Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Climate Sceptics 1 Climate Alarmists 0

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    71,216
    Thanks
    27,350
    Thanked 18,259 Times in 14,472 Posts
    Groans
    17,581
    Groaned 3,509 Times in 3,333 Posts
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default Climate Sceptics 1 Climate Alarmists 0

    Peter Ridd was sacked from his professorship at John Cook University. He has been very robust in stating the Great Barrier Reef is not dying and reports of such are just the usual climate hysteria so prevalent these days. Good luck to him and I hope they sack the bastards that tried to silence him.


    At the heart of this court case is the matter of Peter Ridd disputing media’s reporting of the health of the Great Barrier Reef back in 2015 and 2016. Specifically, Peter Ridd was first censured for proposing to a journalist in April 2016 that he investigate the state of the fringing reefs around Stone Island, which is part of the Great Barrier Reef.

    Instead of investigating, the journalist sent Dr Ridd’s evidence that the reefs were in good health with spectacular coral, to his arch adversary at the university, Terry Hughes, who was claiming the exact opposite, and who promptly forwarded the evidence from Dr Ridd to university management. This began a disciplinary procedure that would eventually result in Peter Ridd’s sacking.

    The trial opened on Tuesday with Mr Wood QC outlining Dr Ridd’s honestly held expert opinion that the Great Barrier Reef is in good health, but that many of his colleagues, particularly Professor Hughes, suggest otherwise, that their research is “untrustworthy” and is not subject to any “quality assurance”.

    The Judge seemed genuinely interested in this issue of “quality assurance” of the research. Towards the end of Day 2 he specifically requested that Mr Murdoch QC explain to the court what quality assurance procedures were in place.

    I had assumed that Mr Murdoch QC, the Barrister acting for the University, would thus begin Day 3 with some explanation of this – but he didn’t. The University continued to refuse to engage on any matters of science, particularly the issue of quality assurance. Rather the University simply argued that because there is a code of conduct that expects professors to be collegial – they thus had a right to sack Peter Ridd because he had become disrespectful of his colleagues and also had broken confidentiality.

    At the beginning of Day 2 Peter Ridd clearly explained that he was concerned about the trustworthiness of the science, and the lack of quality assurance because it was having a significant negative economic impact on rural and regional economies – because of the bad publicity for tourism and increasing government regulation of farming.

    It is generally agreed that modern, cohesive democracies work because there is an independent judiciary (legal system), impartial media, and a government that makes public-policy based on evidence. The judiciary and the media are generally educated university-graduates.

    Universities are expected to be dominated by intellectuals, who are curious and dispassionately seek out the truth. Mr Wood QC, acting for Dr Ridd, emphasized the importance of intellectual freedom in his closing remarks today – that it is integral to a university.

    Universities are expected to be places where there is vigorous discussion of contentious issues. It would be expected that where there is disagreement – for example about the condition of the fringing coral reefs at Stone Island – there could be a debate that followed rules of logic and considers evidence in an attempt to arrive at the truth.

    This requires both sides to engage.

    Back in 2016, and again today, instead of considering Dr Ridd’s evidence and concerns, the University choose to look away. It showed no interest in finding out about the real state of the corals surrounding Stone Island, or at the Great Barrier Reef in general.

    There is a crisis in our democracy and as clearly illustrated by this court case, it is at least in part because the mainstream media and our universities too often refuse to engage in any real discussion with those who hold an opinion contradicting their own.
    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/03...uck-in-denial/
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Havana Moon For This Post:

    Bigdog (04-17-2019), Truth Detector (04-17-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    71,216
    Thanks
    27,350
    Thanked 18,259 Times in 14,472 Posts
    Groans
    17,581
    Groaned 3,509 Times in 3,333 Posts
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    A damn sight more than a bunch of useless biologists doing experiments in fish tanks!!

    What Would a Physicist Know About The Great Barrier Reef?

    THE Australian Broadcasting Corporation – the most significant source of news and current affairs for Australia – is not reporting on Peter Ridd’s trial in the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane. A key point made by Dr Ridd this morning is that there is absolutely no quality assurance of Great Barrier Reef research – research that they report on almost daily.

    Changes in temperature, acidity, and also turbidity (muddiness) are consequences of physical processes. Yet the media mostly interview biologists who assume changes, without actually measuring them and then set about establishing effects in fish tanks.

    Ocean acidification, for example, is an area of research where, in less than 20 years, the number of published papers has increased from zero to 800 each year. Sometimes the biologists have even added hydrochloric acid to artificially reduce the pH of the water in their fish tanks to mimic what their computer simulation models have determined must surely be our dystopian future. The media headlines then incorrectly report the result as the current situation at The Great Barrier Reef – this makes for more and more fake news.

    Meanwhile, physicist Peter Ridd has been studying and measuring actual changes at the Great Barrier Reef for more than 35 years – contributing to a deeper understanding of many of the most important physical processes.

    For example, if we are to measure the impact of sugarcane farming then we need to know how much muddier reef waters are now, relative to before European settlement.

    In the wake of the very high-profile launch of the WWF Save the Reef Campaign back in June 2001, there was a flurry of newspaper articles. They reported that sediment was literally smothering the corals of the Great Barrier Reef. Yet there was no evidence for this beyond some fake photographs that were exposed yesterday in the Federal Court by Peter Ridd’s Barrister, Stuart Wood QC. You can see these photographs in my last blog post.

    Over the years many biologists have been claiming that muddiness (caused by excess sediments) is a problem, and yet no one from the Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University has been interviewed about this. At this laboratory there are physicists studying ocean tides, currents, waves and their effect on the concentration and distribution of the sediments, which are supposedly causing the problem.

    Peter Ridd joined the laboratory in 1989, as one of the first four post-doctoral fellows employed there. He is the only one to survive several decades as an academic at James Cook University, being promoted to Professor in 2008 and becoming the Head of Physics in the same year.

    Professor Ridd began his career undertaking detailed measurements of turbidity with different instruments. He was interested in how to measure the advection of sediment (mud) and its resuspension by wave generated shear stresses. This requires an understanding of Newton’s laws of motion and wave theory. So obsessed was he with the accuracy of these measurements that he invented new equipment so that more accurate measurements of turbidity (muddiness) could be recorded under the variety of different natural conditions – considering the vastness of the reef.

    Once Peter Ridd had mastered this, he moved on to understand in more detail how sediments potentially carry pollutants, including fertilizers and pesticides, from farmland into reef waters. He was most interested in how these pollutants could potentially be mixed through turbulent diffusion and dilution, which are also complex physical processes.

    He has also studied temperatures: heat fluxes from the sun, infrared radiation from the surface (Stefan Boltzmann Law), evaporative fluxes and latent, vertical mixing of hot water into the water column by waves (another physical mechanism). These processes are now well documented including in some of his over 110 scientific publications.

    It is now understood how pH (acidity) varies on a daily, seasonal and inter-annual basis, including with large fluctuations in temperature that is common across bodies of water, and also with water depth. Yet the experiments in fish tanks, which some biologists persist with, fail to incorporate this variability into their design, or the interpretation of results.

    The Great Barrier Reef is a vast and complex ecosystem. It is the case that the considerable daily variations in temperatures, pH and turbidity from natural processes still dwarf any measurable human impact. While there are trends of increasing water temperature and pH at some locations, it is unclear to what extent these longer-term trends are part of existing natural cycles.

    Peter Ridd’s life’s work has been focused on understanding real physical processes in extreme detail. In all of this, his interest has been on understanding the potential impacts of human activity on biological processes.

    One of his most recent peer-reviewed publication is entirely about a biological phenomenon: coral calcification rates. He measured coral extension and density and determined that corals like it hot!

    It is a fact that most species of coral that live on the Great Barrier Reef also live in much warmer waters, closer to the Equator around Indonesia and Thailand. Coral growth rates are closely linked to temperature, and both appear to have increased ever so slightly at the Great Barrier Reef over the last 100 years. This is good news – unreported. The increase in growth rates may all be part of a natural cycle, or there may be an anthropogenic (human-cause) effect linked to global warming.

    Peter Ridd has been keen to find a human-impact in the many and varied research projects that he has been involved with, many including biologists. If he had found a negative impact, he would no doubt still have a job doing what he is best at – teaching, and scientific research. But science is currently funded and reported in such a way that inconvenient facts are ignored while Dr Ridd who has persisted with the truth – explaining that The Great Barrier Reef is healthy and reef research has no proper quality controls – finds himself in a law court and fighting for his job back.

    https://jennifermarohasy.com/jenns-blog/
    Last edited by Havana Moon; 04-17-2019 at 03:20 AM.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Havana Moon For This Post:

    Bigdog (04-17-2019), Truth Detector (04-17-2019)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    71,216
    Thanks
    27,350
    Thanked 18,259 Times in 14,472 Posts
    Groans
    17,581
    Groaned 3,509 Times in 3,333 Posts
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    . I

    Lazy media and inept scientists have been banging on relentlessly about the Great Barrier Reef dying, but it's all bullshit. I hope Peter Ridd gets a fuckton of compensation from those scumbags at John Cook University.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Havana Moon For This Post:

    Truth Detector (04-17-2019)

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    53,719
    Thanks
    62,205
    Thanked 10,124 Times in 8,767 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,823 Times in 2,565 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    It is kind of scary how far the dogma of man caused global warming has been beat into our thinking. The cost is becoming untenable.
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Truth Detector For This Post:

    Bigdog (04-18-2019), Havana Moon (04-18-2019)

  9. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    13,073
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 6,119 Times in 3,871 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 664 Times in 625 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Peter Ridd was sacked from his professorship at John Cook University. He has been very robust in stating the Great Barrier Reef is not dying and reports of such are just the usual climate hysteria so prevalent these days. Good luck to him and I hope they sack the bastards that tried to silence him.

    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/03...uck-in-denial/
    Ridd wasn't let go because of his views, but rather due to contractual problems, it wasn't the contest you implied in your "Climate Sceptics 1 Climate Alarmists 0"


    "Peter Ridd was dismissed by James Cook University (JCU) last year after being issued with a number of warnings for comments he made about a lead coral researcher and for telling Sky TV that organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) could "no longer be trusted"
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-...gment/11021554

    “Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement"

    "The judgement noted Ridd had been in trouble with university management for contacting a News Corp journalist and making media appearances on Sky News after dark claiming he had breached a code of conduct."

    “Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ruled-unlawful

    And your second comment/post again is attempting to establish the false paradigm you have been shown a number of times to be totally erroneous

    (time for the personal insults and "I am going to ignore you" comments, anything but a rebutal)

  10. The Following User Groans At archives For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (04-18-2019)

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    Micawber (04-18-2019)

  12. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    71,216
    Thanks
    27,350
    Thanked 18,259 Times in 14,472 Posts
    Groans
    17,581
    Groaned 3,509 Times in 3,333 Posts
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    It is kind of scary how far the dogma of man caused global warming has been beat into our thinking. The cost is becoming untenable.
    It's a form of collective insanity in my opinion.
    Last edited by Havana Moon; 04-18-2019 at 12:38 AM.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Havana Moon For This Post:

    Bigdog (04-18-2019)

  14. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    71,216
    Thanks
    27,350
    Thanked 18,259 Times in 14,472 Posts
    Groans
    17,581
    Groaned 3,509 Times in 3,333 Posts
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Ridd wasn't let go because of his views, but rather due to contractual problems, it wasn't the contest you implied in your "Climate Sceptics 1 Climate Alarmists 0"


    "Peter Ridd was dismissed by James Cook University (JCU) last year after being issued with a number of warnings for comments he made about a lead coral researcher and for telling Sky TV that organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) could "no longer be trusted"
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-...gment/11021554

    “Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement"

    "The judgement noted Ridd had been in trouble with university management for contacting a News Corp journalist and making media appearances on Sky News after dark claiming he had breached a code of conduct."

    “Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ruled-unlawful

    And your second comment/post again is attempting to establish the false paradigm you have been shown a number of times to be totally erroneous

    (time for the personal insults and "I am going to ignore you" comments, anything but a rebutal)
    Arsecheese, you can believe that bollocks if you wish. The Guardian is the absolute worst of the climate alarmists, total nutjobs. Whilst ABC were so disinterested, they couldn't even be bothered to send someone to the trial. Fuck them and fuck you.
    Last edited by Havana Moon; 04-18-2019 at 12:32 AM.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  15. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    71,216
    Thanks
    27,350
    Thanked 18,259 Times in 14,472 Posts
    Groans
    17,581
    Groaned 3,509 Times in 3,333 Posts
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Peter Ridd writes of this unbelievable example of arrogance and hubris from James Cook University on his GoFundMe page:

    Dear All,

    There has been a flurry of media activity on the case but the main news is that it looks as though the Vice Chancellor (VC) is digging in. She and the Provost Prof Chris Cocklin released an extraordinary statement saying the Judge was wrong on all 17 findings against JCU (see link below). In my opinion, she had not read Judge Vasta’s judgement and clearly does not comprehend what has just happened.

    But this means that unless the JCU council (the governing body) deals with the VC, an appeal is likely. In my media statements I have repeatedly stated that the JCU council will be complicit in this mess if they do not deal with the VC and Provost. Due to the huge media response in Australia, the council will have heard this loud and clear.

    JCU has near infinite resources from the taxpayer and the VC will not pay a cent when she ultimately loses. It matters not to JCU if they appeal on weak grounds, and the VC may well have retired from the university in the time it could take, perhaps 5 years, if it goes all the way to the high court.

    An appeal will cost the best part of a million dollars – much more if it goes to the high court. But I reckon that if we are forced, we can raise the funds. I am very confident that we can win any appeal, although we would want to look closely at whatever mischief they come up with.

    The fact is that we have the upper hand – we won the first round 17-nil. The university is bleeding reputation due to its own mistakes, and there is growing anger especially in North Queensland. If they think they can intimidate us with an appeal, they should think again.

    Kind regards

    Peter

    https://tinyurl.com/yyhemwqy
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  16. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    71,216
    Thanks
    27,350
    Thanked 18,259 Times in 14,472 Posts
    Groans
    17,581
    Groaned 3,509 Times in 3,333 Posts
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Ridd wasn't let go because of his views, but rather due to contractual problems, it wasn't the contest you implied in your "Climate Sceptics 1 Climate Alarmists 0"


    "Peter Ridd was dismissed by James Cook University (JCU) last year after being issued with a number of warnings for comments he made about a lead coral researcher and for telling Sky TV that organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) could "no longer be trusted"
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-...gment/11021554

    “Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement"

    "The judgement noted Ridd had been in trouble with university management for contacting a News Corp journalist and making media appearances on Sky News after dark claiming he had breached a code of conduct."

    “Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ruled-unlawful

    And your second comment/post again is attempting to establish the false paradigm you have been shown a number of times to be totally erroneous

    (time for the personal insults and "I am going to ignore you" comments, anything but a rebutal)
    The judge in the court thought otherwise, so who am I going to believe Arsecheese or her?
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  17. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    10,954
    Thanks
    8,367
    Thanked 4,554 Times in 3,322 Posts
    Groans
    257
    Groaned 236 Times in 221 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    It's a form of collective insanity in my opinion.
    And while Al Gorians piss and moan ...

    "Thousands of crown-of-thorns starfish are understood to be eating their way through coral in a major outbreak at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef, as authorities consider how to tackle the problem."

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-...tbreak/9305580
    I condemn the National Socialist German Workers Party, the Socialist Democrat Hate Whitey Party,... and Socialist Workers party heroes, Mao, Chavez, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro and Kim Jung Un.

    Liberal Racist code: Orange is the New White

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Bigdog For This Post:

    Havana Moon (04-18-2019)

  19. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    13,854
    Thanks
    1,843
    Thanked 6,084 Times in 4,180 Posts
    Groans
    85
    Groaned 824 Times in 768 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Ridd wasn't let go because of his views, but rather due to contractual problems, it wasn't the contest you implied in your "Climate Sceptics 1 Climate Alarmists 0"


    "Peter Ridd was dismissed by James Cook University (JCU) last year after being issued with a number of warnings for comments he made about a lead coral researcher and for telling Sky TV that organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) could "no longer be trusted"
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-...gment/11021554

    “Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement"

    "The judgement noted Ridd had been in trouble with university management for contacting a News Corp journalist and making media appearances on Sky News after dark claiming he had breached a code of conduct."

    “Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ruled-unlawful

    And your second comment/post again is attempting to establish the false paradigm you have been shown a number of times to be totally erroneous

    (time for the personal insults and "I am going to ignore you" comments, anything but a rebutal)
    That Cabana Poon cannot differentiate between science and popping off about whatever the fuck cockamamie opinions one might have is thoroughly unsurprising.

  20. The Following User Groans At Micawber For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (04-18-2019)

  21. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    15,638
    Thanks
    2,206
    Thanked 2,433 Times in 1,978 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,780 Times in 1,737 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I'm tempted to join in at this point and make a fool of maggot and his fringe denial claims- but he's doing a good job without me.
    Prosemitism is racist.

  22. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    71,216
    Thanks
    27,350
    Thanked 18,259 Times in 14,472 Posts
    Groans
    17,581
    Groaned 3,509 Times in 3,333 Posts
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    That Cabana Poon cannot differentiate between science and popping off about whatever the fuck cockamamie opinions one might have is thoroughly unsurprising.
    Yeh and I remember you mouthing off about the GBR dying, I told you it was bullshit then and it is even more so now. You're a clown and an uneducated one at that, so kindly go forth and multiply!!
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

Similar Threads

  1. How to convince Climate Sceptics That Climate Change is a Real Problem
    By Havana Moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-15-2018, 08:39 AM
  2. How to convince Climate Sceptics That Climate Change is a Real Problem
    By Havana Moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-15-2018, 06:19 AM
  3. The climate sceptics are right. Don't scapegoat them.
    By Havana Moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-18-2016, 12:02 PM
  4. LOL at climate alarmists
    By Big Money in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2013, 06:03 AM
  5. APP - Good news for climate alarmists
    By tinfoil in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-29-2012, 06:34 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •