Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Thu Dec 25, 2014 5:24 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 872 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ... 44  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:42 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Posts: 1001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
smcj wrote:
Zhen Li wrote:
I examined the AGW argument. How couldn't I? Everyone is bombarded by it daily.

I've presented the counter argument, and the burden of evidence does tend to be on the anti-AGW side so there's more to come, the onus is on you to counter them. Changing font colours doesn't tell anyone anything.

Please proceed.

What do you think of "peak oil"? It's a closely related topic, not quite the same of course.

Do you want Zhen Li's opinion on that or something a bit :tongue: closer to informed opinion?

:namaste:
Kim

[edit: fixed typo :emb: ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:50 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 2196
Kim O'Hara wrote:
smcj wrote:
What do you think of "peak oil"? It's a closely related topic, not quite the same of course.

Do you want Zhen Li's opinion on that or something a bit :tongue: closer to informed opinion?

Well yes and no. I've started a new thread, but I might as well show my cards here. My point was going to be that since we are going to run out of oil in the foreseeable future, wouldn't any of the steps that might be precipitated by the specter of global warming be appropriate anyway in order to avert the shock to the global economy when the oil really begins to run out? Is there a downside to renewable energy?

Just saying'...

_________________
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
Zhen Li wrote:
You've already made up your mind, you're just a contrarian.

And you are... ?

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
Zhen Li wrote:
I've justified my claims for pages and pages Kim. You've already made up your mind, you're just a contrarian. It doesn't matter what I say, you'll either dismiss it without going into any detail, or not address it at all. It's your choice, you choose to only read biased sources and not consider opposing arguments. And when I do go into any detail and have a paragraph anything longer than a few lines, you just complain that it's a "wall of words." You can make the effort, or you can keep messing around. Your choice.

You have your facts wrong. That was me, not Kim.

What other facts do you have wrong?

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 639
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.
IdleChater wrote:
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
IdleChater wrote:
All the talk about who is causing what is utterly pointless. We are way past anything useful coming from that discussion.


Agreed - provided that what you are trying to say is that the present-climate change is to a significant extent man-made, hence no need to 'talk about who is causing what' anymore. In order to prevent what you call 'a global human catastrophe', we have to wean ourselves off the non-renewable resources first and foremost - and work from there.


Actually I don't think anything can be done. Ecological collapse is inevitable, now. What we should be looking at is ways to handle that.

We're going to be weaned off those factors we contribute to global warming whether we want to or not.


You know, ecological collapse is not an A-bomb explosion-like event. It's gradual. It doesn't have an imaginable final point (or if it does, it's irrelevant to us). And it's inevitable in the sense that it's already happening - and, even though it is undoubtedly more and more destructive with every day, we're not really weaning ourselves off anything. I can, I'm afraid, easily imagine a scenario in which we do absolutely nothing as the world literally burns. Not even the lack of available resources will make us simply stop, as the increasing fracking craze proves beyond the shadow of a doubt. Wars caused by climate changes may be tearing the world to pieces, genocide and other atrocities may be committed daily, famine and poverty may reach unthinkable levels with civilisation collapsing all around us and giving way to sheer barbarity - and corporations will still strive to do what they have always done. Business as usual.

To put it simply: you cannot reduce, let alone eliminate, the results of climate changes without addressing the causes ASAP.

smcj wrote:
Regardless of who is right in due time it will become obvious.


Provided you want, or at least allow yourself, to see that which is obvious. Deniers, as Malcolm pointed out, will just keep denying no matter what evidence life throws in their faces.

_________________
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:39 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Posts: 1001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
smcj wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:
smcj wrote:
What do you think of "peak oil"? It's a closely related topic, not quite the same of course.

Do you want Zhen Li's opinion on that or something a bit :tongue: closer to informed opinion?

Well yes and no. I've started a new thread, but I might as well show my cards here. My point was going to be that since we are going to run out of oil in the foreseeable future, wouldn't any of the steps that might be precipitated by the specter of global warming be appropriate anyway in order to avert the shock to the global economy when the oil really begins to run out? Is there a downside to renewable energy?

Just saying'...

First question: Yes, absolutely.
Second question: As compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power? None that I can think of.

:namaste:
Kim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:16 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Posts: 1001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
You know, ecological collapse is not an A-bomb explosion-like event. It's gradual. It doesn't have an imaginable final point (or if it does, it's irrelevant to us). And it's inevitable in the sense that it's already happening - and, even though it is undoubtedly more and more destructive with every day, we're not really weaning ourselves off anything. I can, I'm afraid, easily imagine a scenario in which we do absolutely nothing as the world literally burns. Not even the lack of available resources will make us simply stop, as the increasing fracking craze proves beyond the shadow of a doubt. Wars caused by climate changes may be tearing the world to pieces, genocide and other atrocities may be committed daily, famine and poverty may reach unthinkable levels with civilisation collapsing all around us and giving way to sheer barbarity - and corporations will still strive to do what they have always done. Business as usual.

To put it simply: you cannot reduce, let alone eliminate, the results of climate changes without addressing the causes ASAP.

Welcome to the discussion, THO :hi:
Here's something I posted just over a year ago. It looks at the possibility of real change, which is (I agree) is vital, and finds cause for optimism.
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=6973&start=60#p138754

:namaste:
Kim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:27 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 2196
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Provided you want, or at least allow yourself, to see that which is obvious. Deniers, as Malcolm pointed out, will just keep denying no matter what evidence life throws in their faces.

If all the glaciers melt by midsummer and the Ganges, or the Mississippi, or the Amazon runs dry, you'll know something is up.

_________________
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 639
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.
smcj wrote:
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Provided you want, or at least allow yourself, to see that which is obvious. Deniers, as Malcolm pointed out, will just keep denying no matter what evidence life throws in their faces.

If all the glaciers melt by midsummer and the Ganges, or the Mississippi, or the Amazon runs dry, you'll know something is up.


You and I will. Some just won't.

Think of people dying of lung cancer who continue to claim their illness has got nothing to do with the lifelong habit they so cherish. Or of those who after 2008 continue to extol the 'insight' of Friedman and co. (and I'm not talking about those paid by this or that neoliberal think-tank to spout such drivel -- I'm thinking of regular joes who bear the brunt of the crisis). Or of the Holocaust deniers. Or, finally, of conspiracy theorists of all shades and kinds. They don't follow common sense, they won't heed reason, and they will distrust what they themselves experience.

_________________
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:14 am 
Online

Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 2196
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
smcj wrote:
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Provided you want, or at least allow yourself, to see that which is obvious. Deniers, as Malcolm pointed out, will just keep denying no matter what evidence life throws in their faces.

If all the glaciers melt by midsummer and the Ganges, or the Mississippi, or the Amazon runs dry, you'll know something is up.


You and I will. Some just won't.

Think of people dying of lung cancer who continue to claim their illness has got nothing to do with the lifelong habit they so cherish. Or of those who after 2008 continue to extol the 'insight' of Friedman and co. (and I'm not talking about those paid by this or that neoliberal think-tank to spout such drivel -- I'm thinking of regular joes who bear the brunt of the crisis). Or of the Holocaust deniers. Or, finally, of conspiracy theorists of all shades and kinds. They don't follow common sense, they won't heed reason, and they will distrust what they themselves experience.

There are flat earth believers today as well. You don't need 100% consensus to say the matter is decided.

_________________
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 639
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.
We must have misunderstood each other. If you ask me, the matter is already decided. I am confident there's anthropogenic climate change happening before our very eyes.

_________________
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Dharmagoat - I was addressing Kim in the paragraph where I refer to her there, and you in the others.

Kim - I accept the sources I do because they aren't full of contradictions and haven't been made unfalsifiable.

Making unfalsifiable hypotheses is a common cultic technique, because it means that no matter what evidence is provided to the contrary, they will believe the hypothesis. For instance, all empirical deviations from the prediction are explained away as being an effect of what the prediction occurs is happening :? . All arguments to the contrary aren't to be considered because they come from people who reject the infallible guru :shock: . If the holy text says it's true, it is necessarily true, like when it claims that there is a consensus, even though none such exists :roll: .

Moreover, another common feature of cults is a belief in a coming apocalypse -- you must take action now to avert it! :jedi:

Of course, of the thousands of predicted end-of-the-worlds, none occurred, hence why we are here. Whenever you see people trying to scare you into believing something by threatening that you'll die if you don't, even though there's no conclusive evidence, you know that their arguments are bankrupt. :crazy:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Also, another reason 'why', is that AGW propagandists have systematically denied the public access to data, and knowingly falsified information.

"This justification would not have survived any peer review, in any journal that I'm willing to publish in."

Despite the fact that there's no consensus among peer reviewed data, and your graph pages back uses flawed methodology as I pointed out, the fact that AGW propagandists rely on peer review means nothing if the data they're submitting for peer review is falsified. :oops:

And despite that, fundamentally the argumentation of AGW propagandists fails in that it shifts the focus, knowingly, to temperature data (including falsified data), despite the fact that the real crux of the issue is in assumptions about feedbacks which the models make. If the models are right, the climate history of the world would not be the same as it is -- just like creationism, despite the fact that we have geological records past 4 billion years, they still believe, with their unfalisifiable hypotheses, that the world is only a few thousand years old. There really is no difference here, it's the same dishonesty. :thumbsup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Posts: 682
Location: Canada
America is very sick. Everyone else in the world understands climate change. How is climate change a plot? It's simply the consensus. It was a theory in the 80's and has turned out to be confirmed. Being an unknowing sock puppet of global energy conglomerates is creepy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12737
Nemo wrote:
America is very sick. Everyone else in the world understands climate change. How is climate change a plot? It's simply the consensus. It was a theory in the 80's and has turned out to be confirmed. Being an unknowing sock puppet of global energy conglomerates is creepy.


It was even a theory in the nineteenth century, and now it is confirmed. However, some people, for whatever perverse reasons they may have, insist against all reason that we are being duped by a grand conspiracy, the purpose of which they can never clearly articulate.

M

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12737
Zhen Li wrote:
There really is no difference here, it's the same dishonesty. :thumbsup:


What could their motive possibly be?

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Have you ever tried applying for research grants?

I had a look at the process with my provincial government a few months ago, and there are boxes of key terms which you can check. If your research deals with key terms in these areas, you're more likely to get funding. One of the boxes was for women and gender studies, and there was a box for climate change research too. These are two of the topics which get some of the highest funding, no surprise then that now climate change is also a feminist topic.

People don't set out to do a project which makes or breaks massive theories like AGW, they research specific topics and collect data in specific areas. But convincing the government to keep funding such research means convincing them that this is a matter which the government both needs to take seriously because it may be responsible, and needs to take action which can work. The grant process is, in fact, highly political, and each project provides parliament with brief lay-terms summaries.

If studying climate were just business as usual from day to day, like, say, recording migratory patterns, then it'll probably still get funding, but those numbers are not likely to make you a millionaire like this fellow: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... abuse.html and this fellow http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/d ... de-income/

Not to mention the book deals and movie sales from the hype. Then there's of course the fact that before the hype the stocks of renewable energy sources and electric car companies was relatively equal to its value, compared to the height of the hype a few years ago, when they would have made any investor a small fortune. Of course, I do support renewable energy, but that's beyond the point. If you are just investing in oil stocks, you know you won't be making much more than they're currently worth.

There are many incentives to promoting the idea of AGW. Even accepting all the AGW premises, you still have uncertainty due to the unpredictability of the system -- let's face it, there has been, and probably never will be, reliable ways of predicting climate change. Some people won't be convinced that the premises of AGW don't hold up to scrutiny until we really do have too little carbon based energy sources to utilise and they still see CO2 levels rising and falling with no help from us.

In the end, remember that this is almost all government led. The millions made by Hansen are mostly from government funded institutions, prizes and grants. People in government benefit with jobs and money, that's the bottom line. So long as government as it currently works exists, bureaucracy will keep increasing, and they'll keep paying themselves more and more because they have the monopoly on violence through taxation. Is there a solution to this problem? Not immediately, no. But vox populi vox dei. It doesn't matter what the real state of science is, it doesn't matter that there isn't a real consensus in institutions of higher learning, what works, works according to the simple equation of: public opinion + potential bureaucratic profit = public policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12737
Zhen Li wrote:
Have you ever tried applying for research grants?

I had a look at the process with my provincial government a few months ago, and there are boxes of key terms which you can check. If your research deals with key terms in these areas, you're more likely to get funding. One of the boxes was for women and gender studies, and there was a box for climate change research too. These are two of the topics which get some of the highest funding, no surprise then that now climate change is also a feminist topic.

People don't set out to do a project which makes or breaks massive theories like AGW, they research specific topics and collect data in specific areas. But convincing the government to keep funding such research means convincing them that this is a matter which the government both needs to take seriously because it may be responsible, and needs to take action which can work. The grant process is, in fact, highly political, and each project provides parliament with brief lay-terms summaries.

If studying climate were just business as usual from day to day, like, say, recording migratory patterns, then it'll probably still get funding, but those numbers are not likely to make you a millionaire like this fellow: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... abuse.html and this fellow http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/d ... de-income/

Not to mention the book deals and movie sales from the hype. Then there's of course the fact that before the hype the stocks of renewable energy sources and electric car companies was relatively equal to its value, compared to the height of the hype a few years ago, when they would have made any investor a small fortune. Of course, I do support renewable energy, but that's beyond the point. If you are just investing in oil stocks, you know you won't be making much more than they're currently worth.

There are many incentives to promoting the idea of AGW. Even accepting all the AGW premises, you still have uncertainty due to the unpredictability of the system -- let's face it, there has been, and probably never will be, reliable ways of predicting climate change. Some people won't be convinced that the premises of AGW don't hold up to scrutiny until we really do have too little carbon based energy sources to utilise and they still see CO2 levels rising and falling with no help from us.

In the end, remember that this is almost all government led. The millions made by Hansen are mostly from government funded institutions, prizes and grants. People in government benefit with jobs and money, that's the bottom line. So long as government as it currently works exists, bureaucracy will keep increasing, and they'll keep paying themselves more and more because they have the monopoly on violence through taxation. Is there a solution to this problem? Not immediately, no. But vox populi vox dei. It doesn't matter what the real state of science is, it doesn't matter that there isn't a real consensus in institutions of higher learning, what works, works according to the simple equation of: public opinion + potential bureaucratic profit = public policy.


"One of the boxes was for women and gender studies, and there was a box for climate change research too. These are two of the topics which get some of the highest funding, no surprise then that now climate change is also a feminist topic."

Yes, because women and children will be the mostly heavily impacted by the negative effects of climate change, since they are still largely invisible.


"So long as government as it currently works exists, bureaucracy will keep increasing, and they'll keep paying themselves more and more because they have the monopoly on violence through taxation."

That is a common libertarian point of view.

But this is not a proof, this is fallacious reasoning at best, paranoia at worst.

Sorry, but I don't buy into conspiracy theories, right or left.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 171
Malcolm wrote:
Nemo wrote:
America is very sick. Everyone else in the world understands climate change. How is climate change a plot? It's simply the consensus. It was a theory in the 80's and has turned out to be confirmed. Being an unknowing sock puppet of global energy conglomerates is creepy.


It was even a theory in the nineteenth century, and now it is confirmed. However, some people, for whatever perverse reasons they may have, insist against all reason that we are being duped by a grand conspiracy, the purpose of which they can never clearly articulate.

M


Yes. Me too, I used to be a firm believer of the man-made climate change through the 70-80-90s.
I don't believe it any more. It does have a feel of a dogma/cult to it.

And me too, I am highly dissappointed with the mainstream media. There are just too many obvious, systematic
lies and propaganda there to ignore.
Just see what has been written in the last 10-15 years about Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, war on terror, humanitarian spreading of democracy, humanitarian bombing, surgical bombing, etc. etc. etc.
I just cannot take it any more, makes me feel vomiting to see so much lies.

I am personally very sensitive to this, because I grew up in a former communist country with state controlled media full of lies.
All newspapers, TV, Radio, everything was repeating those very same obvious lies all the time.

An almost identical feeling to the international main stream Western media nowdays indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:11 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Posts: 1001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Zhen Li wrote:
Dharmagoat - I was addressing Kim in the paragraph where I refer to her there, and you in the others.

Kim - I accept the sources I do because they aren't full of contradictions and haven't been made unfalsifiable.

Zhen Li,
For the record, I'm a "he" - beard, bass voice and the usual equipment - not that it should make any difference to you or to the value of my arguments.

"I accept the sources I do because they aren't full of contradictions and haven't been made unfalsifiable," sounds fair enough, and thank you for beginning to answer my question. But it's a very negative kind of answer and implies that the work of the other team - my team, if you like - is full of contradictions and has been made unfalsifiable. That is simply not true. Contemporary climate science is based on, and connected to, basic physics and chemistry and it has been tested all the way by the best scientific practice we have, peer review. If you deny climate science, you deny all science.
Do you do that? That is a serious question.

Zhen Li wrote:
Making unfalsifiable hypotheses is a common cultic technique, because it means that no matter what evidence is provided to the contrary, they will believe the hypothesis. For instance, all empirical deviations from the prediction are explained away as being an effect of what the prediction occurs is happening :? . All arguments to the contrary aren't to be considered because they come from people who reject the infallible guru :shock: . If the holy text says it's true, it is necessarily true, like when it claims that there is a consensus, even though none such exists :roll: .

Moreover, another common feature of cults is a belief in a coming apocalypse -- you must take action now to avert it! :jedi:

Of course, of the thousands of predicted end-of-the-worlds, none occurred, hence why we are here. Whenever you see people trying to scare you into believing something by threatening that you'll die if you don't, even though there's no conclusive evidence, you know that their arguments are bankrupt. :crazy:

You have claimed before that AGW is a "cult". It isn't - or if it is, it has entrapped and enrolled every major scientific body in the western world and almost every scientist working in the field - see for instance, this page: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
(Incidentally, you asked me a while ago not to just provide links but to give my opinion of them. However, I don't want to force my opinions on you but to get you to read the material I link to and think about it for yourself. Please do.)
Your "cult" has also hoodwinked the governments of countries from the US to China (going either eastwards or westwards).
And it has done that by promising eternal life and buckets of gold to everyone who signs up ... not.
Weird cult!

:namaste:
Kim


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 872 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ... 44  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 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 Group