P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-05-07, 09:25 PM   #101
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

I forgive you, Ramona.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-07, 04:02 AM   #102
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

I'd like to think Ramona learned something from this thread, but I'd just be kidding myself.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-07, 12:45 PM   #103
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Default

Well, clearly I already knew that some are so preoccupied with their fanatical aversion to any and every idea which alludes to anything occurring on a "global" scale that this argument would be completely futile for their sake. I also pretty much already guessed that the concept of inconclusiveness would be entirely alien to those who choose to dwell exclusively in one half of a world which is defined primarily by an inexorable political polarity.

I think I did however learn that one should always use the :sarcasm: tag around here, even when you're sure no one will miss it.

Quote:
And I would like to apologize unreservedly for stooping to the sensationalist bullshit of maintaining that data pertaining to the consequences of global warming are inconclusive.
.
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-07, 03:40 PM   #104
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Oh, your sarcasm came through loud and clear. I just thought I should offer my forgiveness on the off chance that you actually cared whether you were steamrolling my opinions with your high and mighty intellectual smugness, and that offer still stands.

Nice PSA, by the way. One hopes that in thirty years that little girl will have figured out that it's safer to ride the train than to stand in front of it. But if you were trying to use the speeding freight train as a metaphor for inconclusiveness, you failed miserably.

Last edited by Mazer : 08-05-07 at 03:55 PM.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-07, 09:27 AM   #105
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
...just thought I should offer my forgiveness on the off chance that you actually cared whether you were steamrolling my opinions with your high and mighty intellectual smugness...
First of all, that's a bit like a fish complaining that the water is wet, but the queer thing about high and mighty intellectual smugness is that I would characterize the gist of my participation in this thread as a response to precisely that, considering anyone ready to dismiss out of hand a potential threat to the medium of our collective existence on the bases being offered here to be the epitome of it.

Let's review:
• global warming doesn't exist because Al Gore made a movie about it and he owns a big house.
• global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside where I live right now.
• global warming doesn't exist because it's a theory and theories are just ideas and shouldn't be taken seriously.
• global warming doesn't exist because the lack of conclusive evidence for it can be transformed into a conclusive case against it.
• global warming doesn't exist because the lack of conclusive evidence for it can be transformed into soundbytes such as "not supported by science at all" and this makes you sound cutting edge and informed.
• global warming doesn't exist because some scientist's inconclusive theories about it predict preposterous disasters and contradictory effects that could just never happen.
• global warming doesn't exist because some other scientist's inconclusive theories about it suggest that even if it did exist the effects might be mild and regional.
• global warming doesn't exist because it's just a liberal conspiracy to turn us into overtaxed zombie drones and take away our freedom.
• global warming doesn't exist because goddamned liberals are always wrong about everything.

In light of the fact that my own endlessly repeated opinion is that we simply don't know if it's occurring or not but that it might behoove us to acknowledge our affect on the environment and seek to protect and conserve it anyway, I'm not really sure what you feel the need to 'forgive'--the fact that I've got a good basic common sense argument? Or perhaps, more hopefully, you're forgiving me for simply feeling the need to make this argument over and over in response to incessant denials which seem to be based on sheer hostility as opposed to reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
One hopes that in thirty years that little girl will have figured out that it's safer to ride the train than to stand in front of it. But if you were trying to use the speeding freight train as a metaphor for inconclusiveness, you failed miserably.
"Cute, but you know I didn't mean it that way. You've either misread me or you're just being obtuse." The only 'metaphor I was using' or thought was appropriate in this context (I didn't make the commercial), was of the man who doesn't give a fuck one way or the other because he knows it will not affect him personally.

People have a lot of excuses for not giving a fuck by which they can pretend to exalt themselves. Sheer derision, intellectual smugness, claiming to be more informed than it's even possible to be, irrelevant political hostility, plain old entitlement. But however you boil it down it still stinks.
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-07, 12:20 PM   #106
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Excuse me, but I never said that global warming isn't happening. Obviously it is, but what isn't known for sure is the cause or the after effects; in this you and I are in total agreement. What we seem to be disagreeing over is the best course of action to either adapt to or mitigate global warming. You sound convinced that most if not all of the effects of global warming, whether mild or pronounced, will necessarily be bad. But there are pros and cons in every situation, and anyone who says otherwise is either a salesman or a scam artist or both if he's a politician. This debate has more than its share of all of those kinds of people, but I don't count you among them, so I have to assume that you're open to the idea that global warming will have positive effects and possibly a net positive effect, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Still, you sound like one of those glass-is-half-empty kinda people.

As far as environmental protection is concerned, I'm all for it. I'm just not convinced that the environment is so fragile as to be intolerant to long term temperature shifts. Reducing GHG emissions might be the safe road, but there's no way to be sure, so our efforts should be focused on solving more immediate environmental problems, those that might kill millions of people in ten years rather than fifty years. And where energy policy is concerned, as a matter of national and economic security we should be changing our transportation industry over to biofuels in order to reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum sources, and if doing so also reduces GHG emissions then that's a bonus. If you can't endorse that course of action then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Last edited by Mazer : 09-05-07 at 12:30 PM.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-07, 10:14 AM   #107
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
Obviously it is, but what isn't known for sure is the cause or the after effects; in this you and I are in total agreement.
Good. Wasn't so painful was it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
You sound convinced that most if not all of the effects of global warming, whether mild or pronounced, will necessarily be bad.
Hmm, well that's obviously not an explicit aspect of my position of not knowing what the effects will be, however I'll allow the assessment is probably fair. Other than seeing the potential threat as an opportunity to move collectively into a higher awareness, I can only at this point guess what you might consider good effects.

There is a famous Yale study which posits that a moderate warming coupled with a fertilizing effect of CO2 would actually speed the reproduction of forests. This focuses on an economic boon for certain sectors. Heading the list, somewhat ironically, the forestry industry, which is already probably responsible for the greatest ongoing loss of biodiversity in human history.

Some suggest that there would be longer growing seasons for food crops in some areas, but this would probably be at the expense of growing seasons in others. This, IMO, cannot outweigh what might be devastating effects to a wide range of other species and their habitats.

In my opinion these are not only inconclusive postulates in themselves, but seem like scant boobie prizes for a few being offered at the expense of, still, potentially, crashing the whole ecosystem for all. This may be my tendency to see the glass half empty as you suggest, but I can certainly not take such arguments as seriously leading to a conclusion of collectively doing nothing and just carrying on.

Maybe I could own beachfront property without moving? Great way to get rid of all those tacky casinos on the coasts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
If you can't endorse that course of action then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Well obviously my Svengali slave-master Al Gore endorses biofuels, why shouldn't I?

Actually my jury is still out on this; again, I'm not aware of any conclusive data, but it's variously debated that huge percentages of cropland would have to be devoted to the production of small percentages of our energy needs in biodiesel and according to many there is still a bit of controversy over whether or not biodiesel production from rapeseed would actually lower greenhouse gas emissions significantly due to the amount of N2O released during the farming process. If either of these assertions are true, this will clearly not be a long term solution.

You maintained that greed was "not the problem" and "gives people options," and I might concede the latter will ultimately prove to be true, but perhaps only at the point of crisis. Right now the chief option for most people seems to be to use up the last remaining decades of fossil fuels at an escalating price in the interest of the richest people on earth milking the last drop of profit, and hope that it's not too late when they finally turn their full interests, resources and attentions to the development and production of radical new technologies.
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-07, 12:12 PM   #108
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Well, it's like I said in an other thread, whether or not we want the big oil companies at the table when we're discussing alternatives to oil, they're gonna be there. They have the capital resources to change things in a big way, we've just gotta convince them that biofuels are in their best interests as well. I think it can be done.

I'm not aware of any conclusive data on the viability of the fuel crop industry either, but I'm very optimistic and even a little excited about the possibilities. It's true that our current sources of biofuel (corn, rapeseed, and palm trees) are currently inadequate to meet even a tenth of our fuel needs, and to expand those sources could mean higher demand for fertile farm land. But there are two recent developments that will hopefully allay those concerns. First is the development of bacteria strains that not only feed on the corn starch to make ethanol, but also the cob, the stalk, and even the leaves. These cultures will be able to turn almost any kind of plant cellulose into fuel, so it makes sense to use hearty plants like switchgrass which grows fast even in nutrient poor soil. This will have the added benefit of keeping corn and sugar beet prices reasonably low.

The other is the use of microalgae to make biodiesel instead of rapeseed or palm oil. It turns out that certain species of algae are very oily with lipids accounting for 50% or more of their mass. Various farming techniques are being tried right now, but the National Renewable Energy Laboratory theorizes that future algae farms will yield up to 10,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre per year, compared with palm oil's 635 gallons and rapeseed's 127 gallons. Like switchgrass, algae grows very fast and it doesn't need to be grown on fertile land because it grows just fine in seawater. Imagine sunny southern California dotted with algae farms fed with water from the Salton sea or the Pacific Ocean, and local fuel prices well below the national average. We'd never hear pisser complaining about gas prices again.

Whether these fuel crops will actually offset GHG emissions, I don't know. I found that study on N2O release due to rapeseed farming interesting, but it's been pointed out that it may have a lot more to do with over fertilization than with the crop itself. Fuel farming practices will mature with time as they have always done. What matters most to me is that all our fuel be produced within our borders for the sake of creating jobs and decreasing our dependence on OPEC.

The basic premise of the AGW theory is that we have been altering our environment for more than a century, so 'carrying on' is not the same as doing nothing. If indeed we do have the ability to engineer our climate then it's incumbent upon us to decide what climate we think is optimal because we can't just assume that the way things were 200 years ago is the way things should be. If you want to know whether we should be doing something to change, well I don't know. It may turn out that the .6°C of warming since the mid 20th century may be partly responsible for the world's booming food supply since then. It may turn out that further warming will have a net negative effect. It's really hard to know when all those non-scientists in the media and the government focus solely on the negative effects.

Your guesses are mostly right. I read the results of a study done a few years ago that conclude that the enhancement of the hydrologic cycle by global warming will in turn increase carbon dioxide uptake when the conditions are right. When the growing season is longer and wetter, and when there is more carbon dioxide in the air, plants thrive. And yes, some regions will experience droughts or floods but it's impossible to say how much usable land will be lost or gained as the earth warms.

I've always maintained that we need to be able to adapt to climate changes no matter what's causing the climate to change. Adaptability is what lets us turn lemons into lemonade. With the proper application of knowledge and foresight there's no excuse for moderate global warming to end up having a net negative effect on us. Solving global poverty plays directly into that theme because wealth begets adaptability. Considering reports that global warming will have the greatest impact on the poorest people, I think that makes the elimination of poverty our first priority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone View Post
Good. Wasn't so painful was it?
Not at all. What is painful is all the socialist crap that has been thrust upon this issue by those who think it will help them curb the spread of capitalism. Politics has taken over so of course I have strong opinions about it. Environmental protection policies should be pursued to benefit public health and to maintain this nation's natural beauty, not to further a left-wing ideology. It has become next to impossible to divorce the science from the politics, to the point that even scientists who raise questions about environmental policy are lumped in with greedy corporations and right-wing extremists. People with ulterior motives have sullied this issue, now it's impossible to delve into it and come out clean.

Last edited by Mazer : 10-05-07 at 12:27 PM.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-07, 12:38 PM   #109
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

5 star post Mazer though I don't know why you bother with Ramona.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramona
Let's review:
• global warming doesn't exist because Al Gore made a movie about it and he owns a big house.
• global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside where I live right now.
• global warming doesn't exist because it's a theory and theories are just ideas and shouldn't be taken seriously.
• global warming doesn't exist because the lack of conclusive evidence for it can be transformed into a conclusive case against it.
• global warming doesn't exist because the lack of conclusive evidence for it can be transformed into soundbytes such as "not supported by science at all" and this makes you sound cutting edge and informed.
• global warming doesn't exist because some scientist's inconclusive theories about it predict preposterous disasters and contradictory effects that could just never happen.
• global warming doesn't exist because some other scientist's inconclusive theories about it suggest that even if it did exist the effects might be mild and regional.
• global warming doesn't exist because it's just a liberal conspiracy to turn us into overtaxed zombie drones and take away our freedom.
• global warming doesn't exist because goddamned liberals are always wrong about everything.
People that eager to lie to pretend they're correct really aren't worth telling the truth to.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-07, 01:05 PM   #110
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
whether or not we want the big oil companies at the table when we're discussing alternatives to oil, they're gonna be there. They have the capital resources to change things in a big way
Yip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
all our fuel be produced within our borders for the sake of creating jobs and decreasing our dependence on OPEC.
Yip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
The basic premise of the AGW theory is that we have been altering our environment for more than a century, so 'carrying on' is not the same as doing nothing.
Point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
I've always maintained that we need to be able to adapt to climate changes no matter what's causing the climate to change.
Given. It's not exclusively the human race and its adaptability that's at issue however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
With the proper application of knowledge and foresight there's no excuse for moderate global warming to end up having a net negative effect on us.
Point, however 'proper foresight' will not be found in the insistence that global warming 'doesn't exist' or is 'no big deal,' which is why I feel so strongly about the misguided indifference--often manifest as quasipolitical opposition--to the premise. I think we're agreed on this too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
Environmental protection policies should be pursued to benefit public health and to maintain this nation's natural beauty, not to further a left-wing ideology.
I'd want to insert this world's in place of this nation's, but I agree wholeheartedly. I love my planet.

The crazy thing is how these concerns got to be seen, in the eyes of so many, as an almost exclusive part of left-wing ideology while seeming to have been almost excised from right-wing ideology, the so called "conservatives." Of course you've partly answered the question and therein lies a whole history of issues in itself.
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-07, 02:10 PM   #111
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed View Post
5 star post Mazer though I don't know why you bother with Ramona.

People that eager to lie to pretend they're correct really aren't worth telling the truth to.
Sez you.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-07, 06:29 PM   #112
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default yip yip yipie-i- a




Haahaahahahahahahaaa...



__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-07, 06:59 AM   #113
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

China has already surpassed the U.S. as the world's biggest CO2 emitter.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...106689,00.html

Quote:
according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in cement production have helped to push China's recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US.
I wonder if all the stupid brainwashed neocommie U.S. hating losers will actually turn against one of their own now.




Meanwhile U.S. Carbon Emissions Fell 1.3% in 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052301510.html

Despite the fact that the U.S. economy grew by 3.3 percent. Apparently Al Gore and John Kerry just can't burn enough jet fuel to foward their agenda.
Attached Images
 
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-07, 12:28 PM   #114
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Live Earth gets Dead Ratings -

NBC's bet that people would want to watch a bunch of filthy rich-resource glutton-celebrities telling the little people to live frugally for the good of the planet left it in last place in viewer ratings for that night. I guess there just weren't as many gullible morons as they figured.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...sec-artsliving
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-07, 07:25 PM   #115
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Well what did he expect? He did this concert to promote awareness of global warming, but every person on the planet has already heard about it. I'll bet everyone who went to those concerts had a blast and Gore must be on cloud 9 right now, but I'll be damned if this "event" did anything to help the environment.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-07, 06:02 PM   #116
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Renewable Energy Wrecks Environment

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724160209.htm

Quote:
Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University explains that building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers, and growing enough biomass to meet global energy demands will wreck the environment.

Hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about 900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall, and storing it behind a 60 meter dam would only generate 80% of the total power output of Canada's 25 nuclear power stations

To obtain the same electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometers of prime Iowa land.

To meet 2005 US electricity demand and assuming round-the-clock wind at the right speed, an area the size of Texas, approximately 780,000 square kilometers, would need to be covered with structures to extract, store, and transport the energy.

A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting black about 150 square kilometers plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1000 MWe nuclear plant.

"Renewables may be renewable but they are not green," asserts Ausubel", If we want to minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy is the best option."
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-07, 10:34 AM   #117
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

A week after Newsweek printed a cover story about climate change deniers and their alleged financial links to big oil, they printed an other story explaining how they were way out of line in doing so. I admire the editors for having the sand to print a dissenting point of view in their own magazine (albeit without the original title, "Newsweek's Global Warming Crusade"), but Newsweek is a microcosm of the way global warming is portrayed throughout the mainstream media: oftentimes honest reporting is less important than cashing in on public fears.

Quote:
Greenhouse Simplicities

Robert Samuelson
August 15, 2007


We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. A recent Newsweek cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as "good guys vs. bad guys" can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story. Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it.

If you missed Newsweek's story, here's the gist. A "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." This "denial machine" has obstructed action against global warming and is still "running at full throttle." The story's thrust: Discredit the "denial machine," and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.

Full article
The one thing undermining the supposed conspiracy by oil companies to spread FUD about global warming is that the mainstream media is far louder, shriller and more influential than any think tank or industry lobbyist ever could be. That a news magazine would go after them with such zeal clearly indicates how much the global warming alarmists want to put an end to the debate. This makes the article's closing all the more pointed: "As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as NEWSWEEK did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society." Amen.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-07, 05:14 PM   #118
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

I am surprised no mention about how NASA had been publishing incorrect climate data for years.. y2k bug lol
or something like that

turns out the 1990's were not the warmest years of last century ,it was sometime in the 1930's
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-07, 06:16 PM   #119
miss_silver
Keebeck Canuck
 
miss_silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Close to a border of LUNATICS
Posts: 1,771
Default

Climate changes, wether it is manmade or not doesn't matter...

What matters is that we do something about it NOW instead of debating if it is natural phenomenon or not for Mother Earth will recover over several thousands of years while HUMANITY might not.

I am not afraid for our planet, she can take care of herself and she takes care of us no less (right now but for how long?) While we might not survive what comes next.

So what ever poo is being flung from both camps, Mother Earth Doesn't care at all, She supports and will not care if our own undoing ultimately dooms us.

As long as there is a buck to me made off her bountyful ressources, Fuck her and fuck off those who will live on this planet after we have passed away, right?


The ME, MYSELF and I culture is truly growing rapidly these days eh?
miss_silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-07, 09:19 PM   #120
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miss_silver View Post
I am not afraid for our planet, she can take care of herself and she takes care of us no less (right now but for how long?) While we might not survive what comes next.
I'm confident that we could survive almost anything, and the longer we exist the better our chances get. Before long we'll venture to other planets and then our fate will no longer be tied to this one alone. We won't go extinct before then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by multi View Post
turns out the 1990's were not the warmest years of last century ,it was sometime in the 1930's
It seems that might be true in Greenland, according to recent studies. However, while certain local temperatures might be lower, the global average temperature is up since the '30s.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)