31
   

Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

 
 
Caroline
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 12:14 pm
@Fido,
We can still live in the past with dead people? What does that mean?
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 12:15 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
we can still live in the past with the dead people...
What does that mean?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 12:20 pm
@CarbonSystem,
CarbonSystem wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

jgweed wrote:

But are we not in a similar position to "Pascal's Wager" in that we know that our influence upon the ecological system is growing apace, and that while we are currently unsure about its consequences, we cannot take the chance that at some point in time, our actions can become the cause of very serious consequences to the world in which we live?

Even if we cannot be absolutely certain that human activity poses such a dire threat, isn't it reasonable to err on the side of caution?


Well, that of course depends on a cost/benefit analysis. What kinds of measures have to be taken, and how draconian will they be, measured against the probability (whatever it is) of our not taking draconian measures, but more moderate measures? It is not reasonable to err on the side of caution if erring on the side of caution means the loss of many jobs and an economic depression, as well as a reversion to our standard of living 75 years ago or so. That would be most unreasonable. Particularly, if the greatest polluters, China and India, are exempted from those measures and allowed to go their own merry way and benefit, while it is the United States that assumes the cost. I would hardly consider that reasonable. I would consider that insane.


excuse me, but aren't we in the midst of an economic depression caused by BIG OIL, BIG BANKS, COROPORATIONS RUN RAMPANT? Monsters in suits who no doubt hold the same view on the environment as you.

Yes, they would put it down to a cost/benefit scenario.

Who gives a **** about the money when you will die?

Man will take the earth for granted until there is no air left to breath.
This is not an exaggeration, seeing as all the nukes in the US arsenal and abroad could easily put hte world into this state.


But you are just assuming not only the correctness of environmental hysteria, but that it is either dying or else destroying the economy of the United States, the industrial countries, and making a wholesale transfer of wealth to China and India who don't seem to be as hysterical as you are. Don't you think there might be a compromise, or are you a religious fanatic about the environment. "Repent or die!" But that's religion. It isn't science or economics. Get a grip.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 12:30 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
Illogically put.


How so? I would like to know then I can avoid future mistakes.

Sorry POM. I now see you meant someone else. I forgot you have me on Ignore.
0 Replies
 
bmcreider
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 01:13 pm
@kennethamy,
We have several problems confronting us, all related to the environment.

Now what moral judgment you want to attach to those is up to you, but, I think what was said earlier about overpopulation is really the elephant in the room (in your view).

I don't see what stake you have in your opinion, other than trying to evade guilt or be contrarian.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 01:37 pm
@bmcreider,
bmcreider wrote:

We have several problems confronting us, all related to the environment.

Now what moral judgment you want to attach to those is up to you, but, I think what was said earlier about overpopulation is really the elephant in the room (in your view).

I don't see what stake you have in your opinion, other than trying to evade guilt or be contrarian.


Eh, what opinion is that? I would rather that the United States and (for that matter, the world) go through a depression that will never end if we do as extreme environmentalists want us to do. If you mean that opinion then I do have a stake in it. And so do you. I happen to like having electricity, heat, and light, as well as having a computer. How about you?
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 02:14 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
...but at its core the answer is that most people are focused on their personal short term needs over the general long term needs of the population.

Yea, this is just kind of how humans are. We've been doing this forever and I see no reason for it to ever stop. How or when it will end; I can't say. I'm at the point where the whole environmental damage issue is just depressing. Its like, no one cares...
jgweed wrote:
Even if we cannot be absolutely certain that human activity poses such a dire threat, isn't it reasonable to err on the side of caution?

Nice - probably the best use of The Wager I've seen.

kennethamy wrote:
Well, that of course depends on a cost/benefit analysis. What kinds of measures have to be taken, and how draconian will they be, measured against the probability (whatever it is) of our not taking draconian measures, but more moderate measures? It is not reasonable to err on the side of caution if erring on the side of caution means the loss of many jobs and an economic depression, as well as a reversion to our standard of living 75 years ago or so....

Good point, and I think its precisely because of the costs (and pains) associated that we've not done much - as a species - to lower our consumption footprint. But they're not getting any cheaper, and whether the damage is now slight or heavy, as resources become more rare (and costs become higher and more countries industrialize), it'll never be as easy as it is right now (barring massive, breakthrough technologies). I wonder when will it be time to take that bitter pill, or if we'll even know it when time comes.

farmerman wrote:
The US used to be the greatest pollutor until the growing awareness of pollution and its consequences was monetized. Regs and awareness helped together. Now we have a thriving pollution control industry that can make sewage effluent into water cl eaner than the source that produced it .
China and India must learn the same lesson. There is a growing awareness in both countries of the health and economic consequences of pollution, so the governments aill have to cave and join the flow .

Yea, and when one considers how much lower the U.S. population is, and how much damage it DID do through these phases, I can only imagine what effect China/India growth will have if they go through all we have... wow!

kennethamy wrote:
But you are just assuming not only the correctness of environmental hysteria, but that it is either dying or else destroying the economy of the United States, the industrial countries, and making a wholesale transfer of wealth to China and India who don't seem to be as hysterical as you are.

You talked about the Hysteria, and I'm not sure others got a really good point in there; That the more something is hyped or painted as immediate "OMG the world'z blowing up!" the less credible it'll be viewed. So whether we feel it to be immediate and urgent, we do this cause injustice by not painting it in a reasonable, low-keyed fashion. I believe some adherents and media outlets have taken up the environmental story and hyped it SO much (like always seems to be the case) that its backfiring. In any case..

Environmental problems are very high on my concern list, and they have been for a long, long time. I've been enjoying, for a long time, a LOT of documentaries (daily) for about the last 10 years (since I can't seem to tolerate any other kind of TV entertainment any more) and I can say with confidence that we are damaging our atmosphere, oceans, other species and other natural resources regularly and on a massive scale. Whether there's enough time to turn back Global Warming or any other problem, I can't say. I do know this: Human nature is such that any plea of doom and gloom will be met with large and concerted, "Nah, you're just blowing smoke"-response.

I find the whole issue depressing. But what it might take to fix our environmental problems I find to be generally contrary to human nature. So whether sooner or later, this train of waste, depletion and just *isn't* going to stop - not voluntarily anyway.

Thanks all
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 02:25 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

CarbonSystem wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

jgweed wrote:

But are we not in a similar position to "Pascal's Wager" in that we know that our influence upon the ecological system is growing apace, and that while we are currently unsure about its consequences, we cannot take the chance that at some point in time, our actions can become the cause of very serious consequences to the world in which we live?

Even if we cannot be absolutely certain that human activity poses such a dire threat, isn't it reasonable to err on the side of caution?


Well, that of course depends on a cost/benefit analysis. What kinds of measures have to be taken, and how draconian will they be, measured against the probability (whatever it is) of our not taking draconian measures, but more moderate measures? It is not reasonable to err on the side of caution if erring on the side of caution means the loss of many jobs and an economic depression, as well as a reversion to our standard of living 75 years ago or so. That would be most unreasonable. Particularly, if the greatest polluters, China and India, are exempted from those measures and allowed to go their own merry way and benefit, while it is the United States that assumes the cost. I would hardly consider that reasonable. I would consider that insane.


excuse me, but aren't we in the midst of an economic depression caused by BIG OIL, BIG BANKS, COROPORATIONS RUN RAMPANT? Monsters in suits who no doubt hold the same view on the environment as you.

Yes, they would put it down to a cost/benefit scenario.

Who gives a **** about the money when you will die?

Man will take the earth for granted until there is no air left to breath.
This is not an exaggeration, seeing as all the nukes in the US arsenal and abroad could easily put hte world into this state.


But you are just assuming not only the correctness of environmental hysteria, but that it is either dying or else destroying the economy of the United States, the industrial countries, and making a wholesale transfer of wealth to China and India who don't seem to be as hysterical as you are. Don't you think there might be a compromise, or are you a religious fanatic about the environment. "Repent or die!" But that's religion. It isn't science or economics. Get a grip.


Ok first let me clarify.
A. I'm not hysterical.
B. I'm not a religious fanatic.
C. You seem to lump any example that speaks of the global environmental problems into the overall 'tree-hugging moron' category that you allude to.
You don't think it's possible that some claims and evidences are in fact true, while the media takes it and runs and hypes other non-problems?

Compromise? I guess that depends on the benefits of the compromise doesn't it?

Yes you can attribute the US economic problem in part to ecological murder as I would call it. The richest assholes in the land are the ones who are responsible for gushing oil in the gulf and blowing the tops off of mountains for coal.

Fossil fuels are an old, old technology. Humans have evolved past the need for them. Our intelligence and technology for certain could do without these issues.

Except, certain people, like you, are afraid to admit any fault. Or even more afraid of changing your lifestyle for the better.

Please describe to me your idea of a healthy and an unhealthy planet.

Our views on this will pretty much put the pudding in the cookie jar as one might say.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 02:26 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
...but at its core the answer is that most people are focused on their personal short term needs over the general long term needs of the population.

Yea, this is just kind of how humans are. We've been doing this forever and I see no reason for it to ever stop. How or when it will end; I can't say. I'm at the point where the whole environmental damage issue is just depressing. Its like, no one cares...
jgweed wrote:
Even if we cannot be absolutely certain that human activity poses such a dire threat, isn't it reasonable to err on the side of caution?

Nice - probably the best use of The Wager I've seen.

kennethamy wrote:
Well, that of course depends on a cost/benefit analysis. What kinds of measures have to be taken, and how draconian will they be, measured against the probability (whatever it is) of our not taking draconian measures, but more moderate measures? It is not reasonable to err on the side of caution if erring on the side of caution means the loss of many jobs and an economic depression, as well as a reversion to our standard of living 75 years ago or so....

Good point, and I think its precisely because of the costs (and pains) associated that we've not done much - as a species - to lower our consumption footprint. But they're not getting any cheaper, and whether the damage is now slight or heavy, as resources become more rare (and costs become higher and more countries industrialize), it'll never be as easy as it is right now (barring massive, breakthrough technologies). I wonder when will it be time to take that bitter pill, or if we'll even know it when time comes.

farmerman wrote:
The US used to be the greatest pollutor until the growing awareness of pollution and its consequences was monetized. Regs and awareness helped together. Now we have a thriving pollution control industry that can make sewage effluent into water cl eaner than the source that produced it .
China and India must learn the same lesson. There is a growing awareness in both countries of the health and economic consequences of pollution, so the governments aill have to cave and join the flow .

Yea, and when one considers how much lower the U.S. population is, and how much damage it DID do through these phases, I can only imagine what effect China/India growth will have if they go through all we have... wow!

kennethamy wrote:
But you are just assuming not only the correctness of environmental hysteria, but that it is either dying or else destroying the economy of the United States, the industrial countries, and making a wholesale transfer of wealth to China and India who don't seem to be as hysterical as you are.

You talked about the Hysteria, and I'm not sure others got a really good point in there; That the more something is hyped or painted as immediate "OMG the world'z blowing up!" the less credible it'll be viewed. So whether we feel it to be immediate and urgent, we do this cause injustice by not painting it in a reasonable, low-keyed fashion. I believe some adherents and media outlets have taken up the environmental story and hyped it SO much (like always seems to be the case) that its backfiring. In any case..

Environmental problems are very high on my concern list, and they have been for a long, long time. I've been enjoying, for a long time, a LOT of documentaries (daily) for about the last 10 years (since I can't seem to tolerate any other kind of TV entertainment any more) and I can say with confidence that we are damaging our atmosphere, oceans, other species and other natural resources regularly and on a massive scale. Whether there's enough time to turn back Global Warming or any other problem, I can't say. I do know this: Human nature is such that any plea of doom and gloom will be met with large and concerted, "Nah, you're just blowing smoke"-response.

I find the whole issue depressing. But what it might take to fix our environmental problems I find to be generally contrary to human nature. So whether sooner or later, this train of waste, depletion and just *isn't* going to stop - not voluntarily anyway.

Thanks all


But is is true that either we take these draconian measures which may make us return to the horse and buggy (and the environmental consequences of all that horse poop in the streets) or the death of the planet will result. Are we faced with those two extremes? Maybe that is what Algore and his followers think, but then, they are idiots.

And besides, what about my question: if India and China (and Brazil) are exempted from taking any steps on the ground that they have to catch up first, then what is the point of our doing anything so draconian, since it will do no good anyway, except to transfer our wealth to India and China, so that when we all die, they will be rich and we will be poor? I don't get it. Do you?
Zetherin
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 03:17 pm
This planet has been through dozens of cataclysmic events in the past that were a lot worse than anything we've done. Past ice ages have literally deformed the Earth's crust and mantle, dropped sea levels hundreds of meters, and have had tremendous effects on plants and wildlife. Hundreds of meteor impacts have occurred, leaving giant craters and destroying habitats. Worldwide fires of all sorts have laid waste to trees and other lifeforms. Not to mention the powerful pre-historic earthquakes and gargantuan volcanoes that have caused a great number of environmental problems. And the list goes on and on.

Why we think now after a little over 100 years of heavy industry we're destroying the planet, is beyond me.
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 03:25 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
But is is true that either we take these draconian measures which may make us return to the horse and buggy (and the environmental consequences of all that horse poop in the streets) or the death of the planet will result. Are we faced with those two extremes? Maybe that is what Algore and his followers think, but then, they are idiots.

No I don't think we're faced with a choice of only those two extremes. There's a wide latitude in which to respond. We like, though, to respond proportionately to the immediacy of the threat; and if we can't agree on just how urgent it is then given the way people in mobs tend to think, they end up only seeing one or the other.

I am curious Kenn; To what draconian measures are you referring? I've seen quite a bit of ideas tossed about.

kennethamy wrote:
And besides, what about my question: if India and China (and Brazil) are exempted from taking any steps on the ground that they have to catch up first, then what is the point of our doing anything so draconian, since it will do no good anyway, except to transfer our wealth to India and China, so that when we all die, they will be rich and we will be poor? I don't get it. Do you?

No, I don't see the reason in that either. Unfortunately, human beings can't unite enough to make a concerted effort that makes much sense at all. Piecemeal here, half-ass there and in other places still: no response at all.

In my perfect world, we'd have as our priorities being a Human before being <insert nationality here>. But petty squabbles born of competitiveness "Us -vs- Them" bar us from responding in-kind to these issues. Hysteria jumps one way, then swings back another.

Smaller footprint of destruction per person or less people. And we're blind to what urgency with which to respond to one and loathe to take that other road. Its funny... of all I see and learn about the environment - particularly of the awesome and precious species of life we have on this planet - I keep having this one thought come to mind: Gosh, I hope they take lots of pictures while they can. Hysteria? Not from me - Concern? You bet

Thanks
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 03:26 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
Why we think now after a little over 100 years of heavy industry we're destroying the planet, is beyond me.

Yea, she'll press on - one way or another. What form that environment may take as a result of what humanity does - and what's lost along the way - is what concerns me.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 03:35 pm
@Khethil,
That shouldn't concern you. The environment is a self-correcting system, and the planet will be here long after we're gone, with the cataclysmic events still continuing.

The only thing environmentalists should be concerned with is what environment humans will have to live in. If this heavy industry is making it so that it will be troublesome for humans to live here any longer, then that can certainly be a concern. But we're definitely nowhere near DESTROYING the planet. We may be on the verge of making it a tad less habitable for lifeforms, but even that's debatable, and as noted, there are dozens of events that have done far worse to lifeforms.
0 Replies
 
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 04:12 pm
We are destroying are planet? You are mistaken.

I do not think you truly respect the forces that brought this earth into being. Seismic forces of energy that the human mind cannot begin to comprehend. Global warming will not destroy our planet. Pollution will not destroy our planet. Nuclear warfare will not destroy our planet. If you detonated every single explosive humanity has ever created simultaneously, you would not destroy Earth. All human life would end, if not instantly by the end of the decade, and yet you would barely even scratch the surface of our planet.

What arrogance to think that we could destroy something as magnificently great and complex as Earth, and do so with nothing more than byproducts of our day to day living.

0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 04:41 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
But is is true that either we take these draconian measures which may make us return to the horse and buggy (and the environmental consequences of all that horse poop in the streets) or the death of the planet will result. Are we faced with those two extremes? Maybe that is what Algore and his followers think, but then, they are idiots.

No I don't think we're faced with a choice of only those two extremes. There's a wide latitude in which to respond. We like, though, to respond proportionately to the immediacy of the threat; and if we can't agree on just how urgent it is then given the way people in mobs tend to think, they end up only seeing one or the other.

I am curious Kenn; To what draconian measures are you referring? I've seen quite a bit of ideas tossed about.

kennethamy wrote:
And besides, what about my question: if India and China (and Brazil) are exempted from taking any steps on the ground that they have to catch up first, then what is the point of our doing anything so draconian, since it will do no good anyway, except to transfer our wealth to India and China, so that when we all die, they will be rich and we will be poor? I don't get it. Do you?

No, I don't see the reason in that either. Unfortunately, human beings can't unite enough to make a concerted effort that makes much sense at all. Piecemeal here, half-ass there and in other places still: no response at all.

In my perfect world, we'd have as our priorities being a Human before being <insert nationality here>. But petty squabbles born of competitiveness "Us -vs- Them" bar us from responding in-kind to these issues. Hysteria jumps one way, then swings back another.

Smaller footprint of destruction per person or less people. And we're blind to what urgency with which to respond to one and loathe to take that other road. Its funny... of all I see and learn about the environment - particularly of the awesome and precious species of life we have on this planet - I keep having this one thought come to mind: Gosh, I hope they take lots of pictures while they can. Hysteria? Not from me - Concern? You bet

Thanks


One of the draconian measures I have in mind is cutting industry, and cutting the use of automobiles so that fossil fuel emissions are cut drastically. I have seen the figure of 30% bandied about. Just to start with. That would lead to a massive loss of jobs, and a loss in living standards. By the way we already see this happening if Obama's suspension of drilling in the Gulf is permitted by the courts. Fortunately the suspension has been struck down by one court, and an appeal by Obama has been rejected by a higher court. About 40,000 jobs together with the indirect effect the loss of those jobs would cause to the region's economy would be the consequence (on top of the economic recession already being suffered in the region.

If the environmentalists were really serious about reducing carbon emissions they would be fully supporting the building of nuclear plants to supplant older power sources. But perversely, the environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power too! It is like Catholics who oppose abortion and also oppose the only effective measure for reducing the incidence of abortion, namely, effective birth control. That is why environmentalists remind me so much of religious zealots. (They simply have impulses, but no thoughts).

0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 06:04 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
Yeah I know, sigh. But we should be looking at the long term effects, that's the smart thing to do.

For the people that have already attained an acceptable level of security for themselves and their family, the smart thing to do is to find ways to help others achieve the same level of personal security and productivity.

The people who are focused on "saving the planet" are the people who have already secured safety for themselves, so the logical path to saving the planet is to get more and more people into the same situation.

A focus on cleaning up the planet will come naturally once people are freed from the immediate concerns of short term survival.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 06:53 pm
Khethil wrote:
Smaller footprint of destruction per person or less people. And we're blind to what urgency with which to respond to one and loathe to take that other road. Its funny... of all I see and learn about the environment - particularly of the awesome and precious species of life we have on this planet - I keep having this one thought come to mind: Gosh, I hope they take lots of pictures while they can. Hysteria? Not from me - Concern? You bet

It is strange that people don't consider that hundreds of thousands of species have gone extinct over the course of this planet's 4.5 billion year existence, the vast majority well before our species even existed. In fact well over 95% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct.Do people really believe we played a role in even a marginal number of these extinctions? That's hilarious.

Let's put this in perspective: Life has been on this earth for somewhere between 3-3.5 billion years. Our species has been around for a little over 200,000 years according to what evidence we have, and we've only been dominating the ecosystems for maybe the last 3,000. How much impact do these people really think we've made? The vast majority of species die regardless of our actions, as they have for millennium. It's nature. Nature, and species non-human, have, and still, play a greater role in extinctions, even though these nutcases like to dramatize our effect.

That said, there is evidence that we are now, within the last 100 years, playing a larger role in extinctions - and hence all these endangered specie organizations. But it's certainly nothing that alarming, and, in fact, most of it is to be expected.

rosbourne979 wrote:
A focus on cleaning up the planet will come naturally once people are freed from the immediate concerns of short term survival.

Yes, let us tell the starving children of the world to free their concerns of short-term survival. That'll clean up this planet in no time.


kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 09:59 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

Khethil wrote:
Smaller footprint of destruction per person or less people. And we're blind to what urgency with which to respond to one and loathe to take that other road. Its funny... of all I see and learn about the environment - particularly of the awesome and precious species of life we have on this planet - I keep having this one thought come to mind: Gosh, I hope they take lots of pictures while they can. Hysteria? Not from me - Concern? You bet

It is strange that people don't consider that hundreds of thousands of species have gone extinct over the course of this planet's 4.5 billion year existence, the vast majority well before our species even existed. In fact well over 95% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct.Do people really believe we played a role in even a marginal number of these extinctions? That's hilarious.

Let's put this in perspective: Life has been on this earth for somewhere between 3-3.5 billion years. Our species has been around for a little over 200,000 years according to what evidence we have, and we've only been dominating the ecosystems for maybe the last 3,000. How much impact do these people really think we've made? The vast majority of species die regardless of our actions, as they have for millennium. It's nature. Nature, and species non-human, have, and still, play a greater role in extinctions, even though these nutcases like to dramatize our effect.

That said, there is evidence that we are now, within the last 100 years, playing a larger role in extinctions - and hence all these endangered specie organizations. But it's certainly nothing that alarming, and, in fact, most of it is to be expected.

rosbourne979 wrote:
A focus on cleaning up the planet will come naturally once people are freed from the immediate concerns of short term survival.

Yes, let us tell the starving children of the world to free their concerns of short-term survival. That'll clean up this planet in no time.





But there is no need to take the kind of "philosophical" perspective you suggest. Isn't it clear that the dangers of climate change (to use the new expression after "global warming" has been shown to be nonsense) have been just vastly exaggerated (for what purpose we can only speculate, although a lot of money is at stake)? And isn't it clear that the extreme measures suggested to deal with this exaggerated threat, given the uncertainty of the dangers, and the fact that important polluters have been exempted from taking these measures (apparently just because they refused to be included) and considering the devastating consequences the suggested measures would have on the economy of the world, that we should think long and hard, and consider other ways, before we decide to do something that it is inevitable that we will regret? Doesn't just the hysterical urgency being urged on us fill you with suspicion? It does me. The advice by climate zealots seems to be, ready, fire, aim.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 11:07 pm
We are not destroying the planet.

We are merely making it uninhabitable by humans (and many other unfortunate species) for a period of time.

All species in a plague population cycle do this to their environment. We are the first species that has the capacity to understand it and maybe the first with the capacity to mitigate or delay it, but ultimately, the population curve must crash. How that happens and when are all that remain to be seen. My bet is a virus culls us off before the planet suffers any long term "harm".
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 11:23 pm

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/11/2021 at 07:25:52