It is currently Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:43 am

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 1115 posts ]  Go to page Previous 141 42 43 44 45 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:25 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17784
Location: Earth
Well okay, since you did bite.

Some people are Islamophobes. Really, deep-down afraid of Muslims, and all that any Muslims do. Especially the killing non-Muslim bit.

Some people feel that there is nothing wrong with Muslims per se, just that Muslims should do something about the violent psychopaths in their societies.

And some people feel that Islam doesn't have a monopoly on psychopathic/sociopathic violence; and in fact seems to trail most "Developed" nations in terms of capacity to kill. That Muslims using a purposefully-twisted "interpretation" of their ideology to justify their violent behaviour, is no different to any other group of humans that use purposefully-twisted ideologies to justify violence. (Goddammit!!)

OK? That's me describing a "Spectrum of Opinion". With two less-common perspectives as "outliers", and one that is probably close to an "average" perspective on Islamic violence.

Now what you feel should/could/must be done in order to "deal with the situation", will be determined by where your feelings are on that spectrum.

If your feelings are closest to the first perspective, then you may feel that a nuclear bombardment of the entire Middle East ("bomb 'em back to the Stone Age" &c.) is the way forward (or some similar Final Solution...).

If your feelings are closer to the third perspective, then you may feel that your own government should get its House in order, rather than violently attack other nations on the basis of their shortcomings.

And if the second perspective is closer to your own views, then your ideas and beliefs about how to respond to the on-going situation are likely to be equally moderate.

OK?

So what you've described as your perspective, is probably somewhere between the first and second perspectives, I guess closer to the moderate second than the extreme first.

Right. Put a pin in that for a second.

With regards our Planet's Environment:

Some people, like Ms. Thunberg, feel like the "House is on fire"; and that adults are just standing around saying, "Don't panic...". They favour all sorts of radical measures to avoid catastrophe.

Some people, like President Trump, feel like the World is full of pessimists and doom-mongerers, who should stop whining and get on with enjoying the World's bounty. They feel that "Business As Usual" (maybe with a bit of a tidy up...) will take care of things.

And there are some who feel that whilst there evidently are problems in Humanity's relationship with its Natural Environment, any "cure" must be proportionate and rational.

Another spectrum, see? And I guess you're probably somewhere between Trump and the median one; closer to the median than to Trump.

Alrighty then.

Now imagine if every time you put forward your reasonable, rational and researched opinions on the Middle East and Islamic Culture, you were treated like you wanted an Islamic Holocaust. Or perhaps more familiarly: imagine if every time you put forward your reasonable opinions on Muslims, you were dismissed as a racist.

Wouldn't be very intellectually honest of the person you are sharing your views with. It would seem like they were trying to over-simply and mischaracterise what you were saying, as a way of avoiding having to address the rational and salient points you are making.

And it certainly wouldn't feel very fair, would it? You'd probably find it quite annoying to have your sensible opinions responded to as though they were extremist nonsense.

A 17-year old Swedish girl - particularly one who's been bunking off school for the last year - is more likely to be motivated by her Emotions to express her Self (emotionally), than by a comprehensive and complete understanding of all the Science involved.

And the 98% of the World's Scientific Community who have been researching, reviewing and making evidence-based recommendations for the last few decades, are unlikely to express themselves in a way that makes for compelling News reporting.

But you are using the behaviour of radicals to dismiss the opinions on non-radicals.

Greta is as much of a Media Side-Show as President Trump.

Who gives a fuck what either thinks? Neither is going to ever see their demands fully accepted and achieved.

Trump is there so that Climate Activists can tar all those who don't quite see the Full Emergency, as Anthropocidal Maniacs in Denial.

And Greta is there so that those who aren't convinced that there even is an Emergency, can dismiss those suggesting Change as radical extremists.

Do you see?

8).))

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 3:51 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 17784
Location: Earth
JANUARY 29, 2020

Could the Climate Crisis be “The Good News of Damnation”?

by LAWRENCE WITTNER


On August 12, 1945, six days after the U.S. government obliterated the city of Hiroshima with a single atomic bomb, Robert Hutchins, the president of the University of Chicago, delivered a remarkable public address. Speaking on his weekly radio program, the Chicago Roundtable, Hutchins observed that Leon Bloy, a French philosopher, had referred to “the good news of damnation” under the assumption that only the fear of perpetual hellfire would motivate moral behavior. “It may be,” Hutchins remarked, “that the atomic bomb is the good news of damnation, that it may frighten us into that Christian character and those righteous actions and those positive political steps necessary to the creation of a world society.”

According to Hutchins, this world society would serve as the foundation of a world government, and, in the context of the existential danger posed by nuclear war, he was totally committed to creating it. “Up to last Monday,” he said, “I didn’t have much hope for a world state.” But the shock of the atomic bombing, he added, crystallized “the necessity of a world organization.”

In the following months, Hutchins created and, then, presided over a Committee to Frame a World Constitution―a group of farsighted intellectuals who conducted discussions on how best to overcome humanity’s ancient divisions and, thereby move beyond nationalism to a humane and effective system of global governance. In 1948, they issued a Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution, with a Preamble declaring that, to secure human advancement, peace, and justice, “the age of nations must end and the era of humanity begin.”

The Chicago committee constituted but a small part of a surprisingly large and influential world government movementthat, drawing on the slogan “One World or None,” flourished during the late 1940s. In the United States, the largest of the new organizations, United World Federalists, claimed 46,775 members and 720 chapters by mid-1949. The goal of creating a world federation was endorsed by 45 major national organizations, including the National Grange, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, the United Auto Workers, the Junior Chamber of Commerce, the Young Democrats, the Young Republicans, and numerous religious bodies. That year, 20 state legislatures passed resolutions endorsing world government, while 111 members of the House of Representatives and 21 Senators sponsored a congressional resolution declaring that the new United Nations should be transformed into “a world federation.” Much the same kind of uprising occurred in nations around the world.

Although this popular crusade waned with the intensification of the Cold War, as did the hopes for a sweeping transformation of the nation-state system, the movement did secure a number of vital changes in the international order. Not only did the United Nations begin playing an important part in global peace and justice efforts, but the original impetus for the world government movement―the existential danger of nuclear war―began to be addressed by world society.

Indeed, a massive, transnational nuclear disarmament movement, often led by former activists in the world government campaign, emerged and rallied people all around the planet. In this fashion, it placed enormous pressure upon the world’s governments to back away from the brink of catastrophe. By the mid-1990s, national governments had reluctantly agreed to a sweeping array of international nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties and were no longer threatening to plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust.

More recently, however, that world society has been crumbling thanks to a dangerous return of nationalism. From the United States to Russia, from India to Brazil, numerous countries have been swept up in xenophobia, triggering not only a disastrous revival of the nuclear arms race, but an inability to work together to challenge the latest existential threat to human survival: climate change. Championing their own narrow national interests―often based on little more than enhancing the profits of their fossil fuel industries―these nations have either torn loose from the limited international environmental agreements of the past or, at best, shown their unwillingness to take the more significant steps necessary to address the crisis.

And a crisis it is. With the polar ice caps melting, sea levels rising, whole continents (such as Australia) in flames, agriculture collapsing, and storms of unprecedented ferocity wreaking havoc, climate catastrophe is no longer a prediction, but a reality.

What can be done about it?

Clearly, just as in the case of heading off nuclear annihilation, no single nation can tackle the problem on its own. Even if a small country like the Netherlands, or a large country like the United States, managed to quickly develop a system of 100 percent renewable energy, that action would be insufficient, for other countries would still be generating more than enough greenhouse gasses to destroy the planet.

So there really is no other solution to the onrushing climate catastrophe than for people and nations to forget their tribal animosities and start behaving as part of a world society, bound together by an effective system of global governance. The climate crisis, like the prospect of nuclear annihilation, really is “the good news of damnation.” And we can only overcome it by working together.

One world or none!

Dr. Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press.)

_________________
Image

"We are moving into an era where authority cannot be the Truth.

Only the Truth shall be the Authority in coming times, as the sanctity of all authorities will be questioned."
- Sadhguru


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:38 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17797
Holyman wrote:
JANUARY 29, 2020

Could the Climate Crisis be “The Good News of Damnation”?

by LAWRENCE WITTNER




Treat Climate Change as a religion!!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:51 pm 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 20595
Foota wrote:
Holyman wrote:
JANUARY 29, 2020

Could the Climate Crisis be “The Good News of Damnation”?

by LAWRENCE WITTNER




Treat Climate Change as a religion!!


Implying it isn't already.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:37 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 27029
SomeGuy wrote:
Foota wrote:
Holyman wrote:
JANUARY 29, 2020

Could the Climate Crisis be “The Good News of Damnation”?

by LAWRENCE WITTNER




Treat Climate Change as a religion!!


Implying it isn't already.



Are you implying that climate change is not real?

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:57 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17797
barcelona wrote:


Are you implying that climate change is not real?


Of course it is real. The Climate has changed through the earth's entire history.

We are still coming out of the last ice age.

phpBB [video]


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:14 am 
Online
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 21600
Location: teh internet
Round and round we go...


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:22 am 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 27029
Foota wrote:
barcelona wrote:


Are you implying that climate change is not real?


Of course it is real. The Climate has changed through the earth's entire history.

We are still coming out of the last ice age.

phpBB [video]



But you actually want the climate to change to suit your own needs you oaf.

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:19 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17797
barcelona wrote:

But you actually want the climate to change to suit your own needs you oaf.


I don't want it to cool. I'd hate for the Canadian OP's to get run over by a glacier.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:28 am 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 27029
Foota wrote:
barcelona wrote:

But you actually want the climate to change to suit your own needs you oaf.


I don't want it to cool. I'd hate for the Canadian OP's to get run over by a glacier.




Oaf

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 5:16 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 20595
Foota wrote:
barcelona wrote:

But you actually want the climate to change to suit your own needs you oaf.


I don't want it to cool. I'd hate for the Canadian OP's to get run over by a glacier.


On the one hand, if the Cordilleran and Laurentian Ice Sheets both regenerate to where they where about 15000 years or so ago, the jet stream will shift permanently south bringing extra moisture to the Desert Southwest, California included. The deserts will retreat, great lakes will (re-)form and the land will turn greener.

On the other hand, that means permanent snow and glaciers even in the southernmost mountains making for harder climbs and colder weather (particularly winters).

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:21 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17797
This is great. Especially coming from Great Britain.

Let's see if Barcy is willing to turn off his grow lights!

Quote:
Professor at St John’s College, Oxford, turns oil row into a heated debate

How do you respond when placard-waving students occupy your 15th-century quadrangle and refuse to leave until you sell the college’s shares in oil companies? As this is Oxford, naturally you present them with a philosophical dilemma.

Two students at St John’s College wrote to Andrew Parker, the principal bursar, this week requesting a meeting to discuss the protesters’ demands, which are that the college “declares a climate emergency and immediately divests from fossil fuels”. They say that the college, the richest in Oxford, has £8 million of its £551 million endowment fund invested in BP and Shell.

Professor Parker responded with a provocative offer. “I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice,” he wrote. “But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”

Fergus Green, the organiser of the wider protest, who is studying for a master’s degree in physics and philosophy at Balliol College, said: “This is an inappropriate and flippant response by the bursar to what we were hoping would be a mature discussion. It’s January and it would be borderline dangerous to switch off the central heating.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prof ... nYbxuN-nLA


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:35 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 27029
Foota wrote:
This is great. Especially coming from Great Britain.

Let's see if Barcy is willing to turn off his grow lights!

Quote:
Professor at St John’s College, Oxford, turns oil row into a heated debate

How do you respond when placard-waving students occupy your 15th-century quadrangle and refuse to leave until you sell the college’s shares in oil companies? As this is Oxford, naturally you present them with a philosophical dilemma.

Two students at St John’s College wrote to Andrew Parker, the principal bursar, this week requesting a meeting to discuss the protesters’ demands, which are that the college “declares a climate emergency and immediately divests from fossil fuels”. They say that the college, the richest in Oxford, has £8 million of its £551 million endowment fund invested in BP and Shell.

Professor Parker responded with a provocative offer. “I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice,” he wrote. “But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”

Fergus Green, the organiser of the wider protest, who is studying for a master’s degree in physics and philosophy at Balliol College, said: “This is an inappropriate and flippant response by the bursar to what we were hoping would be a mature discussion. It’s January and it would be borderline dangerous to switch off the central heating.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prof ... nYbxuN-nLA



Nope.. Still growing boss......

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:31 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First-Class
Sergeant First-Class

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:06 pm
Posts: 3927
I still don’t understand why people are fighting over the issue... A lot of talk with very little action in my opinion... Shouldn’t they be getting on with doing something about at this point, or are they going to continue to argue about it forever and ever?

_________________
Love to all!!! *hugs*


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:49 am 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 27029
DEANNA79 wrote:
I still don’t understand why people are fighting over the issue... A lot of talk with very little action in my opinion... Shouldn’t they be getting on with doing something about at this point, or are they going to continue to argue about it forever and ever?



Lots of good folks are trying to do thing. It's just idiot trumpers who think there's no problem.... It's a joke

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:22 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17797
barcelona wrote:
DEANNA79 wrote:
I still don’t understand why people are fighting over the issue... A lot of talk with very little action in my opinion... Shouldn’t they be getting on with doing something about at this point, or are they going to continue to argue about it forever and ever?



Lots of good folks are trying to do thing. It's just idiot trumpers who think there's no problem.... It's a joke


What exactly are you doing Barcelona other than having the carbon footprint of 20 people with your grow lights?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:33 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 34793
Foota wrote:
barcelona wrote:
DEANNA79 wrote:
I still don’t understand why people are fighting over the issue... A lot of talk with very little action in my opinion... Shouldn’t they be getting on with doing something about at this point, or are they going to continue to argue about it forever and ever?



Lots of good folks are trying to do thing. It's just idiot trumpers who think there's no problem.... It's a joke


What exactly are you doing Barcelona other than having the carbon footprint of 20 people with your grow lights?


He got you there Barcy

_________________
Norks


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:12 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17797
Slacks wrote:

He got you there Barcy


He's all good. At least he "thinks" Climate Change is a huge problem.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:54 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 27029
It's off set as I bring pleasure to people.



:-?

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:04 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17797
barcelona wrote:
It's off set as I bring pleasure to people.



:-?


I think it is fair say that lots of "good people" feel the same about their carbon footprints.

Those evil oil and gas companies bring more than simple pleasure to people, they bring the very basics of civilization necessities.......including life saving drugs, transportation and the ability to not freeze to death every winter.

Most aren't going around running their mouths calling other people "idiots" while they point to their "offsets" to offset their hypocrisy.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:54 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17797
Meanwhile.......

Quote:
The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%.

https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2 ... ns-in-2019

Thanks God for fracking! Natural gas is awesome and we have a shit-ton of it to help the rest of the world to get off dirty OPEC/Russian oil and coal and reduce their carbon emissions.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:00 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 34793
Foota wrote:
Meanwhile.......

Quote:
The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%.

https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2 ... ns-in-2019

Thanks God for fracking! Natural gas is awesome and we have a shit-ton of it to help the rest of the world to get off dirty OPEC/Russian oil and coal and reduce their carbon emissions.


Why did you leave the Paris Accord again? :-?

_________________
Norks


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:19 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17797
Slacks wrote:

Why did you leave the Paris Accord again? :-?


Because we can frack cleaner natural gas, reduce our carbon emissions, boost our economy and no longer be held hostage to the B.S. in the Middle East.

Had Hillary won, we would have banned fracking, have higher carbon emissions, more expensive energy and likely be in war with Iran or Russia by now.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:48 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 34793
Foota wrote:
Slacks wrote:

Why did you leave the Paris Accord again? :-?


Because we can frack cleaner natural gas, reduce our carbon emissions, boost our economy and no longer be held hostage to the B.S. in the Middle East.

Had Hillary won, we would have banned fracking, have higher carbon emissions, more expensive energy and likely be in war with Iran or Russia by now.


Ill rephrase - why did Trump take you out the Paris Accord when Murrica would (presumably) have met it's targets with some to spare?

_________________
Norks


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:04 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17797
Slacks wrote:

Ill rephrase - why did Trump take you out the Paris Accord when Murrica would (presumably) have met it's targets with some to spare?


Because it mandated that oil and gas companies reduce production by 35%. The Climate extremists don't seem to make any distinctions between cleaner natural gas and other carbon based energy like crude oil and coal.

We can't reduce are Carbon emissions if we force a 35% reduction on the production of natural gas. We can't encourage natural gas companies to make the significant investment in natural gas wells if they are being told they need to go out of business by 2040.

The better question is, why are countries like Germany failing to meet their climate goals despite signing up the Paris Agreement?


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 1115 posts ]  Go to page Previous 141 42 43 44 45 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited