least in the first
draft - also subjecting the King to the law as an equal and permitting
action as necessary to enforce that; slavery was abolished in 1772 -
over a hundred years before America or France, women have been
accepted as rulers since at least 61AD, etc), there are also many who
are more civilized still.

It is arguable that no nation has the right to rule, seize power over
or claim rights over any other nation. And, yes, that includes nations
in the Middle East. Indeed, the right to hold private property
regardless of the wishes of any ruler or occupier was codified by the
Sumerians some time around 5,000 BC. That cannot be considered a
Western notion, but rather a notion the West inherited.

Human rights, as defined by the UN, are defined and codified by common
consent by all participating nations. It is notable that the United
States is one nation that refuses to accept the UN charter on Human
Rights, so clearly these are not even values half of the "West" even
recognizes. The US was even kicked off UN Human Rights bodies, owing
to charter violations, and Middle Eastern nations have acquired seats
on such bodies - clearly indicating that the charter is one that the
Middle East as a whole recognizes as one that must inevitably dominate
over local politics and religious beliefs. If they did not believe
that, they>d reject such bodies the same way as the US does. Since
they have not, the current political and religious beliefs are of no
consequence as they have acknowledged that there is no fundamental
incompatibility and that where any incompatibilities exist, it is the
nation that needs to change.

(Of course, this assumes that no nation is attempting to subvert the
process or defile their own commitments. If you want to say something
about your own country acting for dishonourable reasons, or signing up
to treaties they have no intent to honour, that is entirely up to you.
I will, for example, point out that Britain has broken trust and
broken treaties in the past and will doubtless do so again, though I
believe it to genuinely hold to the abstract notion of human rights
and the notion of international law. I will not accuse any other
nation of those acts, because I do not have the right to do so. My
example of the US is not pointing fingers because they are clearly
acting in accordance with their beliefs and their beliefs openly
include rejecting the UN>s stance on human rights in favour of their
own beliefs of what human rights should be. I may dislike it, but it
is consistent and is entirely open. If you wish to point fingers,
please do so on alt.flame where such posts are welcomed.)

Digger · Guest

"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48eadda1$0$8517$

[quote]On one hand I read of a large, permanent settlement around/near it. On the
other I read of regular gatherings of large numbers of people traveling
there from far and wide. Where I expect evidence of the latter all I read
is evidence of the former.

Which is it and for which is there in fact evidence?
[/quote]
For the evidence have a look at B.A.R. report 1692 which summarises the
latest thinking on Durrington Walls. It>s entitled "From Stonehenge to the
Baltic: Living with cultural diversity in the third millenium BC".

I don>t really buy into Parker Pearson>s vision of a large permanent
settlement on the site. We only excavated a handful of structures and there
was little indication on the geophysics that structures existed in the huge
numbers he proposes. However, the vast amount of midden material excavated
outside the eastern entrance is ample evidence that people gathered at the
site in huge numbers, probably for seasonal festivals or something similar.

The evidence from human bones excavated around the locality does demonstrate
that people were traveling from far and wide to visit the site and, perhaps,
settle in the wider area, (although the immediate environs of Stonehenge
seem not to have been permanently occupied).

Searles O'Dubhain · Guest

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3MTFk.6416$Bt4.1798@newsfe08.iad...

<snip>

[quote]
That Usenet grew like Topsy in the intervening millennia (in Net time),
and let in lots of the unwashed, ignorant, enthusiastic and impatient does
not make the charter amateurish. It merely makes it a wistful desiderata
for those of us who could actually have made use of the ng it founded to
talk about interesting stuff.

[/quote]
I think the moderated newsgroup approach could work if the moderation was a
little easier to apply. By this, I mean that those who have comported
themselves according to the FAQ and Netiquette could be loosely moderated
(or not at all) while newcomers would have to achieve 'approved' status.

The problem I>ve had with moderated newsgroups is that they are sparsely
populated with moderators and the turn-around-time for replies and postings
is consequently too long for any sort of spontaneity. IMO, there>d have to
be at least 10 moderators to insure that new posts saw the light of day in a
timely manner.

Searles O>Dubhain

Tom McDonald · Guest

Searles O>Dubhain wrote:
[quote]"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3MTFk.6416$Bt4.1798@newsfe08.iad...

snip

That Usenet grew like Topsy in the intervening millennia (in Net time),
and let in lots of the unwashed, ignorant, enthusiastic and impatient does
not make the charter amateurish. It merely makes it a wistful desiderata
for those of us who could actually have made use of the ng it founded to
talk about interesting stuff.

I think the moderated newsgroup approach could work if the moderation was a
little easier to apply. By this, I mean that those who have comported
themselves according to the FAQ and Netiquette could be loosely moderated
(or not at all) while newcomers would have to achieve 'approved' status.

The problem I>ve had with moderated newsgroups is that they are sparsely
populated with moderators and the turn-around-time for replies and postings
is consequently too long for any sort of spontaneity. IMO, there>d have to
be at least 10 moderators to insure that new posts saw the light of day in a
timely manner.
[/quote]
Some of that is whether the moderator who gets an article is
online at the time. There have been times when I got an article,
and got it posted within a few minutes of it being posted on
unmoderated ngs.

Far more often, though, it is a matter of hours between when an
article arrives in my inbox and when I see it. For instance, I
have sometimes gotten an article just after I went to bed, or to
work, or to visit my son; and by the time I got back to my
computer, far too many hours have passed, and the opportunity for
spontaneity is greatly diminished.

I think of moderated ngs such as talk.origins, which is mostly
robomoderated, with the actual moderator capable of banning
posters, banning domains (including google!), and creating
whitelists when things get very silly. His hand is light, but
firm when necessary. I don>t think he>s ever permanently banned
anyone -- not even Ed Conrad! (Conrad>s pretty much kept himself
banned by consistently breaking just about the only hard and fast
rule -- don>t shift nyms to avoid bans or killfiles.)

But then, the purpose of t.o. was to be the cloaca of the
internet wrt the creation/evolution food fight; and somehow, out
of that sewer, came a truly useful ng and associated web site.

I have sometimes wondered whether such a prodigy might be
possible with sci.archaeology.moderated.

I like the idea of talking this up here.

--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald

Tom McDonald · Guest

LloydB wrote:
[quote]On Oct 4, 7:21 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

The charter IS amatuerish and is almost useless when it comes to
defining what is and what isn>t allowed. To some extent that is not
surprising as even within the profession there is a wide disparity of
views as to what is and what isn>t archaeology.
You say "potato", I say "archaeology".

The charter sounds like a document written by actual, working
archaeologists, perhaps after several Friday nights sitting
around the local watering hole over beers and burgers, thinking
about what actual, working archaeologists could use in this new
Usenet thingamabob. It is not amateurish in the slightest to me.

That Usenet grew like Topsy in the intervening millennia (in Net
time), and let in lots of the unwashed, ignorant, enthusiastic
and impatient does not make the charter amateurish. It merely
makes it a wistful desiderata for those of us who could actually
have made use of the ng it founded to talk about interesting stuff.

I don>t see any point in reopening all these arguments once again.
What is really needed is a certain amount of good-humoured tolerance
and the willingness to ignore irritating threads.
What is needed is a place where actual archaeology is discussed;
a place where the very people who could make archaeology
interesting, clear and useful to the unwashed, ignorant,
enthusiastic and impatient are not chased off by an overwhelming
tide of bullshit.

But that>s just me.

--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald

Gosh, Tom , you know perfectly well that it isn>t *just* you ;-)

There is such a place... well there *could* be. In practice,
the present machinations of sci.archaeology.moderated
are so cumbersome that 'discussion' (despite the original
welcoming statement by Doug Weller) appears to be non-
existant. Mostly, one or 2 posters us it as a bulletin board,
and the posts are one original--no replies. Is that "discussion"?
It might have been (and could still be) so much more.

I>d still like to see a discussion HERE about how to
accomplish the changes needed THERE. Certainly,
SAM has effectively kept out most of the nut-cases,
but there>s no life there, no encouragement for the timely
exchange of archaeological information. Surely there>s
a middle ground?
[/quote]
I just replied to Searles on this very point.

I agree, it would be good to talk about s.a.m. here (including
the technical issues involved with moderation--which is not at
all my forte), as *part of* a wider discussion about how we can
have real, interesting and wide-open archaeological discussions
on the Interweb-tubes-not-trucks.

It isn>t an easy issue. There are closed e-mail discussion
groups--just ask Inger :-); but the question there is how do
interested folks find them? There are lots of boards,and google,
Yahoo and other types of groups; but again, how does one wade
through all that? AFAICS, most of those groups are too boutique,
not wide enough for the job someone with a general interest in
archaeology needs done.

The beauty of Usenet is that anyone can type in some key words
and find the ngs, and they can easily lurk and see which group
comes closest to their needs. The beast of Usenet is that
*anyone* can type in some key words and find the ngs they want.

It may be the case that the only way forward is to require some
personal discipline from participants. But if enough of us could
do that on a regular basis, we wouldn>t be having this
discussion. Yet again. Once more.

I hate to go all David on everyone, but I do invite newsgroupers'
comments and ideas on these issues.

--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald

Matt Giwer · Guest

Kendall K Down wrote:
[quote]In message <48eadbff$0$8510$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination:

Needless to say, Israel declares no such thing.
[/quote]
You need to take remedial algebra so you can talk about the subject with your
betters.

--
The secret of enlightenment cannot be told.
It can only be discovered.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4057
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9

Matt Giwer · Guest

Kendall K Down wrote:
[quote]In message <48eadb5e$0$8510$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows there was
no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII

Come over here and say that.
[/quote]
Take remedial algebra and learn how stupid you sound.

--
I have a Covenant with God, exposing Abraham>s most successful scan.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4064
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6

Matt Giwer · Guest

Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Kendall K Down wrote:
In message <48e3e623$0$8477$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
As long as that restaurant has one member of the Israeli
military, on or off
duty, active or reserve, it is a lawful military target and the
rest are
collateral damage.
Again, no. The possibility of killing or injuring civilians must
be weighed against the value of the target. It *might* be
legitimate to kill a restaurant-full of civilians to get Osama
bin Laden - note the "might" - but it certainly is not worth it
just to get one (possibly unwilling) conscript.
Do not complain to me. I never wrote a treaty in my life.
And on present showing you have not the least idea of how to
interpret them either.
I agree you are ignorant of international law. Your ignorance
has no bearing
upon what I may be nor does it give you license to post
mischievous lies.
That you are a nasty little nazi is not a lie but the plain
truth. If you want to contest the matter, come over here. One of
your fellow-travelling holocaust deniers was arrested yesterday
as soon as his plane touched down at Heathrow.
On a European warrant. Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany,
understandably, but not in England and Wales or most of Europe.
The whole isssue is clouded by imprecise use of language.
Strictly speaking, there was no holocaust because European Jewry
was not wiped out. Indeed, the number of survivors was the
precise reason the white settlers in Palestine were able create
Israel. I have tried to convince our friend time and time again
that there was a concerted attempt to do so, stemming from
pseudoscience. I am not sure he is a Nazi: holocaust denial may
be a separate pathology. If you look up hardcore neo-Nazi
groups, such as Combat 18, most of them wish to resume the
operation.
You may present anything you want. Algebra is the same for
everyone. Israel gave the number of survivors for a particular
year. That tells us how many survivors there were in 1945.
No amount of argumentation can change either the arithmetic or
the average human lifespan.
But please feel free to point out the "pseudoscience" in my
use of the human lifespan in the elementary demographic
calculation. Like Mr. Spock, I am all ears.

You have misread me yet again. Nazi racism was based on
pseudoscience. Frankly, I don>t think you are too bright.

In regard to the last sentence, what you say is Nazi racism was
the norm in Europe at the time. The Nazis were not different in that
regard. I have given you several examples of it in England. You
should not have a problem finding the English view of the Irish race
in those days, and even today, on your own.

I did not say that, and it was not so. Certainly some kind of racism
was widely disseminated, but the theories of the notorious Helena
Petrovna Blavatsky were a minority interest. There were very few
English people who actually wanted to exterminate the Irish. Today
there are so many English people wholly or partially of Irish descent
that any holder of such views has to keep very quiet.

In the matter of racial superiority I suggest the English openly
discussing their natural fitness to rule the world.

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel
shows there was no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII,
there is no cause for an invented claim about the Irish.

Frankly, if you believe that, you>ll beleive anything.
[/quote]
I have a very strong tendency to believe algebra. Why do you have such a
great difficulty dealing with algebra? Never quite understood it? No blame.

But please do not profess ignorance of such an elementary matter. The level I
express in this calculation was established some 1200 years ago. It is not as
though it is rocket surgery.

Or, should you ever read the article, I do suggest an alternate explanation
regarding the 1 million survivors in 2005. You could easily adopt that
explanation. I have never gotten a straight answer as to why that is an
unacceptable explanation for believers. Perhaps you can tell me why the
suggestion that Israel is lying when it said there were one million survivors
in 2005 is unacceptable to believers. Care to explain why you would rather
believe that statement and reject elementary algebra? Please be the first.

Could "lying in one, lying in all" be the answer?

--
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend when
his strategy is divide and conquer.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4067
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Archaeology Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 63, 64, 65 ... 71, 72, 73 Next
Page 64 of 73