Do you believe in "global warming?" - Page 192 - Alfa Romeo Bulletin Board & Forums
 318Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #2866 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-27-2019, 12:29 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Just outside Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yearoldspider View Post
The settled science is our carbon-based output is more that the earth can naturally dispose of and it's creating a dome of carbon dioxide that's trapping heat in the atmosphere resulting in raising sea water temps causing unnatural, volatile, weather events and also resulting in raising sea levels, due to a melting of the polar icecaps causing coastal flooding. Assuming the scientists you’ve hitched your wagon to are actually “distinguished” (i.e. not funded by the carbon-based industry lobbies), they are in an extremely thin minority. I’m leaning towards the overwhelming majority just as I would if I sought after 100 medical opinions and 97 of them agreed on the diagnosis.

Re your Gore “joke”, it wasn’t funny then, unless you were a hyper-partisan conservative, Rush Limbaugh, Republican mouth-breather, and now it’s just pathetic.
You're very dimwitted and tedious. I'm sure you have no idea from where the "97%" percent number comes, and what criteria the dubious studies on which it's based used to categorize scientists as the 97% vs the remaining 3% (here's a hint, I'd be in the 97%; it's a low bar). That you have no intelligent argument to offer forces you to predictably fall back on ad hominem, as well as the funding argument; as a counterpoint, do you really not see the connection between funding and the hucksterism of Michael Mann, for example? Regardless, the funding argument is so asinine. Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, John Christy, etc etc are all risking their careers and public approbation for some kickbacks. Right. BTW, you're the little geek who thinks he's into NASA, aren't you? The "mouth breather" jab (how did you know?!) seems familiar. Those last two names are distinguished NASA scientists, both of whom are much better informed than that other, more famous, NASA scientist, James Hansen.

p.s., I'm a "Republican mouth-breather" apparently; the horror! (if true; amazing how you can know so much based on so little). Would I be more believable if I said that I campaigned for George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, that I think AOC is the freshest breath of fresh air and an economic and geopolitical genius, and Woodrow Wilson and his darling wife were not the most bigoted and racist creeps since, well another Democrat, Andrew Jackson (though I'd say he was more genocidal than just simply racist)? Would my factual statements be even more factual if I boasted some liberal and progressive bona fides?

Jim: '17 Giulia Q4 Ti Sport/Performance, '83 and '92 Spiders, '12 Honda Odyssey family hauler, '18 Mustang GT, and a '96 Taurus SHO because I love underdogs, and small V8s

Last edited by Rutlefan; 08-27-2019 at 12:40 PM.
Rutlefan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2867 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-27-2019, 12:30 PM
Senior Member
Gold Subscriber
 
20yearoldspider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Space City, Texas
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutlefan View Post
Do you have any idea the storage capacity required to run the national power grid? Do some research. No offense intended but you're in way over your head.

p.s., a simple search will find articles like these. Forbes isn't Fox News is it? I don't know, I don't really pay attention to either.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#21361a968e15

Pretty sure Bloomberg isn't Fox News:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...any-emissions/

CNN is definitely not Fox News:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/opini...nos/index.html

p.p.s., I'm sure you'll neither read this articles or seriously consider what Germany's experience implies for global efforts to move away from fossil fuels without nuclear power. To do so would disrupt the weird little fantasy world you inhabit in which solar panels, wind mills and batteries can carry the electrical load for the U.S., and U.S. with hundreds of millions of electrical vehicles no less.
I canít believe youíre goading me into continuing this discussion. Itís like trying to explain simple math to a none-to-bright tree stump.

Yes, yes, and yes. We have everything we need to reduce our carbon output to a level the planet can naturally dispose of except the will to do it. The alternative is unacceptable. Those news organizations you linked are all in bed with the carbon-based industries for the advertising revenues. They very rarely report on climate change for that reason, and when they do, itís almost always unbalanced. For example, CNN will have two climate scientists on debating each other to give the impression they each have equal weight in their positions. What would be balanced would be to have 97 on the climate change is caused by us side and 3 on the no itís not side.

1986 Spider Grad (one owner) converted to 1973 2L w/dual Webers in 2018, 2007 Honda Spirit VT1100C, 1980 Honda CX500 Custom, 2017 Triumph Tiger Explorer XRt, 1971 VW Beetle Convertible (complete restoration in progress for the wife)
20yearoldspider is offline  
post #2868 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-27-2019, 01:04 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Just outside Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 460
"none-to-bright tree stump." That would be "none-too-bright..." Ha, can't make this up.

CNN is in bed with carbon-based industries? Riiight. And Lassie is shtooping Donald Trump. Regardless, each article lays out the facts on the ground, despite an over half a trillion dollars investment in renewable energy, Germany has hardly made a dent in their carbon emissions. Riddle me that Batboy. I guess those Germans just aren't very clever engineers, that must be it! Just a bunch of Sgt. Schulz's; when NY and CA politicians get to make energy policy, then we'll see some results! Really though, where are the articles factually incorrect? And the 97 vs 3 again. Like I said, that number was arrived at by basically excluding only those who 100% deny humans make any contribution at all to warming. By that criterion, me and almost every noted "skeptic" falls in the 97% (hey we're on the same team! I'll try not to open mouth breathe on you). The percent of scientists that fall into the alarmist camp is a bit under 50% in most studies I've seen. That's really the question most people are arguing, along with how alarmism should or should not drive critical energy policy.

To end this, you are a part of the warming religion clearly. There are good arguments to be made that we need to change our ways, and good arguments for transitioning to clean, renewable energy (to the extent possible), but folks like you don't make them. Really. You just blather. CNN in cahoots with Big Oil, along with any rational and respected scientists who warns against alarmism's downside? I can see where you get your fanaticism. Do you also believe we faked the moon landings and a race of shape-shifting reptilian aliens are running the world? I wouldn't be surprised.

Jim: '17 Giulia Q4 Ti Sport/Performance, '83 and '92 Spiders, '12 Honda Odyssey family hauler, '18 Mustang GT, and a '96 Taurus SHO because I love underdogs, and small V8s

Last edited by Rutlefan; 08-27-2019 at 01:10 PM.
Rutlefan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2869 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-27-2019, 01:08 PM
Senior Member
Gold Subscriber
 
20yearoldspider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Space City, Texas
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutlefan View Post
You're very dimwitted and tedious. I'm sure you have no idea from where the "97%" percent number comes, and what criteria the dubious studies on which it's based used to categorize scientists as the 97% vs the remaining 3% (here's a hint, I'd be in the 97%; it's a low bar). That you have no intelligent argument to offer forces you to predictably fall back on ad hominem, as well as the funding argument; as a counterpoint, do you really not see the connection between funding and the hucksterism of Michael Mann, for example? Regardless, the funding argument is so asinine. Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, John Christy, etc etc are all risking their careers and public approbation for some kickbacks. Right. BTW, you're the little geek who thinks he's into NASA, aren't you? The "mouth breather" jab (how did you know?!) seems familiar. Those last two names are distinguished NASA scientists, both of whom are much better informed than that other, more famous, NASA scientist, James Hansen.

p.s., I'm a "Republican mouth-breather" apparently; the horror! (if true; amazing how you can know so much based on so little). Would I be more believable if I said that I campaigned for George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, that I think AOC is the freshest breath of fresh air and an economic and geopolitical genius, and Woodrow Wilson and his darling wife were not the most bigoted and racist creeps since, well another Democrat, Andrew Jackson (though I'd say he was more genocidal than just simply racist)? Would my factual statements be even more factual if I boasted some liberal and progressive bona fides?
Wow...where did that come from?

1986 Spider Grad (one owner) converted to 1973 2L w/dual Webers in 2018, 2007 Honda Spirit VT1100C, 1980 Honda CX500 Custom, 2017 Triumph Tiger Explorer XRt, 1971 VW Beetle Convertible (complete restoration in progress for the wife)
20yearoldspider is offline  
post #2870 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-27-2019, 01:29 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Just outside Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 460
"Wow...where did that come from?" I admit I misread your earlier post. You didn't actually call me a hyper-partisan Republican mouth-breather, you only noted that it would take one of those to find my Al Gore joke funny. You're probably right about that. My late father actually knew Al (not well but in a work capacity). He said he was a great guy when he was young but he didn't age well. One person's opinion. Anyway, my apologies. You didn't offend me after all (I stopped mouth breathing when I got married, grudgingly), though there might be some hyper-partisan mouth-breathers who don't appreciate your tone .

To wrap this up, your position is that "We have everything we need to reduce our carbon output to a level the planet can naturally dispose of except the will to do it." Ok, but I disagree, assuming you exclude nuclear power, which I took from your posts. I think we need nuclear power. A lot of it. Anticipated 4th gen power can use what we now call nuclear waster as fuel, producing very little waste in comparison. We wouldn't have mine more uranium for 500 years for today's needs, whereas the "green economy" would tear up enormous swaths of earth for needed materials. 500 years of turning radioactive sludge into clean energy, though by then we'll certainly be using Mr. Fusion. Also, there just aren't enough Congolese children to exploit for all the Cobalt needed for kind of battery storage needed, if Elon were to offer to build batteries for the whole world (to be clear, I'm against the exploitation of children anywhere; I bring that up to make a point about hypocrisy... in general; I don't know if Elon is using Congolese Cobalt, though most battery makers do). I won't even bring up all the migratory birds, including Bald Eagles, which are now being butchered by windmills in shocking numbers. Oh but I just did. Since I did, how many more eagle sacrifices are needed before we are carbon neutral? No need to answer, a rhetorical question.

Jim: '17 Giulia Q4 Ti Sport/Performance, '83 and '92 Spiders, '12 Honda Odyssey family hauler, '18 Mustang GT, and a '96 Taurus SHO because I love underdogs, and small V8s

Last edited by Rutlefan; 08-27-2019 at 01:52 PM.
Rutlefan is offline  
post #2871 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-27-2019, 01:30 PM
Senior Member
Gold Subscriber
 
20yearoldspider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Space City, Texas
Posts: 379
[QUOTE=Rutlefan;8460480]"none-to-bright tree stump." That would be "none-too-bright..." Ha, can't make this up. QUOTE]

You sure got on me spelling AND you agreed with me. Finally, you made not one but two (or it is "too") valid points. I'm not big on emojis, but I wish I had that mic drop one to use here.

1986 Spider Grad (one owner) converted to 1973 2L w/dual Webers in 2018, 2007 Honda Spirit VT1100C, 1980 Honda CX500 Custom, 2017 Triumph Tiger Explorer XRt, 1971 VW Beetle Convertible (complete restoration in progress for the wife)
20yearoldspider is offline  
post #2872 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-28-2019, 05:57 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Just outside Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 460
"...AND you agreed with me." About what exactly? That one has to be a hyper-partisan Republican mouth-breather to enjoy a jab at Lord Girth, Al-Gore the Magnificent? I was throwing you a bone there; I think most reasonable people find him at least a little bit ridiculous... his PowerPoint presentation predicting the inundation of Manhattan among other absurdities, his Nobel Peace Prize (good grief, in light of his carbon factory of Tennessee mansion, his jetting around the world to attend conferences bemoaning carbon dioxide). You get the point. He's not the best spokesperson for your cause, IMO.

What's the difference between your cause and my cause, btw? You believe in batteries, I believe in nuclear power. Do the math sometime, since you brought up math. How many tons upon unimaginable tons of batteries would have to be produced to meet the world's energy demand, measured in terrawatt-hours over the year? How many Congolese children have to sacrificed mining the Cobalt for that vast amount of battery storage (since people are concerned about children and grandchildren)? How much earth has to be torn up for the materials? How many Chinese laborers have to die from exposure to toxic particulates while mining the rare earth metals needed to manufacture all those bird-slaughtering windmills? The "green economy," if taken to its logical conclusion, is an ecological and humanitarian nightmare, at least as things are done now, and I haven't seen any future plans that change that.
Subtle likes this.

Jim: '17 Giulia Q4 Ti Sport/Performance, '83 and '92 Spiders, '12 Honda Odyssey family hauler, '18 Mustang GT, and a '96 Taurus SHO because I love underdogs, and small V8s

Last edited by Rutlefan; 08-28-2019 at 06:40 AM.
Rutlefan is offline  
post #2873 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-28-2019, 09:47 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
The settled science is our carbon-based output is more that the earth can naturally dispose of and it's creating a dome of carbon dioxide that's trapping heat in the atmosphere resulting in raising sea water temps causing unnatural, volatile, weather events and also resulting in raising sea levels, due to a melting of the polar icecaps causing coastal flooding.
To which I will add, yadda . . . yadda . . . yadda . . . For those of us who have been participating in this very long-running thread your words here are hardly new, having been repeated countless times over the years by in ways very similar to what you have here. This is obviously a comfort zone for warmism advocates. But, having signaled your virtue for us, I'd like to ask you the same question I asked Pete awhile back. If we accept for the sake of discussion your premise that the world is in dire danger then it's incumbent on us to also talk about exactly what kind of social and political changes are needed in order to meaningfully change our environmental trajectory? This has been a topic of discussion by advocates and governmental planners for quite some time now and the general consensus is that major structural changes in world societies are absolutely necessary.

So. In order for this to happen, government is going to have to become much more authoritarian with levels of social control that of necessity negate the kinds of freedom and liberty we now take for granted. So, here's my question for you: Are you willing to support the establishment of a police-state in order to meaningfully combat climate change?

Quote:
Re your Gore “joke”, it wasn’t funny then, unless you were a hyper-partisan conservative, Rush Limbaugh, Republican mouth-breather, and now it’s just pathetic
There's a difference between using polemics in an argument to help make a point and petty name-calling directed at an individual discussant. Calling someone a "Republican mouth-breather" simply because they disagree with your political viewpoint is an embarrassing cheap shot that adds nothing to your argument. This thread has survived for so long because, despite its often controversial viewpoints, it has largely remained a place of civil discourse. We'd like to keep it that way. If you can't engage in these discussions without making personal ad hominem comments about people with whom you disagree . . . then please go away.
factotum likes this.

Jim . . . '72 Super 1300, '70, 1750GTV, 2nd series,
'62, Lancia Flaminia Zagato3c, 2nd series

Last edited by 180OUT; 08-28-2019 at 09:51 AM.
180OUT is offline  
post #2874 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-28-2019, 10:08 AM
BB Janitor
Platinum SubscriberAdministratorSuper Moderator
 
ghnl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mebane, NC
Posts: 16,258
Garage
Moderator note: keep the discussion civil with no personal attacks or this entire thread WILL be thrown in the trash. I think we (your beloved & handsome yet modest moderators) have been very tolerant thus far. DO NOT PUSH IT.
Subtle, Aggie57 and factotum like this.

- - Eric
don't read this
~ 1984 Spider Veloce ~
- -~ 1981 GTV-6 ~
Mebane, North Carolina


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ghnl is offline  
post #2875 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-28-2019, 01:03 PM
Senior Member
Gold Subscriber
 
20yearoldspider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Space City, Texas
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghnl View Post
Moderator note: keep the discussion civil with no personal attacks or this entire thread WILL be thrown in the trash. I think we (your beloved & handsome yet modest moderators) have been very tolerant thus far. DO NOT PUSH IT.
They started it.

1986 Spider Grad (one owner) converted to 1973 2L w/dual Webers in 2018, 2007 Honda Spirit VT1100C, 1980 Honda CX500 Custom, 2017 Triumph Tiger Explorer XRt, 1971 VW Beetle Convertible (complete restoration in progress for the wife)
20yearoldspider is offline  
post #2876 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-28-2019, 02:18 PM
BB Janitor
Platinum SubscriberAdministratorSuper Moderator
 
ghnl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mebane, NC
Posts: 16,258
Garage
My Mother would say, "it takes two."

She'd also say,"do you want me to give you something to cry about?"
65Sprint, Jim G and Gordon Raymond like this.

- - Eric
don't read this
~ 1984 Spider Veloce ~
- -~ 1981 GTV-6 ~
Mebane, North Carolina


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ghnl is offline  
post #2877 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-28-2019, 03:13 PM
Senior Member
Gold Subscriber
 
Jim G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ga
Posts: 3,823
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghnl View Post

She'd also say,"do you want me to give you something to cry about?"
Is your mom related to mine.

1969 1750 Spider Veloce w/dual webers, 1969 1750 Berlina, 1971 1750 Spider Veloce w/ dual webers, 1985 Spider Veloce 23,000 orig. miles, {Two} 1986 Spider Veloces, 1987 Spider Veloce bought new, 1988 Quadrifoglio, 1991 164S, Plus several more. I think they are breeding.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I just got 2 more. Now I have a Matta. I must be crazy.
Jim G is offline  
post #2878 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-28-2019, 04:16 PM
Senior Member
Gold Subscriber
 
Subtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, B C
Posts: 6,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yearoldspider View Post
I canít believe youíre goading me into continuing this discussion. Itís like trying to explain simple math to a none-to-bright tree stump.

Yes, yes, and yes. We have everything we need to reduce our carbon output to a level the planet can naturally dispose of except the will to do it. The alternative is unacceptable. Those news organizations you linked are all in bed with the carbon-based industries for the advertising revenues. They very rarely report on climate change for that reason, and when they do, itís almost always unbalanced. For example, CNN will have two climate scientists on debating each other to give the impression they each have equal weight in their positions. What would be balanced would be to have 97 on the climate change is caused by us side and 3 on the no itís not side.
"reduce our carbon output"--I assume you mean carbon dioxide "to the level the planet can naturally dispose of"..
Even at the current 400ppm, atmospheric CO2 is historically very low. It is accepted that at down to around 150 ppm life on Earth begins to shut down.
It was below 200 with the maximum extant of ice some 18,000 years ago. And it has been in the 5,000 to 7,000 range for millions of years.
The ocean does a remarkable job of absorbing CO2 and turning it to sedimentary rock. The original CO2 came from hot rocks and by way of volcanoes still does. Sunshine, CO2 and photosynthesis provides us with oxygen.
And man-emitted CO2 has nothing to do with actual climate change which has been changing for almost 5 billion years.
Folks who are distressed about the "threat" should take some basic geology courses and rest easy.
factotum likes this.

Bob,
Avatar is the 68 Super, bought new.
Subtle is offline  
post #2879 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-28-2019, 05:43 PM
USTA BE AN AD-MIN
Platinum SubscriberAdministrator
 
ossodiseppia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Broomfield, Colorado U.S.A
Posts: 11,011
Garage
None of us will be around to know what the real truth is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subtle View Post
The ocean does a remarkable job of absorbing CO2 and turning it to sedimentary rock. The original CO2 came from hot rocks and by way of volcanoes still does. Sunshine, CO2 and photosynthesis provides us with oxygen.
And man-emitted CO2 has nothing to do with actual climate change which has been changing for almost 5 billion years.
There are many forms of carbonate rocks. Not all are chemically precipitated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Subtle View Post
Folks who are distressed about the "threat" should take some basic geology courses and rest easy.
Doubting that there is any threat is in my opinion, being myopic. Historical Geology is just that, historical. It is used to "predict" what will happen, but that can only go so far in this day and age. Man has influence on the environment. And that was not part of the geologic past.
davbert likes this.

Brian __________________________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ossodiseppia is offline  
post #2880 of 2918 (permalink) Old 08-28-2019, 07:58 PM
Registered User
 
101/105guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,590
We should all just relax.....People are healthier, live longer and generally better lives. Way fewer people die in weather related incidents than before. Modern tech, medicine, hardier crops feed billions more than some predicted was possible.....


As I have mentioned, stress is a bigger danger to your health than a few twinkies or a warm day!
alfamale44 and Rutlefan like this.

'64 Guilia Spider
'67 GTV
'68 Giulia Super

Conservatives-we work hard, so you don't have to !
101/105guy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Alfa Romeo Bulletin Board & Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome