Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Seuss]
    #5524361 - 04/17/06 11:13 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

So instead, I should believe a guy being paid by the environmental groups? Seems to be a double standard here.

No double standard. The article I posted was by the UK governments chief scientist. Nothing to do with environmental groups. The article Phred posted was by a guy paid by the oil companies.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Seuss]
    #5524799 - 04/17/06 12:50 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> If you want to believe a guy being paid by the oil industry then that's your decision.

So instead, I should believe a guy being paid by the environmental groups? Seems to be a double standard here.





That's the problem with this debate for most of us (myself included) who aren't scientists. Global warming (if it exists) is a scientific phenomenon that is observable only to those who study it, so we just have to make a decision which scientists we want to listen to. I mean, just look at this thread. Phred found a couple of articles stating global warming doesn't exist, but Phred can't prove with his own words that it doesn't exist, just as Alex can't prove with his words that it does exist.

Having said that, there are some things to acknowledge. First of all, no scientist will argue that the greenhouse effect exists. If they do, they aren't scientists. The greenhouse effect is what keeps our planet warm. If we didn't have an atmosphere, we would be a frozen hunk of ice. Secondly, no scientist will argue that increased levels of CO2 (the primary greenhouse gas and the primary gas released by the burning of fossil fuels) in the atmosphere will result in a warmer temperature.

What is under dispute is this: Are humans burning so much fossil fuel that that we are causing global warming? And if so, is the ecosystem's ability to process C02 being overwhelmed? And if so, are we in danger of irrepairably damaging our ecosystem, or creating catastrophic climate change that could have dire consequences?

These are the questions that are under dispute by a wide array of scientists, politicians and everyone else. And for obvious reasons. They bring up issues that deal with a lot more than just science.

I don't know if catastrophic global climate change is imminent, but I still support the ideas put forth by scientists, ecologists and politicans that believe it is. Namely, that we need to switch over from unsustainable fossil fuels that will eventually run out and that we need to keep fighting wars in the middle east over, to renewable energy sources that are available in our own backyard, cause harm to no one, save the country money, are more efficient and less costly than fossil fuels. Seems obvious to me.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: gluke bastid]
    #5525002 - 04/17/06 01:26 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

> No double standard. The article I posted was by the UK governments chief scientist.

A real winner, too. He has been given money by Greenpeace... oh wait, no double standard.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/murray200407230903.asp:

Quote:

The scene was a scientific workshop set up to discuss the science of global warming. It took place in a non-Western country and was convened by the country's Academy of Sciences. Delegates came from all over the world. Yet the delegation from one major Western power behaved in a most undiplomatic fashion. The way the science was being presented was inconvenient to their political agenda, so they tried to get the scientists they disagreed with silenced. The organizers refused, so the delegation went to its government to exert political pressure. The organizers still refused, so the delegation disrupted the conference. When it became apparent they weren't going to get their way, they walked out.

The chairman of the conference told the press that the leader of the disruptive delegation "had brought several scientists along with him and he insisted that the program should include among the speakers only those scientists and no other. So, he came over, selected scientists at his discretion, scientists who were to be given the floor in his opinion and scientists who were to be denied an opportunity to speak." A top official of the host government commented, "For some participants the main goal was the search for the truth, understanding of real processes. Other people had the task of disrupting the seminar, so that other people who were seeking the truth could not do so."

Yet another example of arrogant America disrupting the world's attempts to solve the climate change program? No. The delegation in question was that of the United Kingdom, and the conference was that held last week in Moscow, hosted by the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The British delegation was led by Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to Her Majesty's government. Sir David has gone on record as saying that, "Global warming is worse than terrorism." As far as Sir David and Tony Blair's government is concerned, there should be no need for any further scientific debate on global warming. They have taken the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and cheerfully conflated it with the debatable argument that it will be catastrophic for mankind unless we suppress energy use now.

The religious fervor with which Tony Blair's government is acting on this belief has many Britons unnerved. Dr. David Bellamy, one of the titans of the British environmental movement, wrote in the Daily Mail that he considers global warming alarmism "poppycock." Analysts predict a 40 percent rise in electricity prices as a result of the government's energy suppression policies. British manufacturers foresee having to put thousands out of work as they lose out in competitiveness to overseas suppliers. The Times's economics editor has written that the environmentalists pushing these policies "are like the medieval monks who favored self-flagellation as the road to virtue. For a Government to enshrine such thinking in policy is truly perverse."

In equally medieval fashion, adherents of the environmentalist religion have launched an inquisition against scientific views that they consider heretical. Hence, Sir David's outrageous behavior at the Moscow conference. On learning of the program arranged by the Russian Academy, he proposed a different program that would censor the voices of scientists who do not believe global warming is a worse threat to the world than terrorism. Such delegates included Paul Reiter of the Paris-based Pasteur Institute, who presented the predominant view of the world's malaria experts that global warming is not a major factor in the increasing incidence of vector-borne diseases.

Sir David even got British foreign secretary Jack Straw to intervene on his behalf. It did no good. The Russian Academy, used to seeing dissent crushed for political means, refused to kowtow to Sir David's demands. So, in the words of Russian economic adviser Andrei Illarionov, "Other attempts were made to disrupt the seminar. At least four times during the course of the seminar ugly scenes were staged that prevented the seminar from proceeding normally. As a result we lost at least four hours of working time in order to try to solve these problems." The disruption was serious enough that at the press conference one questioner asked why the security guards did not handle the situation.

Sir David apparently walked out with his delegation in mid-answer to one question. Commenting on this display, Illarionov said, "It is not for us to give an assessment to what happened, but in our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government, and the reputation of the title 'Sir' has sustained heavy damage."

If Americans had behaved this way, the world would be full of stories charging America with arrogance, boorishness, and disdain for the spirit of free inquiry. Yet Sir David King continues on his way, the Torquemada of the global-warming inquisition.




--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblaze2
The Witness
Male

Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Seuss]
    #5525266 - 04/17/06 02:26 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

global warming isnt going to make it that much hotter, because once the ice melts and shuts down teh gulf stream things are going to get colder not warmer. Peace

blaze2


--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Seuss]
    #5528206 - 04/18/06 02:34 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

A real winner, too. He has been given money by Greenpeace... oh wait, no double standard.


I wouldn't take what Iain Murray says too seriously. He's renowned as being barking mad.

Where does it say Greenpeace paid King by the way?

The religious fervor with which Tony Blair's government is acting on this belief has many Britons unnerved

This is laughable. Blair has miserably failed to meet any of his emissions targets and is now pretty much saying he won't do anything but wait for technology to save us. If anything the british public are alarmed that Blair isn't doing anything.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5528309 - 04/18/06 04:48 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

> Where does it say Greenpeace paid King by the way?

On greenpeace.org.uk ... they paid him to give a lecture on global warming.

> I wouldn't take what Iain Murray says too seriously. He's renowned as being barking mad.

Because he doesn't agree with King?  How about something from the Guardian... surely you trust them?  :wink:

Quote:

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 25th October 2005

I report this with sadness: Sir David King has lost his bottle. Until a few weeks ago, the chief scientific adviser looked to me like one of the few brave souls in the British government. In an article in Science at the beginning of last year, he argued that ?climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today ? more serious even than the threat of terrorism? and criticised the Bush administration for ?failing to take up the challenge?(1). In response, he was viciously attacked by the Exxon-sponsored climate change denier Myron Ebell(2). Being viciously attacked by Myron Ebell is something to which all self-respecting scientists should aspire.

Last month he was attacked again, and this time he deserved it. At a meeting of climate change specialists, Sir David announced that a ?reasonable? target for stabilising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 550 parts of the gas per million parts of air. It would be ?politically unrealistic?, he said, to demand anything lower(3).

Simon Retallack, from the Institute for Public Policy Research, stood up and reminded Sir David what his job was. As chief scientist, his duty is not to represent political reality ? there are plenty of advisers schooled in that art ? but to represent scientific reality. Retallack?s own work, based on the latest science, shows that at 550 parts per million the chances of preventing more than two degrees of global warming are just 10-20%(4). To raise them to 80%, carbon concentrations will have to be stabilised at 400 parts. Two degrees is the point beyond which most climate scientists predict catastrophe: several key ecosystems are likely to flip into runaway feedback; the biosphere becomes a net source of carbon; global food production is clobbered and two billion people face the risk of drought. All very reasonable, I?m sure.

Sir David replied that if he recommended a lower limit, he would lose credibility with the government. As far as I was concerned, his credibility had just disappeared without trace. By shielding his masters from uncomfortable realities, he is failing in his duties as both scientist and adviser. Anyone who has studied the BSE crisis knows how dangerous the cowardice of scientific counsellors can be.

As if to prove that his nerve has gone, on Friday Sir David made his clearest statement yet that he sees nuclear power as the answer to climate change. With the right carbon taxes, he said, nuclear power would become cheaper than coal. ?It?s important we do take the public with us on the environmental debate,? he said. ?That is why I?m trying to sell it?(5).

Sir David may have political reasons for ?trying to sell? new nuclear power stations ? at the Labour Party conference Tony Blair said he wants to re-examine the nuclear option(6)- but he would, I suspect, have as much trouble identifying a scientific case as he had at the meeting last month. The figures leave him stranded.

Let us forget, for the moment, that nuclear power spreads radioactive pollution, presents a target for terrorists and leaves us with waste that no government wants to handle. Like Sir David I believe that while all these problems are grave, they are not as grave as climate change. Let us concentrate on the money.

It seems clear that new nuclear power stations will not be built unless the government supports them. A recent review by the economics consultancy Oxera shows that even if you exclude the cost of insurance and include the benefits of emissions trading (which attaches a price to carbon dioxide), ?a programme of public assistance ? would be needed to boost predicted [rates of return] to a level that is acceptable to private investors?. The consultants suggested that ?1.6 billion of grants might be enough to tip the balance in favour of a new nuclear programme(7).

The first ?even if? is a big one. Private insurers will not cover the risk. Three international conventions limit investors? liability and oblige governments to pick up the bill on their behalf(8). According to a report commissioned by the European Parliament, the costs of a large-scale nuclear accident range from 83 billion euros to 5.5 trillion(9). They would have to be met by us.

But let us also forget the costs of insurance. If the public sector (or for that matter, given that funds are limited, the private sector) invests in nuclear power, is this the best use to which the money can be put? This is the question addressed in a new paper by the physicist Amory Lovins(10).

He begins by examining the terms of reference used by people like David King, who compare nuclear power ?only with a central power plant burning coal or natural gas?. If the costs of construction come down and if the government offers big enough subsidies and makes carbon emissions sufficiently expensive, Lovins says, nuclear power might be able to compete with coal. ?But those central thermal power plants are the wrong competitors. None of them can compete with windpower ? let alone with two far cheaper resources: cogeneration of heat and power, and efficient use of electricity.?

Ten cents of investment, he shows, will buy either 1 kilowatt-hour of nuclear electricity; 1.2-1.7 of windpower; 2.2-6.5 of small-scale cogeneration; or up to 10 of energy efficiency. ?Its higher cost than competitors, per unit of net CO2 displaced, means that every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar.? And, because nuclear power stations take so long to build, it would be spent later. ?Expanding nuclear power would both reduce and retard the desired decrease in CO2 emissions.?(11)

Already, the market is voting with its wallet. ?In 2004 alone,? Lovins notes, ?Spain and Germany each added as much wind capacity ? two billion watts ? as nuclear power is adding worldwide in each year of this decade.? Though the nuclear industry in the US has guzzled 33 times as much government money as wind (12)and has ?enjoyed a regulatory system of its own design for a quarter-century?, it hasn?t fulfilled a single new order from the electricity companies since 1973(13). And, unlike nuclear power stations, wind, cogeneration and energy efficiency will all become much cheaper.

It?s certainly a good idea, as people like Sir David recommend, to have a ?diversified energy portfolio?. But, as Lovins points out, ?this does not mean ? that every option merits a place in the portfolio purely for the sake of diversity, any more than a financial portfolio should include bad investments just because they?re on the market.? Building new nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom would be a political decision, not a scientific one.

So what has happened to the man who once bravely did battle with the new Inquisition? A memo sent by Tony Blair?s private secretary, Ivan Rogers, a month after Sir David?s article was published in Science, instructed him to stop criticising the Bush administration on the grounds that it ?does not help us achieve our wider policy aims?(14). Mock interviews Sir David conducted with his political minders, which were found by a journalist on a disk dropped by his press secretary, show him learning to recite the government?s line(15). Could he have had his arm twisted over the nuclear issue too?

I hope not, and I hope he can produce some robust figures to support his contentions. But I fear that the government?s chief scientist is mutating into its chief spin doctor.




So is he a scientist or a politician?  I vote for the later.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Seuss]
    #5528326 - 04/18/06 05:33 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Isn't this article saying King is a sell-out and not doing his best for the environment? You'd think if he was relying on Greenpeace for his wages he'd be saying the opposite.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRogues_Pierre
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5528363 - 04/18/06 06:21 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Average Winter Snow Depth in Siberia has Doubled
That’s what the headline should say, but instead, it says:
Arctic water flow speeding up
6 Apr 06 - A team from the University of Alaska, which included two Russian scientists,
analyzed records of precipitation, snow depth and runoff in the catchment area of the Lena
River, east of the Ural mountains in Siberia. They found that the average winter snow
depth there has doubled [italics mine] to 44 cm from 22 cm in 1940.
See Siberian Snowfall
.
.
Snowfall in California mountains smashes previous records - 9 Apr 06
See daily listing of Record Low Temperatures across the United States.


.
.
Global warming stopped in 1998
- 9 Apr 06 - The biggest part of the "global warming" problem
is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco.
"Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records
of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia , that for
the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
(there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs
significantly from zero)."

Click here to read more of this great article by Professor Bob Carter,
a geologist at James Cook University.
Global_Warming_Stopped_in_1998
.
.


Hail the size of golf balls in Israel - 5 Apr 06
See what's happening in other parts of the world
.


http://www.iceagenow.com/


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5528587 - 04/18/06 08:25 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

> You'd think if he was relying on Greenpeace for his wages he'd be saying the opposite.

Getting paid to give a lecture is a far cry from paying his wages. I was pointing out the greenpeace part to illustrate that everybody gets paid by somebody that has ties to some special interest. It doesn't matter if the person is pro or con.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Rogues_Pierre]
    #5528601 - 04/18/06 08:35 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

c'mon R_P, don't you know that it's man's job to
control the natural temperature fluctuations of
the earth!?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Seuss]
    #5528914 - 04/18/06 10:44 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Getting paid to give a lecture is a far cry from paying his wages. I was pointing out the greenpeace part to illustrate that everybody gets paid by somebody that has ties to some special interest. It doesn't matter if the person is pro or con.



I think it does make a difference. If the oil companies are paying you and you continue to state that oil companies are destroying the planet then your integrity is intact.

This guy has given a lecture to greenpeace but is in no way following greenpeace policy. For me, that adds to his integrity.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblaze2
The Witness
Male

Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5529354 - 04/18/06 12:42 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

afoaf your just being an ass, it isnt our job to control the earth its our job to be stewards. If your steward of a park, then you dont go throwing trash all over the place uprooting plants and knockign over trees. It likely isnt all because of us that the planet is warming, but the massive amounts of CO2 we pump into the atmoshpere do change the equation. IF you deny that then your just lying to yourself.


--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: blaze2]
    #5529888 - 04/18/06 03:11 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

I think it does make a difference. If the oil companies are paying you and you continue to state that oil companies are destroying the planet then your integrity is intact.




Bob Carter is paid by James Cook University while Lindzen is paid by MIT. Just because they get paid money on the side to give lectures outside of academia is no different than Sir David King getting paid by the UK government and getting extra money on the side to give lectures to Greenpeace.

I had a research grant paid by BP when I was in college and the source of the money had nothing at all to do with the results of the study. As a side note, the research was with solar cell manufacturing techniques for use in renewable energy applications... not something you would normally think of a fossil fuel energy company supporting.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Seuss]
    #5532265 - 04/19/06 02:32 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Just because they get paid money on the side to give lectures outside of academia

Yeah but the difference is King isn't saying what Greenpeace want him to say. So whether he gives lectures to them isn't relevant.

That's an entirely different situation to someone like Lindzen, who is paid by oil companies and says exactly what oil companies want him to say. Then the fact that he's receiving money from them becomes extremely relevant. The oil companies desperately need useful idiots to try and muddy the issue on climate change.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5532434 - 04/19/06 05:13 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

> Yeah but the difference is King isn't saying what Greenpeace want him to say.

You know what greenpeace wants him to say?  Wow!  :wink:  (Did you read the transcript of the lecture?  He said almost everything Greenpeace could hope for with respect to the causes greenpeace embraces.)

Seems to me that if greenpeace hired him to give a lecture, then he is probably telling them what they want to hear.  You don't typically pay somebody to give a lecture that you disagree with.  Using your logic, of course.  If you are going to claim that people paid by the oil industry are biased then you must admit that people paid for by environmental rights groups are going to be equally biased.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Seuss]
    #5532642 - 04/19/06 07:39 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I meant what he's saying on global warming to the government and press. He isn't a greenpeace mouthpeice in the same way Lindzen is an oil company mouthpeice.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Global Warming: The Final Proof?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
GazzBut 8,770 91 03/12/05 01:27 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* Britain bakes as global warming kicks in
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Alex213 5,972 73 07/26/06 08:20 AM
by Seuss
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,911 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,177 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming May Have More Current Affects than Previously Thought Ravus 656 4 01/16/05 09:53 AM
by greensnake316
* human activities responsible global warming 1stimer 418 0 06/22/06 10:50 AM
by 1stimer

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,212 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.