User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: One-on-One: An Austrian Perspective on IP

  1. #16
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,893
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 226 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    325824
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    What a mess. I don't even know what you are arguing about any more. That my view of contracts is wrong per your links?

    So let's see if we can do this one step at a time. I've only been arguing about one thing in regards to copyrights and contracts. That is, that all contracts have to be agreed to before the sales transaction takes place, and copyrights don't do that. Can we agree with that much?

    BTW, if we say that the act of purchasing is the agreement to the contract, then any contract can be forced on the buyer. Isn't that obvious?
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    No a contract can not be forced on a buyer if purchasing is agreement to a contract because if you do not like the terms you do not buy. Again and again you keep saying forced this and forced that, are you claiming someone's made you buy a book or a song? Did a G-man put a gun to your head and make you buy a videogame?

    What you have been arguing is that if someone disagrees with a contract, even in thought, then they are not bound by it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Say I write a novel, with copyright I have a certain amount of control, over that particular novel. But I don't have a monopoly on novels. If you don't like the terms I proffer for the novel, you're free to go buy someone else's.
    And thus we enter the world on contracts.

    Here's the problem with your "terms I proffer". You have to get positive agreement from the contractee before you can force adjudication as the contractor. In other words, if a buyer does not agree to your terms (a contract), even in thought, you are OBLIGATED NOT TO SELL to him if you want to uphold the integrity of your contract. If you do sell to him, with no positive agreement, then you are at fault if he breaks your terms.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    The only thing that is required is that the purchaser understand the terms before he purchases. If he understands the terms and he purchases then he has obligated himself to follow the terms.

    I'm saying your view of contracts is wrong, the links are evidence I've offered to back that up. Something you still have not done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    No. The seller must get positive agreement to any terms before the purchase. Here's another example. Let's say the seller is selling a chair. The salesman let's the purchaser know before the sale that if the purchaser buys he is agreeing to not copy the chair. Later, a copy of the chair is found in the purchaser's home.

    The chair maker takes the purchaser to court, but the purchaser says he did not agree to the terms, but when he gave the salesman the money, the salesman gave him a receipt and loaded the chair into the purchaser's van. Is the purchaser liable? It's rhetorical, the answer is "no".

    BUT, if the purchaser signed a contract saying he would not copy the chair, it doesn't matter what the purchaser claims, he is liable for whatever damages were caused by the purchaser copying the chair.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    I'm saying your view of contracts is wrong, the links are evidence I've offered to back that up. Something you still have not done.

    I have made my argument. I have offered proof supporting it. Try reading that proof. Here's an idea, try offering some of your own. If you are correct on how contracts operate, it should be easy enough to provide links to documentation to support it.

    It took me no more than a few minutes to find my proof. Where is yours?

    My argument has stayed the same throughout. Yours has changed with every posting. Pick an argument, and then provide evidence to support it. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    I haven't changed my argument, I've been arguing this subject for years. Also, I've checked my posts, and I never confused transactions with contracts. They are similar in use, but I didn't confuse the two terms.

    You must understand that you don't need a lawyer's opinion before you can understand contracts. They aren't that difficult. In the absence of gov't, contracts would still be used and they would still work the same way. Can you admit that contracts, even in the absence of gov't would work the same way they've always worked since transactions were a part of human activity?
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Yet again a change of argument.

    Yet again a lack of proof.

    And I am not a lawyer.

    Btw, I didn't say you confused the two terms. I said you were trying to change the terms of the debate. While a contract requires a transaction, a transaction does not require a contract. There is a difference between the two terms. And when you used transaction you were not trying to use it as a synonym for contracts as you later claimed, you were trying to use it instead of contracts.

    But let's look at your example.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    The salesman let's the purchaser know before the sale that if the purchaser buys he is agreeing to not copy the chair. Later, a copy of the chair is found in the purchaser's home.

    The chair maker takes the purchaser to court, but the purchaser says he did not agree to the terms, but when he gave the salesman the money, the salesman gave him a receipt and loaded the chair into the purchaser's van. Is the purchaser liable? It's rhetorical, the answer is "no".

    BUT, if the purchaser signed a contract saying he would not copy the chair, it doesn't matter what the purchaser claims, he is liable for whatever damages were caused by the purchaser copying the chair.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    What you're describing is the difference between an oral contract and a written contract. Your answer may be rhetorical, but it's also wrong. If the chair maker can prove that the purchaser knew the terms before he bought, then as a matter of fact the purchaser would be liable.

    As a practical matter oral contracts are very difficult to prove, but if proven they are as legally binding and valid as written contracts. (Something you would know, if you actually bothered to read the evidence I provided.)

    As an analogy, I would guess millions of people get away with smoking pot every year, but that doesn't mean smoking pot is legal. It just means they weren't caught. You might believe smoking pot should not be illegal (and I would agree), you might think the government making smoking pot illegal causes far more harm than good (and I would agree), but it does not change the fact that smoking pot is indeed illegal.

    You say "in the absence of gov't", huh?

    A contract is an agreement that is legally binding, exactly how is that even meaningful without government?

    Say you and I have a contract for me to sell you a chair at a particular price. I deliver a chair, but you pay me only half the price.

    Now, without government what good does that contract do me?

    I can try to take the chair, or take the rest of the money you owe me, but I can attempt that without a contract, and having a contract in no way guarantees I'll succeed.

    I can tell others you've cheated me, and perhaps with a contract they'll be more likely to believe me, but that certainly wouldn't obligate them to help me get my money. At most they might decide to not deal with you so they won't be cheated, which is good for them, but doesn't help me at all.

    I am libertarian by temperament, but that doesn't mean I'm an anarchist. Government does have it's uses, limited though they may be. And one of those uses is to be an independent arbiter in disputes.

    You mentioned not needing a lawyer's opinion. Which is true as far it goes. The problem is you seem to believe that the way contracts operate is a matter of opinion. It's not. It is a matter of fact how a contract functions.

    It seems to be your opinion that contracts need a signature to be valid. This is wrong. There are both oral and implied contracts, neither of which need a signature.

    And there's more. But why go on? You show no interest in the facts at all. Which is why despite my repeated requests you have not produced one shred of evidence to support your contentions.

    So I ask again, why? If you are correct, then why no evidence to support it?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  2. #17
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,893
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 226 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    325824
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    First, I'd like to say that you appear to be winning the argument. With that in mind, we could take this to a more formal setting. I know a forum where we can get on a thread where only you and I would be allowed to post (and the admin, of course). It would simply help with formatting and readability. I promise to begin using links to support my position. How 'bout it?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  3. #18
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,893
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 226 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    325824
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    You say I "appear to be winning the argument. Your use of the word appear suggests to me you believe you have some secret weapon to unveil which will trump me. Sheer curiosity to see what that might be inclines me to say yes.

    So what the hell, I'll give it another whack.

    How do we go about this?
    And here we are!
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  4. #19
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,893
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 226 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    325824
    First, I'd like to thank rk for taking the time and inconvenience of coming over to a forum to continue the conversation. Hopefully the transition wasn't too stressful. I'd also like to thank Vox Day for not minding that we took a conversation of his to a different venue.

    Back to the show:
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    What you have been arguing is that if someone disagrees with a contract, even in thought, then they are not bound by it.
    No. Here is what I said: "BUT, if the purchaser signed a contract saying he would not copy the chair, it doesn't matter what the purchaser claims, he is liable for whatever damages were caused by the purchaser copying the chair."

    Read again: "it doesn't matter what the purchaser claims". Let's say the purchaser thought about disagreeing with a contract he signed. It doesn't matter, the purchaser is bound by the contract.

    Now, I realize where this became confusing: I said, "In other words, if a buyer does not agree to your terms (a contract), even in thought, you are OBLIGATED NOT TO SELL to him if you want to uphold the integrity of your contract." But this was said in the context of the purchase being the contract.

    Here's what I meant: If you made a contract (let's say you didn't want someone to copy the chair you were selling), and said that whoever buys the product agrees with the contract by buying it, I wouldn't have to tell you I disagreed with the contract in order for the contract NOT to apply. I would only have to NOT give you positive agreement. Now, if I said "I agree", then we have a verbal contract.

    And let's add one thing, if I said I disagreed with your contract, and gave you the money and you took the money and gave me the chair, I would not be liable if I copied the chair.

    This is why no one currently attempts to claim that the act of buying something means that you agree to the contract for regular goods.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  5. #20
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,893
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 226 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    325824
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    You say "in the absence of gov't", huh?

    A contract is an agreement that is legally binding, exactly how is that even meaningful without government?
    You have a point. Fine, so there is always a government to enforce the contract.

    What I mean is that contracts are the same no matter what the government, even if you change from one government to another while a transaction is taking place. For instance, the mafia makes all kinds of transactions (product, not killings), and it stays out of court if the contract isn't upheld. There are 2 ways they reduce problems with their contracts, one is to make transactions simultaneous (money and product change hands at the same time), and the other way is the threat of violence in that they make themselves their own government in a way.

    So from this point on we can say there is always a government.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  6. #21
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,893
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 226 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    325824
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Say you and I have a contract for me to sell you a chair at a particular price. I deliver a chair, but you pay me only half the price.
    I would just like to point out that this is a great illustration of how a contract comes first, and then the purchase. You realize that you just said, the price was agreed upon. That's the verbal or written contract, apparently, in this case. If you said the price was x and I never said "OK" or signed a purchase order, and I only gave you 1/2 of x, but you delivered the chair ANYWAY and took 1/2 the money, it would be your fault if you only got 1/2 the money you wanted for the chair. It would even be worse if I told you I would only give you 1/2 x for the chair and you STILL delivered it and took 1/2 the money. Correct?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  7. #22
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,893
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 226 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    325824
    I promised links, but I haven't found a good reason to do it yet. Suffice to say, at this point, that I agree with everything the links you posted say about contracts. Unfortunately, your links agree with me that you need positive agreement before you can execute and have the courts uphold a contract.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  8. #23
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Changing position.

    You have posted a contradiction. You say you agree with everything my links say about contracts, but then say a contract requires positive agreement. Did you miss the links on implied contracts?

    Here is one of them. By their very nature as the name well, implies, implied contracts of course do not need positive agreement. By definition in an implied contract acceptance of the goods is acceptance of the contract.

    You're getting better though, at least now you recognize oral contracts. Implied contracts shouldn't be that hard.

    This was your initial post disputing me:

    Here's the problem with your "terms I proffer". You have to get positive agreement from the contractee before you can force adjudication as the contractor. In other words, if a buyer does not agree to your terms (a contract), even in thought, you are OBLIGATED NOT TO SELL to him if you want to uphold the integrity of your contract. If you do sell to him, with no positive agreement, then you are at fault if he breaks your terms.
    Now you say:

    Back to the show:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rk3001
    What you have been arguing is that if someone disagrees with a contract, even in thought, then they are not bound by it.
    No. Here is what I said: "BUT, if the purchaser signed a contract saying he would not copy the chair, it doesn't matter what the purchaser claims, he is liable for whatever damages were caused by the purchaser copying the chair."

    Read again: "it doesn't matter what the purchaser claims". Let's say the purchaser thought about disagreeing with a contract he signed. It doesn't matter, the purchaser is bound by the contract.

    Now, I realize where this became confusing: I said, "In other words, if a buyer does not agree to your terms (a contract), even in thought, you are OBLIGATED NOT TO SELL to him if you want to uphold the integrity of your contract." But this was said in the context of the purchase being the contract.
    So no it was not said in the context of the purchase being the contract, because I was the one who said that, only I hadn't yet because we weren't debating contracts at that point. Though contracts were implied in my initial post, it wasn't about them it was about copyright.

    So in one post you say one thing, then I don't know how many posts later you say something else, only it's supposed to be the same argument?

    This is the kind of thing I meant when I said your argument changed.

    So here we are. You say you will provide links to support your argument only you don't need to because my links support what you say. But then you say something that is in contradiction to two of the links.

    Then you make a factually incorrect statement about the context of your first post.

    The question for me becomes is it worth my time to continue? I don't know if you're just confused, or if you're being intentionally dishonest. All I know for certain is that you're saying one thing, and the record says something different.

    I'll check back here in a day or two. If you have a post or posts that 1, explain the inconsistencies between what you say and what the record shows, and 2 addresses implied contracts and positive agreement, either by admitting they don't need it or explaining how they do with some evidence to back that up, I'll continue.

    If not, then I don't really see the point.

  9. #24
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,893
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 226 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    325824
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001 View Post
    You have posted a contradiction. You say you agree with everything my links say about contracts, but then say a contract requires positive agreement. Did you miss the links on implied contracts?
    I didn't miss the links. Implied contracts are for things like: you go to the doctor and expect to pay "some fair amount" for services rendered even though typically prices aren't discussed before services are rendered because what services will be performed aren't known before the conclusion of the service. Thus, if you go to the doctor and he checks you out and, not liking what he sees does the next level of test and then refers you do a specialist, you cannot get out of the bill because "you never agreed to pay that much".

    We can safely understand that you are saying that copyrights are implied contracts?

    You're getting better though, at least now you recognize oral contracts.
    Just a note, I've always accepted oral contracts. If you had ever asked me directly, I would have even said that there are more verbal contracts than written ones.

    If you aren't clear about something, or if something doesn't make sense, and you can ask directly; do.

    Implied contracts shouldn't be that hard.
    Not only do I say implied contracts exist, but there are more implied contracts executed than written contracts. Every time something is bought at a grocery store and nothing is said at the cash register, it must be an implied contract because there is nothing said or written.

    So no it was not said in the context of the purchase being the contract, because I was the one who said that, only I hadn't yet because we weren't debating contracts at that point. Though contracts were implied in my initial post, it wasn't about them it was about copyright.
    The whole conversation is about copyrights, and your post inferred contracts because a purchase was involved. All transactions (purchases) involve a contract of some type and so far, nothing you've said has shown disputes that. Here is the line from your post that made me bring up contracts: "you're free to go buy someone else's". As soon as you said the word "buy" a contract is involved - I said "And thus we enter the world on contracts." Although I meant to say of contracts.

    Then you make a factually incorrect statement about the context of your first post.
    This is not correct, as just demonstrated.

    The question for me becomes is it worth my time to continue? I don't know if you're just confused, or if you're being intentionally dishonest. All I know for certain is that you're saying one thing, and the record says something different.
    Never attribute something to malicious intent what can be explained by a breakdown in communication. I'm rational, and have been discussing this topic for a number of years.

    I'll check back here in a day or two. If you have a post or posts that 1, explain the inconsistencies between what you say and what the record shows,
    The inconsistencies are explained either by my poor communication or your misunderstanding of the argument. I'll admit that I'm much looser and quicker to post without proofreading on a blog. Instead of getting angry about it, assume I might just be communicating poorly. That's the nice thing about forums (and blogs) is that you can get things clarified.

    and 2 addresses implied contracts and positive agreement, either by admitting they don't need it or explaining how they do with some evidence to back that up, I'll continue.
    I guess this is where the discussion lies. I'll grant you this is your best argument. So just to be clear, you are resting your argument on the claim that copyrights are implied contracts?

    But it will be shown, even implied contracts require positive agreement.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  10. #25
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Done

    But it will be shown, even implied contracts require positive agreement.
    That would be a nice change of pace, for you to actually show something. By that I mean show some proof. But I'm done waiting for it.

    The whole conversation is about copyrights,
    No our whole discussion has been about contracts. It started on a thread about intellectual property, of which copyright is a part it's true, but we've only discussed contracts. I posted my thoughts on IP and monopoly and was open to hearing about others thoughts on that. You however chose to go of on a tangent about contracts. Now you want to change the discussion. Again.

    If you had some argument to make against copyright, you should have made it. Cause here's the thing about contracts, they're only valid if they conform to the law. IP, copyrights, and so on are the law. They may be bad law, but they are the law. So contracts, whether they be written oral, or implied have to conform to them or they would be void. Nothing in a contract will make you exempt from the law.

    The inconsistencies are explained either by my poor communication or your misunderstanding of the argument.
    Sorry, It's happened too often for me to accept the "I didn't mean it like that" excuse.

    So just to be clear, you are resting your argument on the claim that copyrights are implied contracts?
    No. My argument has always been that if you purchase something knowing there are obligations to that purchase, then you are agreeing to them, even if you do not agree with them. And if you didn't understand the obligations the most you can do is negate the purchase i.e., you get yours back and the seller gets his back. You don't simply get to ignore them.

    I suppose an argument could be made for copyrights as implied contracts, but I'm tired of this dance with you. First it's this. Then no I meant that. Well I really always meant the other thing. No thanks.

    I've wasted a lot of time on this. Which to be fair, is my own fault. The moment I read the "Even in thought" line I should have known what was up. But sometimes you've got to learn a lesson the hard way.

    You're gonna have to find a new dance partner. I have something constructive to do. I'm going to drill a hole in my forehead with this blunt pencil. I'm sure I'll feel much better then.

  11. #26
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,893
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 226 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    325824
    Well then, I guess I can start this post with "In closing;"
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001 View Post
    That would be a nice change of pace, for you to actually show something. By that I mean show some proof. But I'm done waiting for it.
    Some things don't need proofs. For example, if I say contracts have been around since transactions have been a part of mankind's reality - I don't need proof. Hopefully you can intuit something like that. If I say copyrights have been around for a few hundred years, I would provide a link.

    I wish you could have seen the difference. We never got to the details beyond what your links sufficed to show.

    No our whole discussion has been about contracts.
    Only in so far as the discussion about contracts was a discussion against copyrights. The power of copyright over your property rests entirely on an implied-by-law contract. I was showing how this contract was not good law by first establishing how a contract worked.

    As far as the "even in thought" argument was used; I'm sorry I brought it up in the first post as it is a detail that we can only get to after an understanding of how contracts work has been established. It was confusing without that foundation and I shouldn't have put it in the first post. We would have eventually gotten to "thoughts/intents" later on as that is the realm of implied contracts.

    If you had some argument to make against copyright, you should have made it.
    I was. If the contract that gives copyright its power is invalid, then copyright is bad law. First one needs to understand how contracts work.

    Cause here's the thing about contracts, they're only valid if they conform to the law. IP, copyrights, and so on are the law. They may be bad law, but they are the law. So contracts, whether they be written oral, or implied have to conform to them or they would be void. Nothing in a contract will make you exempt from the law.
    IP, copyrights, and patents are bad law. They rest on contracts for their power over your property. If one understands how contracts work, then they would not support copyrights.

    Sorry, It's happened too often for me to accept the "I didn't mean it like that" excuse.
    You are too prideful to realize it was also the "you misunderstood" excuse that I've had to deal with in your posts. Now realize I didn't say your frustration is entirely your fault. I'm saying you have a short fuse because you misunderstand but don't allow for your misunderstanding.

    No. My argument has always been that if you purchase something knowing there are obligations to that purchase, then you are agreeing to them, even if you do not agree with them.
    So when you buy a book, it is your property. However, you cannot copy it because...

    I say it's because the copyright is a contract. If you agree, then you are saying that copyright is valid because it is a valid implied contract.

    And if you didn't understand the obligations the most you can do is negate the purchase i.e., you get yours back and the seller gets his back. You don't simply get to ignore them.
    That works with physical property because it is scarce (scarce in the economic sense. IP is not scarce, so by necessity it will work differently. Thus, the contract must be different to accommodate for this difference.

    I've wasted a lot of time on this. Which to be fair, is my own fault. The moment I read the "Even in thought" line I should have known what was up. But sometimes you've got to learn a lesson the hard way.
    Or you could have asked "what do you mean by saying 'even in thought'?" and I could have explained, or more likely taken back that line immediately.

    Well, I'd like to say that it was good rk3001, but you obviously stopped trying to communicate before we even started.

    If anyone else wants to take up the copyright mantle, please do. Drop me a private message. Any of the new atheists out there think that copyright is good law?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  12. #27
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,893
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 226 Times in 183 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    325824
    And one parting curiousity on rk3001 even though he isn't here.

    rk3001 argues like an evolutionist. I wonder if he is one based on that evidence alone?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us