Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 70 (9013 total)
58 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, Tangle (5 members, 53 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,086 Year: 13,834/23,288 Month: 26/326 Week: 46/92 Day: 9/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
Theodoric
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(2)
Message 4216 of 5795 (870130)
01-12-2020 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4211 by ringo
01-12-2020 1:18 PM


Re: Climate Issues - The 5 corrupt pillars of climate denial
Or the people that have them and are making 10%+ on the investment. Like me.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4211 by ringo, posted 01-12-2020 1:18 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4217 of 5795 (870131)
01-12-2020 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4185 by PaulK
01-11-2020 5:21 AM


Re: Climate Issues
How would you propose to deal with the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?

The same way I'd have proposed to deal with the problem of slavery in 1860. Let whoever wants to volunteer to deal with it in their own lives do it, and let new technology gradually phase it out. Electricity, nuclear, and possibly wind and solar will be more economically feasible in 50 more years than fossil fuels, as fossil fuels get more scarce.

Gasoline engines, new machinery technology, and civilized increased public pressure would have had slavery dropping state by state until 1900, when it would have been completely gone, and 600,000 men and a million horses and mules would have still been alive. If climate change fanatics don't slow their arrogance down, it's going to happen again.

How would you get agreement from China or India - or the rest of the world? How will you take account of the fact that the longer it is left the worse things will get? It is all very well to say that things should be done differently but proposing a different course of action that would actually be better is far from easy.

More urgent to have a course of action on getting increasing, unsustainable debt under control.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4185 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2020 5:21 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4219 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2020 5:10 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4218 of 5795 (870132)
01-12-2020 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4187 by JonF
01-11-2020 9:04 AM


Re: LIBERAL FASCISM IS HERE: IGNORANT FAKE NEWS
Why is it so many creationists and RWNJs have no concept of "some?

Because we have no concept of a power-hungry government magically stopping at only taking "some" liberty and money.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4187 by JonF, posted 01-11-2020 9:04 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4230 by JonF, posted 01-12-2020 6:56 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16637
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 4219 of 5795 (870133)
01-12-2020 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4217 by marc9000
01-12-2020 4:50 PM


Re: Climate Issues
quote:
The same way I'd have proposed to deal with the problem of slavery in 1860. Let whoever wants to volunteer to deal with it in their own lives do it, and let new technology gradually phase it out. Electricity, nuclear, and possibly wind and solar will be more economically feasible in 50 more years than fossil fuels, as fossil fuels get more scarce.

In other words you don’t care about the outcome - you just don’t want anything to inconvenience you. If it means that too little is done, too late then you don’t care.

quote:
Gasoline engines, new machinery technology, and civilized increased public pressure would have had slavery dropping state by state until 1900, when it would have been completely gone, and 600,000 men and a million horses and mules would have still been alive. If climate change fanatics don't slow their arrogance down, it's going to happen again.

The civil war started because the slave states wouldn’t let go of slavery. Not because of a crusade to eliminate it.

quote:
More urgent to have a course of action on getting increasing, unsustainable debt under control.

Then I guess you had better vote Democrat. The Republican policy has been to increase the debt. As Trump has done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4217 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 4:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4220 of 5795 (870134)
01-12-2020 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4188 by RAZD
01-11-2020 10:58 AM


Re: LIBERAL FASCISM IS FAKE: IGNORANT FAKE NEWS
No, not a socialist country, but a country with some socialist policies, because most countries -- especially democratic ones -- find that using government resources to accomplish some tasks is of benefit to all their citizens

"Some" yes, not constantly increasing.

Decided democratically.

Yes, in different ways in different territories, so that they can be compared with each other, and the best way can be decided by those who are still deciding, or are considering changing something. It's not the same as FEDERAL decisions.

Indeed we can, and the evidence shows that GOP run state economies fail while Dem run state economies prosper. This of course includes GOP fake trickle-down give tax to the rich policies as in Brownback's failed Kansas state economy:

California, Illinois, and New York (state) are three of the biggest population losers in recent decades.

The Results Are In: Conservative States Prosper, While Liberal States Decline

The US Military budget is the largest hunk of federal funding in the economy.

Interstate highways are run by the Federal Highway Administration.

Those are both among the very few things authorized by the Constitution as being the responsibility of the Federal government.

quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's nice, but it's not specific about anything. Here's something that's specific;

quote:
10th Amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not very well followed today, but the Federal governments powers are actually supposed to be limited to only those things spelled out in the Constitution. The states, or the people, are supposed to take it from there. The only real way to consult the people is by ISSUE VOTES, something that is seldom done today. We're pacified into thinking that it's okay for Congress to determine what people want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4188 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 10:58 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4236 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 2:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4221 of 5795 (870135)
01-12-2020 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4189 by NosyNed
01-11-2020 11:10 AM


Re: Two Questions
I asked: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

And my answer, yes. Now I would ask you to answer one loaded question from me since I answered yours. That question is; Is the U.S. $22 trillion in debt?

That you would get in a knot about that change shows that you don’t get the basic issue at all.

That would depend on what the definition is of the "basic issue". If the basic issue is creating fear, scaring the public into giving up significant liberty and money, it's much easier when instances of warmth, cold, wind, storms, fires, and whatever else they can dream up is used, as compared to using only -warmth-, as a fear factor.

Well, obviously we are all in this together so we all need to. Settling who does is a big issue to be discussed. It’s not what I was asking about though. Is CO 2 a greenhouse gas?

I know, it's a big secret. I'm the one that's been asking about it, and I get no answers. Why can't it be discussed now? Why do we have to wait until the next Democrat president declares a national emergency, and be surprised who gets slammed first?

You’re not discussing actions at all. You’re just suggesting hypocrisy. Of course, there is hypocrisy everywhere. That has nothing to do with the question either though. You need to focus a bit.

I'd like to discuss actions, it's the climate change alarmists who are demanding actions, I'm not. I'd expect them to lay them out, not try to hide them unless of course, they're afraid to lay them out because of political backlash. I'm not talking about vague, political honey, I'm talking about nuts-and-bolts action, like federal emissions tests for cars, tests for heavy trucks, tests for off-road farm and construction equipment, tests for small engines, on and on. Mandated scrapping of useful, privately owned equipment. Closing energy plants, driving energy costs up.

So, it appears, you do think that poring toxins into the air is a bad thing. However, you seem to hope that technology will fix it all. Well, I’m a hypocrite who still burns gas in his car. A year from now that won’t be true since there is much better technology and that’s what I will use.

Are you okay with the government seizing your car? Will you use the new technology even if you can't afford it? Borrow money to get it?

Also: Since this part is on the toxins question; do you agree that removing individual liberties to burn gas anyway they wanted in their cars in California decades ago was a good decision?

Since California has it's current financial mess, is losing population, and has a serious homeless problem, no.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4189 by NosyNed, posted 01-11-2020 11:10 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4223 by Theodoric, posted 01-12-2020 5:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 4224 by Theodoric, posted 01-12-2020 5:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 4225 by Theodoric, posted 01-12-2020 5:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 4229 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2020 6:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4222 of 5795 (870136)
01-12-2020 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4190 by RAZD
01-11-2020 11:41 AM


Re: LIBERAL is not a derogatory term, no matter how hard you try ...
marc9000 writes:

The 19th Amendment passed when both houses of congress had Republican majorities.

With bi-partisan support and with republicans that wouldn't pass muster as republicans today -- back when it was okay for republicans to be liberal and open minded.

The guy in the picture you posted in Message 4127 was referring to today's Democrats. It was a lie.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4190 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 11:41 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4234 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 12:43 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 4223 of 5795 (870137)
01-12-2020 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4221 by marc9000
01-12-2020 5:39 PM


Re: Two Questions
California financial mess? Please do tell.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4221 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 5:39 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 4224 of 5795 (870138)
01-12-2020 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4221 by marc9000
01-12-2020 5:39 PM


Re: Two Questions
actually I think it was a triple post

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4221 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 5:39 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 4225 of 5795 (870139)
01-12-2020 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4221 by marc9000
01-12-2020 5:39 PM


Re: Two Questions
Double post.

Percy, happened when I was posting from my phone. Since there is lag on cell connection I hit post twice.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4221 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 5:39 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4294 by Admin, posted 01-16-2020 8:35 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4226 of 5795 (870140)
01-12-2020 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4191 by RAZD
01-11-2020 12:05 PM


Re: Lame claims
This kind of thinking means that we are not a capitalist country either, because "capitalism" isn't mentioned in the Declaration, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the pledge of allegiance. SHOCKING!!! Who knew???

Capitalism is the ONLY THING that goes along with liberty and limited government, that is the basis of U.S. foundings.

marc9000 writes:

But if you don't want to learn anything and just want to "destroy", then do your usual and look up some NY Times or Washington Post columns by young college boy liberals, and parrot them here.

Why do that when I can look up facts and look at what is actually involved?

THAT MESSAGE WASN'T DIRECTED AT YOU. It was to Theodoric, who asked me what I was referring to in my mention of "the text of the Constitution and intent of the framers", so that he could destroy me. I showed him, with a link, and he sputtered with rage, called me names, claimed to be referring to later amendments, the Constitution as of 2020, and destroyed me. He didn't need your help!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4191 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 12:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4237 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 3:04 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 4245 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2020 10:02 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4227 of 5795 (870141)
01-12-2020 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 4192 by RAZD
01-11-2020 12:21 PM


Re: Climate Issues
Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago,

What was causing that?? Too many model T's?

The Paris Accord was about all countries coming together to address the issues, including who will "foot the bill" and it is appropriate that those that are the worst offenders will pay more.

With no consideration to the countries who have benefitted greatly from U.S. technology and innovation, without paying anything for it?

How do you dispose of nuclear waste? If you don't look at the full cycle including all the waste streams of a process you are not being honest.

There is more to be done in that regard, but France and Sweden seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. Working on it and researching it seems like it could be a lot less painful than destroying lives and businesses in the U.S.

It's a scientific fact that some types of climate change happen that aren't in any was associated with human activity, and that they are inconsequential compared to the anthropomorphic causes of climate change.

So the climate never has changed much since the beginning of time up until about 100 years ago, when humans started burning fossil fuels?

Fear mongering again.

Climate change alarmists accusing others of fear mongering. You cannot make this stuff up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4192 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 12:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4238 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 3:18 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4228 of 5795 (870142)
01-12-2020 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 4196 by RAZD
01-11-2020 6:10 PM


Re: Climate Issues - The 5 corrupt pillars of climate denial
Just to add to the argument …

I can do that!

quote:
Ordinary people like me don't understand climate science, but we can spot cheating a mile away. Without the assistance of a complicit Western media in burying multiple indisputable cases of outright scientific fraud, man-made global warming theory would have been blown out of the water years ago.

One of the most brazen instances of inexcusable scientific misconduct is documented by photographic evidence gathered during a three-month investigation by a veteran meteorologist. As reported by Dr. David Evans, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) placed hundreds of official global warming thermometers in locations entirely unsuitable for gathering natural temperatures:
● Adjacent to hot engines of parked vehicles
● On asphalt-covered roofs
● Near hot exhaust vents of air conditioning units
● On heat-retaining airport tarmacs and paved parking lots
● Next to heat-retaining rock formations and brick buildings
Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so every artificial upward nudge creates a deceptive picture of actual temperatures. To avoid artificially elevated readings, NOAA's own official site location standards require that thermometers be placed at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface, and in a level, open area with natural ground cover. Those standards were clearly subverted, and every voter should demand to know why.

No supporter of man-made global warming theory who sees the photographs in the PDF linked to above – all of which have been downplayed, or outright ignored, by the complicit Western media – can fail to ascertain that the theory they support is being kept on life support by scientific fraud.

2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public
As reported in Forbes, the following unguarded statement was made by one of the climate crisis industry's loudest drum-beaters, the late Dr. Steven Schneider, lead author of numerous alarming U.N. climate reports and former professor of climatology at Stanford:

We need broad-based support to capture the public's imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

In other words, one of the climate crisis lobby's most loyal sycophants told his like-minded colleagues that they not only must conceal evidence that casts doubt on global warming theory, but also craft their research in dishonest ways designed to create terror in the minds of a trusting public. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that dishonesty and concealment of contrarian views have no place in legitimate science.

3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions
As reported by Fox News, a 2015 report published in the journal Nature Climate Change compared 117 computer model projections during the 1990s with the amount of actual warming that occurred. Of the 117, only three were roughly accurate, while 114 over-estimated the recorded warming. (The lopsided results suggest that those doing the modeling may have been guilty of using an unscientific technique known as garbage in, garbage out.) On average, the computer models predicted twice as much warming as that which actually occurred.

The wildly inaccurate predictions reported by Nature Climate Change were not alone. In a terrifying May 11, 1982 prediction trumpeted in the Western media, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) decreed that an environmental "tipping point" was closing in: "Earth faces environmental disaster as final as nuclear war by the end of this century unless governments act now." That bone-chilling assessment was seconded seven years later, in July 1989, by another senior U.N. climate official, Noel Brown, who warned: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by 2000." When that tipping point came and went 19 years ago, others were concocted, including one by NASA scientist Dr. James Hanson, who declared in January 2009, "President Obama has just four years to save Earth." As one frantic tipping point after another falls by the wayside, a new one is invented, each of which is breathlessly reported by the complicit Western media.

4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history
In serving as willing propagandists for the climate crisis industry, Western media portray every severe weather event as the "worst ever," which they are now doing regarding the drought in the Southwestern U.S. and the flooding caused by Hurricane Florence. What the alarmists try to hide from voters at all costs are inconvenient parts of Earth's climate history, such as these:

● Ancient mega-droughts were infinitely worse than anything people living in modern times have seen. Example: Around the year 850 AD, a mega-drought in what is now the Desert Southwest lasted a staggering 240 years, and that catastrophic climate event was preceded a half-century earlier by another mega-drought that lasted 180 years. Absent that kind of information, it's no wonder so many otherwise intelligent Americans have been conned into believing that the current drought is the "worst ever."

● The Great Hurricane of 1780 killed 20,000 people in the Caribbean. On Sept. 8, 1900, a Cat-4 hurricane obliterated the island of Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 10,000 residents. In 1927, weeks of heavy rains along the Mississippi River caused flooding that covered 27,000 square miles, leaving entire towns and surrounding farmland submerged up to a depth of 30 feet and displacing 640,000 people, from Louisiana to Illinois. The Yangtze River flood of 1931, one of the deadliest single events in human history, was responsible for a death toll estimated at 3.7 million.
Hurricane Florence and the flooding it caused were unquestionably devastating. But the worst ever? You decide.

You won't hear a peep about past ecological disasters in the debate over global warming. The climate crisis industry conceals inconvenient parts of Earth's climate history that undermine its "worst ever" claims.

Bottom line: Listed above are four reasons – I have many more – why I will bet my life that "climate change" is a flat-out hoax.


https://www.americanthinker.com/...ge_is_a_flatout_hoax.html

Need more?, there is plenty more.

“Climate Change” Is A Hoax

Climate Change Hoax Exposed - Cal Thomas

The Great Global Warming Hoax - "Knowledge is power". Better-management.org has invaluable information for better decisions. | "Knowledge is power". Better-management.org has invaluable information for better decisions.

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax | The Freedom Pub

Didn't get this from a google search, google is run by liberals, so much is covered up. I got the above from a yahoo search, there's plenty more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4196 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2020 6:10 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4239 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 4:00 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 4240 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2020 4:18 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8951
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4229 of 5795 (870143)
01-12-2020 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4221 by marc9000
01-12-2020 5:39 PM


Actions
Is the U.S. $22 trillion in debt?

As I understand it, yes it is. Worse than that, the current administration has elected to run the debt up at an even higher rate than it was being run up.

If the basic issue is creating fear, scaring the public into giving up significant liberty and money, it's much easier when instances of warmth, cold, wind, storms, fires, and whatever else they can dream up is used, as compared to using only -warmth-, as a fear factor.

You say "warmth". At some level of CO2 in the atmosphere it is no longer "warmth" it is catastrophe. It is pretty clear now that Florida is a gonner. The whole state. Gone! The is the simple, sure consequence of continuing to add CO2. The timing is still far from sure but it has already started.

I know, it's a big secret. I'm the one that's been asking about it, and I get no answers. Why can't it be discussed now? Why do we have to wait until the next Democrat president declares a national emergency, and be surprised who gets slammed first?

There are answers suggested all over the place. Why aren't you reading about them. As I noted one answer is to rush the conversion to electric cars. I will stretch my budget to do that as my part.
The governments of the world can do their part by, for one thing, stopping trillions is subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

I'd like to discuss actions, it's the climate change alarmists who are demanding actions, I'm not. I'd expect them to lay them out, not try to hide them unless of course, they're afraid to lay them out because of political backlash. I'm not talking about vague, political honey, I'm talking about nuts-and-bolts action, like federal emissions tests for cars, tests for heavy trucks, tests for off-road farm and construction equipment, tests for small engines, on and on. Mandated scrapping of useful, privately owned equipment. Closing energy plants, driving energy costs up.

The first emissions tests for cars came in because the air was becoming more and more poisonous. Are you saying you want those rules removed? As we've learned more we see more is needed.

Are you okay with the government seizing your car? Will you use the new technology even if you can't afford it? Borrow money to get it?

If I am poisoning my neighbors then yes, cars that are the worst offenders have to go. That has been true here for some decades now and cars are taken off the road if they are too dirty. Though the rules are not, yet, taking CO2 into account. I will either use cleaner technology or, if I can't afford it then I can't drive. It would be immoral to do otherwise and, as I said, I am aware that I am immoral every time I start the engine.

Since California has it's current financial mess, is losing population, and has a serious homeless problem, no.

What, exactly, does any of that have to do with the air being cleaner in LA than it was decades ago? It can't be that you are advocating poisoning people over money. No one would do that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4221 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 5:39 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4252 by jar, posted 01-14-2020 12:33 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 4230 of 5795 (870144)
01-12-2020 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4218 by marc9000
01-12-2020 4:53 PM


Re: LIBERAL FASCISM IS HERE: IGNORANT FAKE NEWS
So, totally disconnected from reality.

Your reply had no connection to my message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4218 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 4:53 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4231 by Theodoric, posted 01-12-2020 8:26 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020