Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To fund or not to fund - Are some science projects worth pursuing?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 74 (288138)
02-18-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by paisano
02-18-2006 3:01 PM


Re: Fund me!
Or is it the idea of government funding that bothers you?
Reading his post, it's the idea of the public funding research whose results become private property. If research is publically funded, then the public should benefit freely from the results.
As it is right now, though, while the majority of research is publically funded and occurs at public labs and institutions, the majority of the profit from that research winds up in the coffers of some very private corporations. There's far too many instances of the fruits of public research simply being given away to private corporations with little or no recompense to the public that originally funded the project.
I don't know what to do about it, though. Universities are in the business of teaching and research. Application and manufacture isn't really their balliwick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by paisano, posted 02-18-2006 3:01 PM paisano has not replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 17 of 74 (288164)
02-18-2006 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Minnemooseus
02-15-2006 1:47 PM


Re: Government "pork" spending in the name of science
minnemooseus writes:
I think that certain scientific projects, such as the super-collider and the space station, are merely subsets of the area of government "pork" spending.
The smokescreen is that the huge sums of money are being spent because of the collective desire for the pursuit of knowledge. The reality is that the driving forces for the constructions of the above-cited examples are that certain parties can and are making a lot of money doing it. They are technology industry welfare programs.
The space station seems unlikely to gain us much either in knowledge or with resolving difficulties at home. I agree that we shouldn't be spending money on it. Ditto manned space flights (for the record).
I thought that the collider was supposed to help verify a bit of theoretical physics. Are you saying that physics won't be advanced by the building of colliders?
Upthread:
cavediver writes:
The demise of the SSC set us back years in research.
Cavediver disagrees, if that is what you are saying.
Also, how does this:
minnemooseus writes:
I say, spend the money to take care of the planet we live on. There are far more pressing needs for science funding, such as alternative energy sources, other than going cosmos or subatomic.
jive with this:
minnemooseus writes:
... I'm inclined to think that the Hubble space telescope was worth funding and doing, and probably worth further funding for its maintenance and continued use.
I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-15-2006 1:47 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2006 6:07 AM Michael has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 18 of 74 (288256)
02-18-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by paisano
02-18-2006 3:01 PM


Re: Fund me!
Do you expect lawyers and physicians to work for free ?
If lawyers and doctors were given grants from tax dollars that were taken from my paycheck, then I would expect that they would give me free legal and medical advice.
The system as it stands now is tax money goes to pharmacuetical company to help them develope a drug that they then make billions off of.
For the record, I've got the exact same problem with tax money going to buy baseball stadiums!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by paisano, posted 02-18-2006 3:01 PM paisano has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 19 of 74 (288306)
02-19-2006 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Michael
02-18-2006 5:37 PM


Re: Government "pork" spending in the name of science
I thought that the collider was supposed to help verify a bit of theoretical physics. Are you saying that physics won't be advanced by the building of colliders?
I question the bang for the bucks. Spending too much money to get "a bit" of esoteric new data. The main benefactors were the contractors building the thing.
Also, how does this:
minnemooseus writes:
I say, spend the money to take care of the planet we live on. There are far more pressing needs for science funding, such as alternative energy sources, other than going cosmos or subatomic.
jive with this:
minnemooseus writes:
... I'm inclined to think that the Hubble space telescope was worth funding and doing, and probably worth further funding for its maintenance and continued use.
I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.
I'm not totally adverse to NASA getting some funding for rather esoteric research. My impression, and things cosmos are not in my expertise or even interests, is that the Hubble bang for the bucks is favorable. Besides, it's already up there. My guess, and I could be wrong, is that the results to be gained would jusitify the costs of maintaining it.
But it's for the cosmos people to decide - If they have a limited NASA budget, where is it best spent? I say Hubble over space station. What to do to salvage value from the white elephant space station? I don't know.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Michael, posted 02-18-2006 5:37 PM Michael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 02-19-2006 7:42 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 21 by Michael, posted 02-19-2006 11:01 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 74 (288314)
02-19-2006 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Minnemooseus
02-19-2006 6:07 AM


Re: Government "pork" spending in the name of science
The main benefactors were the contractors building the thing.
Having worked in the gov't and specifically in science within the gov't, this issue is certainly a problem but it is not tied directly to any project. I believe the contracting system use by the US gov't must be reevaluated and altered severely.
It is my opinion, though based on seeing massive waste first hand, that the gov't could operate more efficiently and each project run at much smaller cost, by doing away with contractors and instead hiring people directly into an organization which does the research and builds material.
Right now contracting is used to pretend like the gov't isn't as big as it is. You "reduce" an org, but then must fulfill the service using contractors which cost more than having people in house to start with.
is that the results to be gained would jusitify the costs of maintaining it.
Putting the contractor issue aside (and yes the "pork" specifically to aid states, rather than research), I am not sure how the above can be measured on any specific project from the beginning in some objective fashion. What may seem esoteric and gains minimal to you, may actually have vast practical value and produce gains once discoveries are made.
I suppose that is the whole point of exploration in the first place. One cannot be sure if it is lost money, or something that will bring back riches. Some of the safe bets may be totally worthless, and some of the longshots turn out things we could not have foreseen in advance but change the world forever.
If I understood you correctly ou have suggested that studying the earth would be more practical than particle physics, yet the earth is made of particles. Everything is made of particles. Discovering their makeup may deliver insight into processes which allow us to create new materials and technologies. Especially in this case we are dealing with creation and control of matter/antimatter particles, which can help point to where the earth (universe) came from and what might lie in store in the future.
I agree that money is limited and practical concerns are important when selecting where to spend money. I just disagree that prime research is necessarily less practical. It may be a longer shot, but it also usually involves creation of new technology and its potential gains may be more than anything where the practical gains can be fully identified up front.
The space station differed from the SSC, in that it could have been replaced by something else (like a moon base) and achieved the same result. Or if we were going to mainly use robotic exploration of the solar system there was no point in it at all. The same cannot be said for the SSC. To continue in that direction of exploration of the universe we need to get higher tech, higher energy.
I guess this is to say the ISS was not crucial to space exploration, yet the SSC (or something along those lines) is crucial to elementary matter exploration.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2006 6:07 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 21 of 74 (288327)
02-19-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Minnemooseus
02-19-2006 6:07 AM


Hubble, but not SSC?
I thought that the collider was supposed to help verify a bit of theoretical physics. Are you saying that physics won't be advanced by the building of colliders?
I question the bang for the bucks. Spending too much money to get "a bit" of esoteric new data. The main benefactors were the contractors building the thing.
I thought you might jump on that pair of words after I typed them--I'm getting tired of editing myself though.
I can agree that the immediate monetary gain would be made by the contractors. However, the gain in knowledge would be shared by everyone who had an interest. And it seems there were some practical technological advances made as a result of the construction of accelerators in general: http://www.hep.net/ssc/new/history/factsheet.html#tso.
This may sound trite--sorry. Other than taking care of each other and our co-habitants of this planet, I can think of nothing more important than the quest for knowledge with regard to the "origin" and nature of our universe. It is absolutely the greatest mystery facing us. We spend far too much time and energy gazing at our collective navel. I want to know that which is beyond our knowledge at the moment.
Money allocated to such research is better spent than that which goes to the manufacture of more weapons to destroy each other.
Okay, to some degree it seems you would agree with me. I guess I am having trouble figuring out why you like Hubble but wouldn't want to spend money on the SSC. I don't know how one would compare the amount of knowledge gained by one vs. the other, but I think the SSC had the potential for huge gains.
Cheers.
very small correction made--it was bugging the hell out of me
This message has been edited by Michael, 02-19-2006 02:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2006 6:07 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 22 of 74 (288335)
02-19-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
02-13-2006 6:25 AM


From my understanding... which could be wrong... the US is now behind CERN because of our lack of funding. I was in a seminar course on antimatter by a US physicist when someone began asking questions about recent developments at CERN, and the guy totally went green with envy, before trying to downplay their results. And of course one of the problems is that we are not in a position to doublecheck their results, nor produce original results of our own.
Most particle physics experiments are large international collaborations. Extensive participation by US physicists on experiments at CERN, and European physicists on experiments at Fermilab/SLAC, (and Asian physicists at both) are more the rule than the exception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 02-13-2006 6:25 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 02-19-2006 1:41 PM paisano has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 23 of 74 (288356)
02-19-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by paisano
02-19-2006 11:52 AM


Extensive participation by US physicists on experiments at CERN, and European physicists on experiments at Fermilab/SLAC, (and Asian physicists at both) are more the rule than the exception.
Well that's true but not exactly accurate regarding what I was trying to get at. Right now Fermi is incapable of reproducing or testing (fully) results obtained at CERN. Thus whoever is at Fermi and any other US based facility is limited, compared to those with access to CERN.
If for some reason CERN was shut down we could not take over where they left off. I don't think that's a credit to our standing in that field of science.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by paisano, posted 02-19-2006 11:52 AM paisano has not replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 24 of 74 (299930)
03-31-2006 8:31 PM


reconsidering
One of the strengths that many of the sciences possess is that they are in some sense egalitarian. Anyone who has an interest, some minimum aptitude, and the drive to learn can begin with articles written for laymen (ideally by scientists in the field of interest) and gain some understanding of the current state of the science. If the desire is there, a person could go to the primary literature for further understanding of a subject.
However, for certain areas of physics and cosmology, this is not the case.
In message 142 of the topic "The Big Bang is NOT Scientific," Cavediver says to Buzsaw:
I'm not being rude but the truth is you have no clue what the Big Bang is really about. Very very few people do. Many here have good to excellent layman knowledge (I'm sure you included), but that at its best is still so far from any real understanding.
You can have taken GR and Cosmology on a physics degree from Ivy League or Cambridge or where-ever and you will have effectively no clue about the Big Bang, certainly not an inkling of how thermodynamics pertains to the situation. I said before: this is deep stuff.
And in message 153 of the same thread, Cavediver says:
Buzz, please understand what I said before... this is deep. This is beyond high-school/undergraduate/post-graduate studies of thermodynamics. To understand this you first need to understand General Relativity to post-grad/post-doc level.
and
There's stuff there but I'm sad to say you have no hope of understanding it (nor anyone else outside of quantum gravity)
This undermines a couple of statements I made earlier.
In message 21 of this thread I say, with regard to spending public money on research in physics (specifically, the building of the SSC):
... the gain in knowledge would be shared by everyone who had an interest.
and
... I can think of nothing more important than the quest for knowledge with regard to the "origin" and nature of our universe.
Up until now, my fantasy was that I could spend time after retirement (still many years away) studying physics and cosmology in order to gain some inkling of what this universe might be all about. I see now that I have no hope.
My argument has crumbled.
I no longer support public funding of physics or cosmology.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by cavediver, posted 04-01-2006 3:59 AM Michael has replied
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 04-01-2006 10:48 AM Michael has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 25 of 74 (299994)
04-01-2006 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Michael
03-31-2006 8:31 PM


Re: reconsidering
Michael, let me offer some comfort...
Up until now, my fantasy was that I could spend time after retirement (still many years away) studying physics and cosmology in order to gain some inkling of what this universe might be all about. I see now that I have no hope.
Not true at all. You have every hope. In astrophysics/cosmology there is more than enough to keep you going for several lifetimes at a reasonably deep level. You can learn all about our understanding of particle physics and how it is experimented at CERN, FermiLab, DESY, etc. You can read about all that we study and research in fundemental physics and attempt to grasp some of the deep analogies and gain some insight into the really bizarre aspects of our universe.
Buzzsaw is not trying to learn physics and cosmology. He is trying to argue his own explanation of reality as if it has some level of merit compared to the entire world collective of cosmologists/theoretical physicists. He is trying to argue against every physicist why the Big bang somehow does not comply with thermodynamics.
If your intentions follow those of Buzz's, then my comments to Buzz apply equally to you. To say otherwise would be to lie. If there were short-cuts to be able to participate in this field at the research level, do you not think I would have taken them rather than taking 8 years of uni education to get myself prepared? And this is someone who decided that black-holes would be their research interest at age 4...
BUT, if you want to learn, have your eyes opened, be amazed thrilled and completely and utterly baffled by this existence of ours, then you only have to start reading... but please, please, please get some advice from here on which books to read and which books to avoid like the plague
My sincere apologies if I have put you off physics/cosmology in any way. Just as a point, my own science costs several boxes of pencils and a few reams of A4...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Michael, posted 03-31-2006 8:31 PM Michael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Michael, posted 04-01-2006 10:45 AM cavediver has replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 26 of 74 (300036)
04-01-2006 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by cavediver
04-01-2006 3:59 AM


Re: reconsidering
Cavediver, thanks very much for the reply.
It isn't just for the sake of argument that I post this. Some of the things you said in that other topic bothered me quite a lot.
I understand the context of the discussion you are having with Buzsaw. But a couple of your statements seem to support themselves:
... you have no clue what the Big Bang is really about. Very very few people do.
Except for a very very few people, no one has any clue about what the Big Bang is really about.
You can have taken GR and Cosmology on a physics degree from Ivy League or Cambridge or where-ever and you will have effectively no clue about the Big Bang
Graduates with a degree in physics from a highly regarded university improve very slightly from having no clue about the Big Bang to having "effectively no clue."
It is very safe to say that my intentions do not follow those of Buzsaw. My appreciation for physics originates from my studies toward an undergraduate degree in the subject (however, my degree in physics is not from one of the most highly regarded universities). Also, I am not predisposed to the wedging of any ideas regarding a creator into the universe.
If there were short-cuts to be able to participate in this field at the research level, do you not think I would have taken them rather than taking 8 years of uni education to get myself prepared?
Well, it is not my participation in the field at the research level that I desire. What I hope is that anyone who has an honest interest in learning about the cosmos can do so without an advanced degree, and come away from their effort with something much more than "no clue" about what might be going on.
In astrophysics/cosmology there is more than enough to keep you going for several lifetimes at a reasonably deep level. You can learn all about our understanding of particle physics and how it is experimented at CERN, FermiLab, DESY, etc. You can read about all that we study and research in fundemental physics and attempt to grasp some of the deep analogies and gain some insight into the really bizarre aspects of our universe.
This assures me a bit, though not completely--it just doesn't jive well with what you were saying to Buzsaw in the other topic.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by cavediver, posted 04-01-2006 3:59 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 04-01-2006 11:15 AM Michael has not replied
 Message 30 by cavediver, posted 04-01-2006 12:56 PM Michael has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 74 (300037)
04-01-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Michael
03-31-2006 8:31 PM


Re: reconsidering
Heh. Pure mathematics is even worse, Michael. It would take a long time to just begin to expain to my Physics PhD friends what I was working on in graduate school, never mind my friends who just took Calculus in college, or less.
But cavediver's comments were overblown. One thing I have noticed is that certain fields of physics attract people who have, er, a pretty high opinion of themselves compared to others.
I suspect that you can learn as much about particle physics or general relativity as you want. You just have to put some time and effort into it. Especially since there just aren't materials available for the layman to do this; you would have to basically train yourself to read very technical literature on your own.
I do agree, though, that if a significant portion of the public cannot understand the work in any field enough to truly appreciate, then the enterprise becomes essentially maturbatory. Don't get me wrong; as someone who loves pure mathematics, I am glad that the public is willing to pay for it. I just don't understand why they do it.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Michael, posted 03-31-2006 8:31 PM Michael has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by cavediver, posted 04-01-2006 12:33 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 28 of 74 (300046)
04-01-2006 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Michael
04-01-2006 10:45 AM


Re: reconsidering
Except for a very very few people, no one has any clue about what the Big Bang is really about.
You can always take a non-committal attitude toward BB. That's about what I do.
Empirically, the most important part is that red shift is a reasonably well calibrated measuring stick for determining the distance of remote galaxies. Even if some of the theory surrounding BB turns out to be wrong, it will still have value for measuring distance.
Some people go to strip clubs for recreation. Other people listen to rock music. And some people theorize about string theory. I don't see a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Michael, posted 04-01-2006 10:45 AM Michael has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 29 of 74 (300071)
04-01-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Chiroptera
04-01-2006 10:48 AM


Re: reconsidering
It would take a long time to just begin to expain to my Physics PhD friends what I was working on in graduate school, never mind my friends who just took Calculus in college, or less.
Yes, I'm not surprised. So why then:
cavediver's comments were overblown
What proportion of people would you say have anything above "no clue" concerning your research?
And let's say your were studying Donaldson invariants or even just elliptic complexes in algebraic topology... how many final year maths undergraduates would be able to even read your work?
Pure mathematics is even worse
Please understand that I wasn't referring to the cosmological implications of BB, which is physics and much much more tractable. We were discussing BB and thermodynamics which despite sounding as if it is more of the same, is actually skirting the edges of quantum gravity, TOE, and is essentially advanced pure mathematics with a few words thrown in.
I suspect that you can learn as much about particle physics or general relativity as you want. You just have to put some time and effort into it.
Couldn't agree more. This is not about ability (although it certainly has a large part to play). My point was not that a graduate could not understand this stuff... it is that they do not understand it YET because they haven't been taught it. If they wish, they can put in the effort and gain the understanding after the degree (postgrad, further reading, etc)
One thing I have noticed is that certain fields of physics attract people who have, er, a pretty high opinion of themselves compared to others.
No, just lots of confidence And I would describe this field as far more mathematics than physics.
This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-01-2006 12:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 04-01-2006 10:48 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 04-01-2006 1:48 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 30 of 74 (300074)
04-01-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Michael
04-01-2006 10:45 AM


Re: reconsidering
Some of the things you said in that other topic bothered me quite a lot.
Ok, given your position I can understand that. It's probably worth a thread of its own but we can stick here for the moment.
Except for a very very few people, no one has any clue about what the Big Bang is really about.
Yep. Fortunately, a few who do have written reasonably accessible books (The First 3 Minutes - Weinberg, A Brief History of Time - Hawking, Fabric of the Cosmos - Greene, etc) that provide a good level of information. Having digetsed those books, you are in a good position to learn some of the deeper aspects, and to hopefully be able to ask the right questions. But you will be full of analogies. Should you have an argument with something in one of those books, it will be with an analogy and not with the science, although you may not be aware of the fact.
To be honest, you won't find much crossover between the content of those books and a physics degree, unless you are lucky enough to have a very good final year cosmology course.
Graduates with a degree in physics from a highly regarded university improve very slightly from having no clue about the Big Bang to having "effectively no clue."
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up
The biggest shock I received following my degree was realising how I knew close to nothing about the subject in which I was supposedly an expert. This revelation comes from entering the post-grad world. Most graduates never experience it as they leave academia.
Undergrad courses on GR and cosmology will just touch on the rudiments of BB theory, the latter focusing on the post-BB astrophysics (nucleosynthesis, recombination, maybe mentioning inflation and phase transitions) and the former will introduce the cosmological metrics: Friedmann-Roberston-Walker, Lemaitre, etc. All good stuff... but to think that armed with this you are ready to have an argument with a research scientist about e.g. the nature of thermodynamics and the universe, is laughable.
That said, it doesn't take too long to get to that stage, but it does require some rapid specialisation. That is why we have postgrad courses such as Cambridge's "Part III" which provide intense specialisation into your desired area of research.
My Part III notes (a total of just 20 weeks of courses) were double the volume of my notes from my entire degree! At the end of this course I started to feel that I actually knew something, and was ready for real research. And in terms of our example, just starting to get an inkling of some understanding about this thermodynamics issue. As the PhD progressed, the real understanding started to arrive.
Well, it is not my participation in the field at the research level that I desire. What I hope is that anyone who has an honest interest in learning about the cosmos can do so without an advanced degree
Let me reassure you of that hope. Read my recent posts in that same thread (and SGs and Eta's now he's back) as a start and in conjunction with the books mentioned. You never know, you may find your retirement the perfect time to get that PhD... the subject is quite gripping
and come away from their effort with something much more than "no clue" about what might be going on
"no clue" is more an attitude than a level of understanding. As long as you are always looking to know more, you can never have "no clue". The moment you think you have all the answers is the moment you have "no clue"... new graduates are by far the worst example of this!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Michael, posted 04-01-2006 10:45 AM Michael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Michael, posted 04-02-2006 11:00 AM cavediver has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024