Debunking the ideomotor effect

  • Thread starter bfpri
  • Start date
  • #1
12
0
I have heard that there have been research done with a controlled experiment that the answers the ouija board gives back is not always random letters. Do you have a site or something for this?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
53
0
bfpri said:
I have heard that there have been research done with a controlled experiment that the answers the ouija board gives back is not always random letters.
I asked my ouija board about that. It said, "Csrkls'tika'dkjgjhaisieoit'a'ejgj."
 
  • #3
SGT
bfpri said:
I have heard that there have been research done with a controlled experiment that the answers the ouija board gives back is not always random letters. Do you have a site or something for this?
The first letters may be random. After two or three letters, the participants try unconsciously to form words. The ideomotor effect does the rest.
The only way to do a controlled experiment is to have all people that touch the cursor to be blindfolded and independent persons noting the letters. In this way, if intelligible words are formed we may assume that perhaps there is some ESP taking effect.
 
  • #4
857
2
Unless they have a mindmap of the layout of the board (like a blindfolded person may still type properly on a keyboard). A better test would be to ask the participants a question to which they dont know the answer, but the ouija ghost does.
 
  • #5
53
0
Facilitated Communication, a technique for supposedly helping autistics to
communicate, shows how the ideomotor effect works and how dangerous it can be.

--Hannah, whose speech was limited to snatches of songs, echoed dialogue and unintelligible utterances, is profoundly autistic, and doctors thought she was most likely retarded.

But on that October day, after she was introduced to the use of a
specialized computer keyboard, Hannah proved them wrong. "Is there anything you'd like to say, Hannah?" asked Marilyn Chadwick, director of training at the Facilitated Communication Institute at Syracuse University.

With Chadwick helping to stabilize her right wrist and her mother watching, girl thought to be incapable of learning to read or write slowly typed, "I llove Mom." (via Time and CNN)


--Facilitated Communication seems to be more like a Ouija board (the ideomotor effect): if only through unconscious influence, the facilitators are often writing down thoughts in their own heads, the words that the observing parents might wish to see (such as, well, "I love Mom.")

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=title_3&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 [Broken]
Reuters - A top judge on Wednesday cleared a British businessman of
abusing his severely mentally handicapped son and dismissed evidence gained
from a psychological aid which has been likened to a ouija board.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss slammed the technique which led to
accusations that the 50-year-old Briton had abused his 17-year-old son, who
has a mental age of under two years.
A technique developed in Australia and known as facilitated
communication was “dangerous” and should not be used by British courts to
support or dismiss allegations of abuse, said Butler-Sloss.
She said the teenager, who suffers from autism, epilepsy and cannot
speak, was last year questioned by a worker at his residential unit using
facilitated communication techniques.
The “facilitator” supports the arm of the person with communication
difficulties as they spell out a message on a card with a standard
typewriter lay-out and the words “Yes” and “No” on it.

http://list.feat.org/wa.exe?A2=ind0007b&L=featnews&P=1491 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Curious3141
Homework Helper
2,843
87
In addition to PIT's suggestion about asking tough questions, it would be a simple measure to randomise the order of the symbols on the OB. The blindfolded participants can never see the board.
 
  • #7
1,515
0
Quite. If the selection of letters is due to the ideomoter effect then it should be very easy to demonstrate this. Strangely, however, it has not been demonstrated. I've participated in many sessions - with a wine glass and letters in a circle - and have no idea why sentences come out rather than gibberish. However, it is clear to me that chanting 'ideomoter effect' whenever someone raises this issue is not science but quackery. Only someone who has little experience of doing it could believe this. It is quite easy to rule out this explanation, since it would require that the participants are able to manipulate the glass. This requires the application of pressure on the glass. If you do it with just two people it is very obvious if either of you is applying such pressure. Even if you do it yourself inadvertently the other person will spot it.

On one occasion, just myself and my mother present, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, this was the name the glass spelled out, came on with the message that 'the only way to eternal life is through holy communion'. Some ideomoter effect for two non-Christians. Try spelling out this message on purpose without it being perfectly obvious what you're doing. At the time I thought this message was complete nonsense. However, at the time I thought it refered to the wafer and wine ceremony, and hadn't heard of the communion of the mystics.

On another occasion, for four days in a row, the glass claimed to be James Joyce. A few friends had been 'talking to him' for a while. When I asked to join he told me to **** off, which I felt lent some authenticity to the events. After it/he changed his mind I joined in. Usually the movement is very weak. In this case every now and again the glass would take off round the table at breakneck speed and knock all the letters onto the floor. It was a right pain in the neck continually sorting them out again. We tried many times to recreate this movement intentionally but could not do it. The glass would just tip over when pushed from the top with such vigour.

I make no claims about what is actually happening and do not believe in supernatural occurences. I assume it is a natural phenomenon. However, imho it is about time scientists explained it since it is very easy to replicate experimentally. But all they do is chant 'ideomoter effect', as if that's the end of the matter. But I want to know the answer to this conundrum and will not accept an implausible and unproven guess.
 
  • #8
Aether
Gold Member
710
1
Canute said:
However, imho it is about time scientists explained it since it is very easy to replicate experimentally.
Why don't you videotape one of these events, and post it on a website so that we can see what you're describing first hand?
 
  • #9
Evo
Mentor
23,165
2,871
Canute said:
I make no claims about what is actually happening and do not believe in supernatural occurences. I assume it is a natural phenomenon. However, imho it is about time scientists explained it since it is very easy to replicate experimentally. But all they do is chant 'ideomoter effect', as if that's the end of the matter. But I want to know the answer to this conundrum and will not accept an implausible and unproven guess.
How many times have you done this blindfolded and completely unaware of the positioning of the letters? If you get the same results without being able to see the board, then you have something worth looking into. Try it and let us know what happens.
 
  • #10
1,515
0
I haven't tried this, and anyway don't do it at all any more. It might be interesting to try, but fairly pointless. Whatever the result it would prove nothing about the ideomoteor effect. In any case, it's not my job to figure this stuff out, at least not without a research grant. I don't have a view on what is happening, other than that the ideomotor effect does not explain it. I find it hard to believe that it is possible for the dead to communicate with living, so maybe it's group telekenesis. I have no idea, but do get bored with pseudo-scientific explanations based on received opinions and a lack of research.

There is no need for video evidence by the way, anybody can do the experiments for themselves. Sometimes one sits for a long time and nothing happens, but in my experience something happens more often than not.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Aether
Gold Member
710
1
Canute said:
There is no need for video evidence by the way, anybody can do the experiments for themselves.
Let's suppose that "anybody can do the experiments for themselves" and get results that are consistent with ideomotor effect as described http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html" [Broken].
Sometimes one sits for a long time and nothing happens, but in my experience something happens more often than not.
When you say that "in my experience something happens more often than not", do you mean that something not explainable as ideomotor effect happens more often than not? If so, then video evidence of such a thing would be useful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
1,515
0
Aether said:
Let's suppose that "anybody can do the experiments for themselves" and get results that are consistent with ideomotor effect as described.
Why would anyone suppose this? The idea would be to prove it, not suppose it.

When you say that "in my experience something happens more often than not", do you mean that something not explainable as ideomotor effect happens more often than not? If so, then video evidence of such a thing would be useful.
I think from a video it would not be possible to tell whether the participants were cheating or unconsciously moving the glass. A live experiment with the researchers participating would be much better.

The ideomoter effect is not an explanation for my experiences in my opinion. For a start, one would expect the ideomotorised movements of the participants to conflict with each other, not to produce lengthy and meaningful messages. I suppose there may be some sort of unifying force at work, where all these movements are somehow resolved into a group effect but this implausible to me, and there is no evidence for it that I know. How would we explain how the ideomotor effect operating independently on, say, five people, produces just one coherent sentence? We would have to assume that they all had the same sentence in mind (unconsciously) right at the beginning of the sentence. Either that, or they each adjusted the sentence independently as it unfolded. But in this latter case, most sentence would trail off into nonsense. If five people, acting independently deliberately try to cheat and create sentences on purpose nothing but havoc is the result as they all try to impose their will.

Btw I'm not arguing that science is nonsense, rather that scientists are sometimes unprofessionally quick to ignore anomalies which cast doubt on their paradigm. Nor am I arguing that the i-effect is not the explanation for many other so called psychic or paranormal phenomena.

Canute
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Aether
Gold Member
710
1
Canute said:
Why would anyone suppose this? The idea would be to prove it, not suppose it.
In post #7 you claimed that
In this case every now and again the glass would take off round the table at breakneck speed and knock all the letters onto the floor. It was a right pain in the neck continually sorting them out again. We tried many times to recreate this movement intentionally but could not do it. The glass would just tip over when pushed from the top with such vigour.
You seem to be claiming to have witnessed something that cannot be explained by the ideomotor effect nor as a voluntary act of any of the participants. I can't tell by your statement that "in my experience something happens more often than not" whether you mean something along the lines of "my wine glass claims to be James Joyce and cusses me out more often than not", or "my wine glass takes off around the table on its own more often than not". So, please answer my question: "When you say that "in my experience something happens more often than not", do you mean that something not explainable as ideomotor effect happens more often than not? If so, then video evidence of such a thing would be useful."

I think from a video it would not be possible to tell whether the participants were cheating or unconsciously moving the glass.
That isn't why I asked you for a video. What I want to see on a video is evidence of inanimate objects moving around on their own with no possible way that any of the participants could have induced the motion either by ideomotor effect or voluntarily.
A live experiment with the researchers participating would be much better.

The ideomoter effect is not an explanation for my experiences in my opinion. For a start, one would expect the ideomotorised movements of the participants to conflict with each other, not to produce lengthy and meaningful messages. I suppose there may be some sort of unifying force at work, where all these movements are somehow resolved into a group effect but this implausible to me, and there is no evidence for it that I know. How would we explain how the ideomotor effect operating independently on, say, five people, produces just one coherent sentence? We would have to assume that they all had the same sentence in mind (unconsciously) right at the beginning of the sentence. Either that, or they each adjusted the sentence independently as it unfolded. But in this latter case, most sentence would trail off into nonsense. If five people, acting independently deliberately try to cheat and create sentences on purpose nothing but havoc is the result as they all try to impose their will.
You seem to be focused on the "my wine glass just claimed to be James Joyce and cussed me out" bit when the other bit about inanimate objects moving around on their own is what I'm focused on.
 
  • #14
1,515
0
Aether said:
In post #7 you claimed that You seem to be claiming to have witnessed something that cannot be explained by the ideomotor effect nor as a voluntary act of any of the participants.
Not exactly. I'm claiming that it has not yet been explained in this way. Perhaps it will be one day. This seems very unlikely to me, but I may be proved wrong.

I can't tell by your statement that "in my experience something happens more often than not" whether you mean something along the lines of "my wine glass claims to be James Joyce and cusses me out more often than not", or "my wine glass takes off around the table on its own more often than not".
I meant that the glass starts spelling out words more often than not.

What I want to see on a video is evidence of inanimate objects moving around on their own with no possible way that any of the participants could have induced the motion either by ideomotor effect or voluntarily.
Ah, this does not happen more often than not. It happened to my brother, who now refuses to go anywhere near wine glasses and letters. Frightened him half to death. But I only have his word for that. It's never happened to me.
 
  • #15
Aether
Gold Member
710
1
Canute said:
Not exactly. I'm claiming that it has not yet been explained in this way. Perhaps it will be one day. This seems very unlikely to me, but I may be proved wrong.
You haven't personally witnessed any motion of an inanimate object that couldn't have been induced by the muscle contractions of one or more human beings present, right? If so, then let's suppose that any such motion of an inanimate object that you witnessed was in fact induced by the muscle contractions of one or more human beings present, ok? All that remains is to explain why the muscles of one or more human beings present were instructed by their respective central nervous system(s) to contract in the way(s) that they did, right?

I meant that the glass starts spelling out words more often than not.

Ah, this does not happen more often than not. It happened to my brother, who now refuses to go anywhere near wine glasses and letters. Frightened him half to death. But I only have his word for that. It's never happened to me.
Let's agree to dismiss this claim and not consider it any further, ok?
 
  • #16
1,515
0
Aether said:
You haven't personally witnessed any motion of an inanimate object that couldn't have been induced by the muscle contractions of one or more human beings present, right?
You're missing my point here. I feel that I've personally witnessed events that cannot be explained by supposing that the participants manipulated the glass. However, of course I cannot prove this, and would not expect a skeptic to believe it on my word alone, or anyone else's. My suggestion was that anybody who is serious about explaining this phenomenon would not simply assume it is caused by the ideomotor effect but, rather, would conduct experiments. This is often not possible with anomalous phenomenona since they are difficult to reproduce under controlled conditions. This is not the case here, since the effects are fairly easy to reproduce. Thus, we ought to have some proper data to work on, and not simply assume we know the solution. I've seen no research which shows the ideomotor effect explains what I've witnessed. All I've seen are a few papers speculating that it does.

Let's agree to dismiss this claim and not consider it any further, ok?
I think it's worth considering this claim since so many people have made it. But I agree that it makes sense to explain the less extraordinary cases first. I make no claims about the possibility of the glass moving by itself since I've never seen it happen.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Aether
Gold Member
710
1
Canute said:
You're missing my point here.
Please answer my questions directly. If that leaves you feeling like there is something more that you want to say, then say it.

I feel that I've personally witnessed events that cannot be explained by supposing that the participants manipulated the glass. However, of course I cannot prove this, and would not expect a skeptic to believe it on my word alone, or anyone else's.
What events have you witnessed "that cannot be explained by supposing that the participants manipulated the glass"? Why wouldn't a video show why you think these events "cannot be explained by supposing that the participants manipulated the glass"? It sounds like all of the events that you have witnessed can be explained by supposing that the participants manipulated the glass, and the only issue that remains is to know why they did this.

My suggestion was that anybody who is serious about explaining this phenomenon would not simply assume it is caused by the ideomotor effect but, rather, would conduct experiments. This is often not possible with anomalous phenomenona since they are difficult to reproduce under controlled conditions. This is not the case here, since the effects are fairly easy to reproduce. Thus, we ought to have some proper data to work on, and not simply assume we know the solution. I've seen no research which shows the ideomotor effect explains what I've witnessed. All I've seen are a few papers speculating that it does.
Let's define "this phenomenon" first, ok? It isn't clear yet exactly what you are claiming to have witnessed, and whether or not it involves mysterious physical forces (which should be evident on a video), or just some psycho/neurological wierdness (assuming it's not just an outright hoax).

I think it's worth considering this claim since so many people have made it. But I agree that it makes sense to explain the less extraordinary cases first. I make no claims about the possibility of the glass moving by itself since I've never seen it happen.
We could consider evidence for the claim if/when we had any, but we don't have any so for now the claim is dismissed, ok?
 
Last edited:
  • #18
1,515
0
Aether

Sorry, but I don't want to get into a petty argument about this. I've said all I have to say, and I've already answered these questions.

regards
Canute
 
  • #19
Aether
Gold Member
710
1
Canute said:
Aether

Sorry, but I don't want to get into a petty argument about this. I've said all I have to say, and I've already answered these questions.

regards
Canute
Sorry that you feel like you're getting into a petty argument. First you said:
However, imho it is about time scientists explained it since it is very easy to replicate experimentally. But all they do is chant 'ideomoter effect', as if that's the end of the matter. But I want to know the answer to this conundrum and will not accept an implausible and unproven guess.
and now you're cutting and running rather than face the facts of your own story.
 
  • #20
1,515
0
Oh well, I'll keep going then. The fact is that nobody has yet shown that the ideomotor effect explains the phenomonon we are discussing. When they do we'll all be happy. Until then it seems profoundly unscientific to simply assume that it does, as you seem to do. I make no assumption either way.
 
  • #21
Aether
Gold Member
710
1
Canute said:
Oh well, I'll keep going then.
Glad to hear it.

The fact is that nobody has yet shown that the ideomotor effect explains the phenomonon we are discussing. When they do we'll all be happy. Until then it seems profoundly unscientific to simply assume that it does, as you seem to do. I make no assumption either way.
Let's recap:

In post #7: you said
Canute said:
...every now and again the glass would take off round the table at breakneck speed...However, imho it is about time scientists explained it since it is very easy to replicate experimentally. But all they do is chant 'ideomoter effect', as if that's the end of the matter. But I want to know the answer to this conundrum and will not accept an implausible and unproven guess.
In post #8: I asked to see a video of one of these events.

In post #10: you said that
Canute said:
There is no need for video evidence by the way, anybody can do the experiments for themselves. Sometimes one sits for a long time and nothing happens, but in my experience something happens more often than not.
In post #11: I said
Aether said:
Let's suppose that "anybody can do the experiments for themselves" and get results that are consistent with ideomotor effect as described http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html" [Broken].
I briefly explained to you the reason for supposing this later in post #13, but I will add now that supposing what we did in post #11 was useful in order to temporarily accept your claim in post #10 that "in my experience something happens more often than not" so that we could go on to inquire as to "what" happens more often than not (e.g., now we know that it is not objects moving around by themselves). In posts #14 and #16 you stipulated that
Canute said:
Ah, this does not happen more often than not. It happened to my brother, who now refuses to go anywhere near wine glasses and letters. Frightened him half to death. But I only have his word for that. It's never happened to me...I make no claims about the possibility of the glass moving by itself since I've never seen it happen.
Since then you haven't answered any of my questions directly. My questions in posts #15 and #17 are intended to be probative rather than argumentative, so please go back and answer each one directly. In both of those posts, the claim that I am asking you to agree with me to dismiss is only "about the possibility of the glass moving by itself ". Once we dismiss that claim, then we are free to stop supposing that "anybody can do the experiments for themselves and get results that are consistent with ideomotor effect" and we can proceed to examine that statement next. When we're done, we don't want to still be supposing anything that we don't absolutely have to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
1,515
0
Aether

You're making the issues rather complicated. Here is a simplification of what I'm saying.

1. The phenomenon I am concerned with is the glass that spells out sentences while in contact with the participants fingers. I have no idea whether the glass can move when not in contact, although many people say they have experienced this. I have not, so have no idea.

2. I have many times experienced the phenomenon in question and conclude that anybody can do the same. Therefore, research into this need not be based on hearsay. (However, I do know one or two people for whom it never works, so perhaps there are exceptions).

3. My experiences lead me to the view that the ideomotor effect does not explain this phenonenon.

4. There appears to be no reason why I should abandon my view since nobody has yet published a proof that it is incorrect. If you know of such a proof I'll be happy to go and read it.

5. I do not know whether the ideomotor effect explains this phenomenon or whether it does not. I feel you should admit that you do not know either, or publish your research.

6. You are asking me to make the asumption that the i-effect explains the phenomenon. By contrast, I am not asking you to make an assumption but to stop making one.

I don't even know why we're arguing about this. Why can't we simply agree that the research is inconclusive. It would be more interesting to discuss what sort of experiments might resolve the matter.

Regards
Canute
 
  • #23
Aether
Gold Member
710
1
Canute said:
You're making the issues rather complicated.
Every claim that you have made here is on the record and I feel compelled to deal with all of them, not just that fraction that you think is important. If the issues seem rather complicated, then perhaps it is because you have commingled them with untenable claims (e.g., inanimate objects are moving on their own), implausible suggestions (e.g., "maybe it's group telekenesis[sic]"), and unsubstantiated accusations against "scientists" (e.g., "I'm not arguing that science is nonsense, rather that scientists are sometimes unprofessionally quick to ignore anomalies which cast doubt on their paradigm").
I don't even know why we're arguing about this. Why can't we simply agree that the research is inconclusive. It would be more interesting to discuss what sort of experiments might resolve the matter.
We are arguing about this because your first set of claims was so not focused on the issue that you are really concerned about. Let's dismiss everything that you have claimed in this thread before post #22, and start over with the new list of claims that you have made, ok?

Canute said:
1. The phenomenon I am concerned with is the glass that spells out sentences while in contact with the participants fingers. I have no idea whether the glass can move when not in contact, although many people say they have experienced this. I have not, so have no idea.

2. I have many times experienced the phenomenon in question and conclude that anybody can do the same. Therefore, research into this need not be based on hearsay. (However, I do know one or two people for whom it never works, so perhaps there are exceptions).

3. My experiences lead me to the view that the ideomotor effect does not explain this phenonenon.
Ok, this is where a reasonable discussion about your experiences with this phenomenon can begin. What exactly have you experienced that the ideomotor effect does not explain?

4. There appears to be no reason why I should abandon my view since nobody has yet published a proof that it is incorrect. If you know of such a proof I'll be happy to go and read it.

5. I do not know whether the ideomotor effect explains this phenomenon or whether it does not. I feel you should admit that you do not know either, or publish your research.

6. You are asking me to make the asumption that the i-effect explains the phenomenon. By contrast, I am not asking you to make an assumption but to stop making one.
I don't know hardly anything about the "ideomotor effect" beyond the link that I posted earlier, and that I have personally experienced using a dowsing rod before. What I do know is that inanimate objects do not move on their own, and that I would like to see evidence of such an event before entertaining any claim to the contrary.
 
  • #24
1,515
0
Aether said:
If the issues seem rather complicated, then perhaps it is because you have commingled them with untenable claims (e.g., inanimate objects are moving on their own), implausible suggestions (e.g., "maybe it's group telekenesis[sic]"),
Yeah, I don't find that very plausible either. So what? What you or I find implausible has nothing to do with what is true and false.

and unsubstantiated accusations against "scientists" (e.g., "I'm not arguing that science is nonsense, rather that scientists are sometimes unprofessionally quick to ignore anomalies which cast doubt on their paradigm").
You might try reading Thomas Kuhn.

We are arguing about this because your first set of claims was so not focused on the issue that you are really concerned about.
Yes it was. Please don't tell me what concerns me and what does not.

Let's dismiss everything that you have claimed in this thread before post #22, and start over with the new list of claims that you have made, ok?
Please yourself. Perhaps you could select one these 'claims' for discussion.

Ok, this is where a reasonable discussion about your experiences with this phenomenon can begin. What exactly have you experienced that the ideomotor effect does not explain?
At no point have I stated that the i-effect does not explain my experiences.

I don't know hardly anything about the "ideomotor effect" beyond the link that I posted earlier, and that I have personally experienced using a dowsing rod before.
Hooray. Now we can both admit we don't know what causes it and start from there.

What I do know is that inanimate objects do not move on their own, and that I would like to see evidence of such an event before entertaining any claim to the contrary.
If you know inanimate objects do not move on their own then obviously you'll never come across any evidence to the contrary. As for myself, I've never seen any evidence to the contrary so I can't help you on this one, as I've said two or three times already.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Aether
Gold Member
710
1
Canute said:
Yeah, I don't find that very plausible either. So what? What you or I find implausible has nothing to do with what is true and false.
You seemed to claim at first that you had actually witnessed this, then said that no it wasn't you it was your brother. That required effort on my part to disentangle your mess and it has diverted this discussion...that's what.
You might try reading Thomas Kuhn.
I don't know who that is, but you might try limiting your assault on "scientists" to Thomas Kuhn, and quoting some statements of his that you have a problem with.
Yes it was. Please don't tell me what concerns me and what does not.
When you offered a second set of claims that is more limited and defensible than your first set of claims, then you explicitly established yourself what concerns you and what does not.
Please yourself.
With your consent, everything that you have claimed in this thread before post #22 is dismissed, and we're starting over with the new list of claims that you have made.
Perhaps you could select one these 'claims' for discussion.
I already did, see below.
Aether said:
Canute said:
3. My experiences lead me to the view that the ideomotor effect does not explain this phenonenon.
What exactly have you experienced that the ideomotor effect does not explain?
Canute said:
At no point have I stated that the i-effect does not explain my experiences.
Claim #3 seems to state otherwise. Please explain this.
Hooray. Now we can both admit we don't know what causes it and start from there.
I admit that I don't know why people sometimes move Quija board indicators and divining rods, and that is what we might hope to discover.
If you know inanimate objects do not move on their own then obviously you'll never come across any evidence to the contrary.
I don't expect to, no. What is your point? Are you implying that I would ignore evidence to the contrary if I came across it?
As for myself, I've never seen any evidence to the contrary so I can't help you on this one, as I've said two or three times already.
You seemed to be claiming otherwise in your original post, so please take responsibility for that. If there has been confusion and complication here, it is only a consequence of your careless statements.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Debunking the ideomotor effect

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
32K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
18K
Top