Neither my ancestors, nor their horses, ever surrendered to the yankee aggressors. Under our constitution, I am still "free" to think and formulate my own opinions based upon logic, reason, and the facts as presented. I am still unpersuaded by the global climate change alarmists. And I most certainly do "count".
None of the folks you mentioned have more votes than I. We each get a single vote to cast.
I am not even sure that Soros is a US citizen. And most folks, like me, could not give a tinker's damn what the UN thinks about anything. It is nothing more than a global collection of glorified figureheads who do very little, if anything, of real substance that affects our daily lives in any way.
So, I shall carry on. You may call it living in ignorance. I call it living in the real world of enlightenment, not falling for every doomsday fad projection that comes along --- and there have been many throughout our history ---- and many even during my relatively short lifetime. And there will unfortunately be more.
And there are a LOT of folks out here in the world who share my viewpoint. Do we count? A--yup.
Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
What I mean by we dont count is that we are not in a position to influence this issue...The train has left the station and it is just a matter of time before your life- like mine- will be greatly impacted by the human race's response to GW....Heck, even George W Bush has acknowledged the role of human emissions in GW....
Your use of the term "GW alarmists" castigates 1000s of scientists whom know a helluva lot more science than you do, a bunch of government and business leaders whom have access to a lot more data than you do and who get paid and elected to deal with such issues. I dont call that using logic and facts.
Your use of the term "GW alarmists" castigates 1000s of scientists whom know a helluva lot more science than you do, a bunch of government and business leaders whom have access to a lot more data than you do and who get paid and elected to deal with such issues. I dont call that using logic and facts.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
As we are currently seeing in other areas of govt. in MS, big money corrupts.
There is no doubt that many companies and business leaders are positioning themselves to make money from the GW fad. But, such does not make the science correct.
Just go back and look at your posts Hammer throughout this entire thread (that, of course, could take hours
). There are very little facts presented by you in support of your positions. Primarily, what you have done is present to us who has supposedly agreed with the positions you espouse, as if that, alone, makes the underlying scientific propositions true. At one time, I am certain that more people thought that the earth was flat than not. And we see how that turned out.
Right now, the small changes being enacted to supposedly help CO2 emissions and prevent global climate change, are the types of things that we should be doing anyway for other reasons --- basic energy conservation to help reduce our country's oil addiction, basic environmental practices that will help keep our air and water clean, etc. I have no problems with these types of things. I am already a participant in many of these environmentally friendly practices.
So, you aren't seeing much of an outcry from the masses just yet. There does not appear to be a global climate crises, and few object to the relatively painless measures being proposed and adopted to help the environment. Even the alarmist proponents of impending global doomsday do not really appear to actually believe it --- as they are not practicing what they preach (when AL Gore really does move to a small remote cabin, become carbon neutral, and stops his polluting ways, then we will know it is really serious). Right now, we see and hear the alarming cries, but no actions by the proponents consistent with a true belief in what is being said. For instance, if I really thought that the world as we know it was going to end in just 5 more years, I doubt I would be carrying on as normal. So, right now the debate is in the hypothetical, despite the shrill voices warning of this and demanding this and that.
BUT, when we get to the lick log, so to speak, and the measures (or cures) being proposed are dramatic, life changing, economically crippling and deemed unnecessary by most due to a lack of evidence of any actual crises, then you will see the proverbial schit hit the fan and the gig will be up.
Until then, how long can this thread go on?
There is no doubt that many companies and business leaders are positioning themselves to make money from the GW fad. But, such does not make the science correct.
Just go back and look at your posts Hammer throughout this entire thread (that, of course, could take hours
). There are very little facts presented by you in support of your positions. Primarily, what you have done is present to us who has supposedly agreed with the positions you espouse, as if that, alone, makes the underlying scientific propositions true. At one time, I am certain that more people thought that the earth was flat than not. And we see how that turned out.
Right now, the small changes being enacted to supposedly help CO2 emissions and prevent global climate change, are the types of things that we should be doing anyway for other reasons --- basic energy conservation to help reduce our country's oil addiction, basic environmental practices that will help keep our air and water clean, etc. I have no problems with these types of things. I am already a participant in many of these environmentally friendly practices.
So, you aren't seeing much of an outcry from the masses just yet. There does not appear to be a global climate crises, and few object to the relatively painless measures being proposed and adopted to help the environment. Even the alarmist proponents of impending global doomsday do not really appear to actually believe it --- as they are not practicing what they preach (when AL Gore really does move to a small remote cabin, become carbon neutral, and stops his polluting ways, then we will know it is really serious). Right now, we see and hear the alarming cries, but no actions by the proponents consistent with a true belief in what is being said. For instance, if I really thought that the world as we know it was going to end in just 5 more years, I doubt I would be carrying on as normal. So, right now the debate is in the hypothetical, despite the shrill voices warning of this and demanding this and that.
BUT, when we get to the lick log, so to speak, and the measures (or cures) being proposed are dramatic, life changing, economically crippling and deemed unnecessary by most due to a lack of evidence of any actual crises, then you will see the proverbial schit hit the fan and the gig will be up.
Until then, how long can this thread go on?
You can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning.
-
Delta Duck
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: The Delta
- Contact:
Short and Sweet!
In the 70's while I was in grade school it was the coming of the Ice age!
20 years later it's Global warming!!
If you believe We have the ability to change the earth and it's climate short of setting off all the nukes yall are full of $#!+.
The gov't grants and money are with the Global warming!
Give me a check, I'll tell you what you want to hear!
In the 70's while I was in grade school it was the coming of the Ice age!
20 years later it's Global warming!!
If you believe We have the ability to change the earth and it's climate short of setting off all the nukes yall are full of $#!+.
The gov't grants and money are with the Global warming!
Give me a check, I'll tell you what you want to hear!
"Ducks on the Brain"
It's always better with a good dog and good friends, Ducks and no Terrorist!
http://www.DeltaDucks.com
It's always better with a good dog and good friends, Ducks and no Terrorist!
http://www.DeltaDucks.com
You cant be Serious!
Using your logic, DDT, mercury emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, nitrogen oxide emissions and ChFC emissions were environmentalist propaganda, scientific mumbo jumbo. Fact is that many of the same scientists and organizations whom uncovered these problems are deeply involved in climate change research.
You give me specious logic, I give you websites with more scientific fact than you could ever hope to read. Why should I recant this information on this thread when it is a few key strokes away?
Here is the Top 5 list:
http://www.pewtrusts.org
http://www.epa.gov
http://www.doe.gov
http://www.edf.org
http://www.nrdc.org
And there are hundreds more if you are willing to enter climate change in Google and follow them up. But let me keep this real simple for you. Directly from the EPA website....
State of Knowledge
As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty1, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends. Current understanding of many other aspects of climate change ranges from “very likely†to “uncertain.â€
What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
An “unequivocal†warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
What's Very Likely?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.
What's Not Certain?
Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:
Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.
Addressing these and other areas of scientific uncertainty is a major priority of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP is developing twenty-one Synthesis and Assessment products to advance scientific understanding of these uncertainty areas by the end of 2008. More information.
References
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)].
1 Throughout the science section of this Web site, use of "virtual certainty" (or virtually certain) conveys a greater than 99% chance that a result is true. Other terms used to communicate confidence include “extremely likely†(greater than 95% chance the result is true), "very likely" (greater than 90% chance the result is true), "likely" (greater than 66% chance the result is true), “more likely than not†(greater than 50% chance the result is true), “unlikely†(less than 33% chance the result is true), “very unlikely†(less than 10% chance the result is true), and “extremely unlikely†(less than 5% chance the result is true). These judgmental estimates originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007).
You give me specious logic, I give you websites with more scientific fact than you could ever hope to read. Why should I recant this information on this thread when it is a few key strokes away?
Here is the Top 5 list:
http://www.pewtrusts.org
http://www.epa.gov
http://www.doe.gov
http://www.edf.org
http://www.nrdc.org
And there are hundreds more if you are willing to enter climate change in Google and follow them up. But let me keep this real simple for you. Directly from the EPA website....
State of Knowledge
As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty1, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends. Current understanding of many other aspects of climate change ranges from “very likely†to “uncertain.â€
What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
An “unequivocal†warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
What's Very Likely?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.
What's Not Certain?
Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:
Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.
Addressing these and other areas of scientific uncertainty is a major priority of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP is developing twenty-one Synthesis and Assessment products to advance scientific understanding of these uncertainty areas by the end of 2008. More information.
References
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)].
1 Throughout the science section of this Web site, use of "virtual certainty" (or virtually certain) conveys a greater than 99% chance that a result is true. Other terms used to communicate confidence include “extremely likely†(greater than 95% chance the result is true), "very likely" (greater than 90% chance the result is true), "likely" (greater than 66% chance the result is true), “more likely than not†(greater than 50% chance the result is true), “unlikely†(less than 33% chance the result is true), “very unlikely†(less than 10% chance the result is true), and “extremely unlikely†(less than 5% chance the result is true). These judgmental estimates originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007).
You Cant Be Serious! (Part 2)
In other words, scientists are 99%+ certain that global warming is occuring and that human emissions of GHG are causing it, yet you stinking genuises concoct all sorts of conspiracy theories as to why the scientists are wrong, why Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for a hoax, etc...
No wonder waterfowl management is in the shape it is in...Of course, most of you are also oblivious to how bad a shape ducks are in because (A) you havent been around and (B) you are more than willing to rationalize your way into believeing just about anything provided it is consistent with your narrow, biased, self interested view of the world...
You will see more changes in the next 10-20 years in the energy and transportation sectors of our economy than you can possibly imagine...Perhaps then you will remember the words I have written on this thread, although it is likely that many of you will find a way to rationalize your way around ever accepting that you were flat out wrong...
PML as the primary spokesman for the naysayers, I again challenge you to list the address of a single credible, science based website that denies the above statements. You havent answered this bell yet- will you answer it now?
No wonder waterfowl management is in the shape it is in...Of course, most of you are also oblivious to how bad a shape ducks are in because (A) you havent been around and (B) you are more than willing to rationalize your way into believeing just about anything provided it is consistent with your narrow, biased, self interested view of the world...
You will see more changes in the next 10-20 years in the energy and transportation sectors of our economy than you can possibly imagine...Perhaps then you will remember the words I have written on this thread, although it is likely that many of you will find a way to rationalize your way around ever accepting that you were flat out wrong...
PML as the primary spokesman for the naysayers, I again challenge you to list the address of a single credible, science based website that denies the above statements. You havent answered this bell yet- will you answer it now?
-
rjohnson
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 4895
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:28 am
- Location: Brandon, MS
- Contact:
Re: You Cant Be Serious! (Part 2)
In other words, scientists are 99%+ certain that global warming is occuring and that human emissions of GHG are causing it, yet you stinking genuises concoct all sorts of conspiracy theories as to why the scientists are wrong, why Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for a hoax, etc...
Al Gore is a joke. He is a hypocrite as well who doesn't practice what he preaches. I believe Global Warming is a conspiracy theory you stinking genious.
No wonder waterfowl management is in the shape it is in...Of course, most of you are also oblivious to how bad a shape ducks are in because (A) you havent been around and (B) you are more than willing to rationalize your way into believeing just about anything provided it is consistent with your narrow, biased, self interested view of the world...
Pot meet kettle!!! No room for name calling on here you narrow, biased, self-interested thinker you!!!
You will see more changes in the next 10-20 years in the energy and transportation sectors of our economy than you can possibly imagine...Perhaps then you will remember the words I have written on this thread, although it is likely that many of you will find a way to rationalize your way around ever accepting that you were flat out wrong...
Print this whole effin' thread out, laminate it, and put in up in your closet. In 20 years take it out, read it, and realize just how many of us "narrow minded" people were right.
PML as the primary spokesman for the naysayers, I again challenge you to list the address of a single credible, science based website that denies the above statements. You havent answered this bell yet- will you answer it now?
Everything he has posted as well as myself and others has been from proven scientific communities. What you still can't realize is that the same set of data on climate change can be interpreted 400 different ways and manipulated to say whatever the people with the deepest pockets want you to hear.
Now would you please tell us who you work for??? I bet it's some company or agency that will monetarily benefit from this big hoax. You can quit lobbying because no one on here believes as far as I can tell. Take your "self-interested" propaganda somewhere else please.
http://www.lithicIT.com My biz
(A) I have no financial stake in anything GW or CG related other than positioning my stock portfolio to profit from companies that are ahead of the curve on this issue....
(B) The fact that so few MS DUCKS users agree with me is exactly the point- yall dont accept science of climate change and you dont accept the science of waterfowl management exactly as Sportsman 450- my late friend Big Mike Lyell- predicted before his death....Because you dont accept the science of waterfowl management, you are 100% responsible for the impending doom of waterfowl hunting as my granddaddy, my father and I have known it...
(C) The real essence of this thread is that the science of climate change and the science of waterfowl management are intertwined and yet you clowns are oblivous to both...
(D) You are so ignorant about how things work that you dont realize the extent to which industry controls ALL regulatory agencies in this country...Your suggestion that "the big money" is creating the climate change debate so it can profit from it is the height of ignorance that I have encountered in my life, with the possible exception of prejudice against a person based on their race or gender.
How you could possibly suggest that the EPA has concocted this hoax so the big money can profit from it is truly amazing. Waterfowling is in far worse shape than I had ever feared because of the anti science bias of so many of its participants but then again, somebody is supporting spinners and 60/6 with 2 hens or they wouldnt be happening. And why? Because the big money IS controlling duck hunting yet you cant differentiate between that situation and the GW situation. Amazing.
Memo to you genuises: Climate change is happening and one of the main consequences will be droughts. Who do you think is gonna get the water? Humans or ducks? No water means no ducks. Dont take my word for it, go to http://www.madduck.org to read Dr. Shultse's post about this. But I guess you will suggest he is part of the big money conspiracy that wants hunters to shoot less ducks and conserve more habitat. Just like I work for some company or agency that has a stake in GW.
You make me sick just like Big Mike told me you would. I think the points I wanted to make have been made and I have delivered on my promise to Big Mike. Take your anti-science biases and stick them up your collective arses. I am through with you.
(B) The fact that so few MS DUCKS users agree with me is exactly the point- yall dont accept science of climate change and you dont accept the science of waterfowl management exactly as Sportsman 450- my late friend Big Mike Lyell- predicted before his death....Because you dont accept the science of waterfowl management, you are 100% responsible for the impending doom of waterfowl hunting as my granddaddy, my father and I have known it...
(C) The real essence of this thread is that the science of climate change and the science of waterfowl management are intertwined and yet you clowns are oblivous to both...
(D) You are so ignorant about how things work that you dont realize the extent to which industry controls ALL regulatory agencies in this country...Your suggestion that "the big money" is creating the climate change debate so it can profit from it is the height of ignorance that I have encountered in my life, with the possible exception of prejudice against a person based on their race or gender.
How you could possibly suggest that the EPA has concocted this hoax so the big money can profit from it is truly amazing. Waterfowling is in far worse shape than I had ever feared because of the anti science bias of so many of its participants but then again, somebody is supporting spinners and 60/6 with 2 hens or they wouldnt be happening. And why? Because the big money IS controlling duck hunting yet you cant differentiate between that situation and the GW situation. Amazing.
Memo to you genuises: Climate change is happening and one of the main consequences will be droughts. Who do you think is gonna get the water? Humans or ducks? No water means no ducks. Dont take my word for it, go to http://www.madduck.org to read Dr. Shultse's post about this. But I guess you will suggest he is part of the big money conspiracy that wants hunters to shoot less ducks and conserve more habitat. Just like I work for some company or agency that has a stake in GW.
You make me sick just like Big Mike told me you would. I think the points I wanted to make have been made and I have delivered on my promise to Big Mike. Take your anti-science biases and stick them up your collective arses. I am through with you.
-
rjohnson
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 4895
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:28 am
- Location: Brandon, MS
- Contact:
blah blah blah blah blah is all I hear now that you've resorted to name calling and such. While I like your passion about the subject you're posts are becoming childish. Calling people ignorant because they don't believe you is just plain ignorant. Most of us don't believe you. However most of us do believe we are polluting the planet and need to change our ways. But GW I still don't believe is being caused by us. We just don't have the historical data from thousands of years ago to back it up. Our small subset of current data all says warming trend but we don't know how long these trends usually occur.
http://www.lithicIT.com My biz
-
bigbeeducker
- Veteran
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:16 pm
- Location: Starkville
Dude, I aint said nothing about this sheet yet because I have half a college education and know better. This is ridiculuos.
Hammer you seen the interview of the guy who owns, and happened to develop the Weather Channel, the guy basically says that the whole GW crap is bullsheet without any real science behind it.
Of course, anyone with a fake chemistry set can manipulate an experiment to read however the hell they want it too.
What I want to know is how can you say that Global Warming is something that WE as a society have created and by your own admission relatively recently. Why in the hell, if you look back at the average highs and lows for the last 50 freakin years; NONE of those temps are from NOW. Im sure Al Gore knows the answer. Maybe he can find it on the Internet.
Hammer you seen the interview of the guy who owns, and happened to develop the Weather Channel, the guy basically says that the whole GW crap is bullsheet without any real science behind it.
Of course, anyone with a fake chemistry set can manipulate an experiment to read however the hell they want it too.
What I want to know is how can you say that Global Warming is something that WE as a society have created and by your own admission relatively recently. Why in the hell, if you look back at the average highs and lows for the last 50 freakin years; NONE of those temps are from NOW. Im sure Al Gore knows the answer. Maybe he can find it on the Internet.
"We did every possible sexual position without intercourse imaginable. Doggie style was kinda difficult though. Just wasnt worth the trip to the store for rubbers, just for three minutes." Jim Brister, the craziest sumbitch alive.
-
bigbeeducker
- Veteran
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:16 pm
- Location: Starkville
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/ ... 7772.shtml
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s ... -report-it
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s ... -report-it
Last edited by bigbeeducker on Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We did every possible sexual position without intercourse imaginable. Doggie style was kinda difficult though. Just wasnt worth the trip to the store for rubbers, just for three minutes." Jim Brister, the craziest sumbitch alive.
-
duckkiller
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 8273
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:35 pm
- Location: Sylacauga Alabama via Louisville MISSISSIPPI
bigbeeducker wrote:Dude, I aint said nothing about this sheet yet because I have half a college education and know better. This is ridiculuos.
Hammer you seen the interview of the guy who owns, and happened to develop the Weather Channel, the guy basically says that the whole GW crap is bullsheet without any real science behind it.
Of course, anyone with a fake chemistry set can manipulate an experiment to read however the hell they want it too.
What I want to know is how can you say that Global Warming is something that WE as a society have created and by your own admission relatively recently. Why in the hell, if you look back at the average highs and lows for the last 50 freakin years; NONE of those temps are from NOW. Im sure Al Gore knows the answer. Maybe he can find it on the Internet.
only half way through..... damn boy what you been doing everyday???
If it wasn't for bad luck then i would have no luck at all........
"Its hard to be cool when your battery is dead." Anatidae at the boat ramp with a dead battery.
IN MEMORY OF #10
SCOTT LlOYD
1/8/92-4/5/08
"Its hard to be cool when your battery is dead." Anatidae at the boat ramp with a dead battery.
IN MEMORY OF #10
SCOTT LlOYD
1/8/92-4/5/08
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 22 guests