Global Warming vs. Terrorism

parados wrote:

okie wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
You know Parados, I cannot seem to find any comment I made about supporting the destruction of the US economy In fact, I cannot seem to find anywhere where I promoted any such envirornmental actions. I certainly asked for any such proof to be presented on repeated occasions yet it wasn't.

Have you?

Then what is this argument about? You global warmers have argued for the 2 and 2. Bernard simply added them together for you to get 4, since you don't seem to grasp the result of your own arguments.

If global warming is at the tipping point as Al Gore has asserted, and man produced CO2 is the culprit as has been asserted here, then fairly drastic action to reduce CO2 production almost completely would be required to reverse the trend before wholesale climatic destruction descends upon us all. Since no viable alternative means exists of producing the energy required to fuel the economy at approximately current levels, simple math tells us the only way to solve the problem is to park our cars and let the economy go south in a big way.

Did you not agree with Bernard in this statement okie?

You added 2 to 2 and come up with 10,000.

What is your argument okie? Please explain if you can.

They just can't, Parados. Both of us have asked repeatedly for them to post a direct quote from either of us to substantiate their claim. Instead of admitting that they lied, they have ignored our requests because they cannot support their remarks. They are patently unable to admit error with their Borg-like A2K personas.

They have made it up, akin to the mentally ill do when in the throes of paranoia and attack imaginary enemies for imaginary slights to their world-view. They do not even accept that they have made such mendacious remarks. It is apparent and akin to most ignorant and fascist idologues that their egos are invested in their politics and when called on their lying remarks they are pyschologically unable to admit their over-the-top and deceitful remarks. You might as well ask a skunk not to smell.

And I ask again, why is someone continually posting on A2K who has self-admittly been repeated banned from the site? Would any normal, sane person continue to have such an unhealthy fixation and willingly excreate thousands of times in public and embarrass themself?

I think not.

Now knowing that massegetto alleges combat veteran status, one poster is of the belief that the person is in the throes of Post Trumatic Stress Syndrome. I saw it with my uncle who was in the 101 Airborne in Viet Nam and it was sad to see. It is also likely that such a person is a lonely, bitter, and paranoid person who sees enemies everywhere attacking people without true reason and comes to such sites as these to exorcise their demons. Some such poor souls turn to drugs and alcohol, so we bear this affliction as a burden shared to help ease the pain of one such person.

So okie may well be right that I should not have suggested to massegetto that he kill himself if he is as truly unstable as he appears.

Parados, one should pity such a broken and sorrowful man, and not upset him with reality. Such people are like beaten dogs who growl and snarl at all who go by, but one wishes they would not continually invade the neighborhood and $hit all over the place.

Until then I await a direct quote from Parados and myself that calls for the destruction of the US economy and will wait until such time to answer the questions from the marginally sane.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
You know Parados, I cannot seem to find any comment I made about supporting the destruction of the US economy In fact, I cannot seem to find anywhere where I promoted any such envirornmental actions. I certainly asked for any such proof to be presented on repeated occasions yet it wasn't.

Have you?

Then what is this argument about? You global warmers have argued for the 2 and 2. Bernard simply added them together for you to get 4, since you don't seem to grasp the result of your own arguments.

If global warming is at the tipping point as Al Gore has asserted, and man produced CO2 is the culprit as has been asserted here, then fairly drastic action to reduce CO2 production almost completely would be required to reverse the trend before wholesale climatic destruction descends upon us all. Since no viable alternative means exists of producing the energy required to fuel the economy at approximately current levels, simple math tells us the only way to solve the problem is to park our cars and let the economy go south in a big way.

Did you not agree with Bernard in this statement okie?

You added 2 to 2 and come up with 10,000.

What is your argument okie? Please explain if you can.

If I am understanding this argument, and I say if, because instead of intelligent debate, useless accusations are hurled back and forth. But to summarize, Bernard has asserted that kuvasz advocates draconian measures to combat global warming, which Bernard asserts will hurt the economy in a big way. Kuvasz, and perhaps you as well, but certainly kuvasz keeps daring Bernard to find any statement where he advocated hurting the economy. This argument is of course silly.

I have agreed with Bernard, because I believe as he does that severe political action to combat CO2 emissions would probably hurt the economy, at least to the extent that any action would actually be sufficient to affect CO2 in a significant way, would in fact be very severe on the economy.

Kuvasz of course denies advocating hurting the economy. I have attempted to get him to clarify his position as to what he actually does advocate as a response to global warming, and to give him a chance to deny that he advocates any draconian measures. If he does, I would think he would be happy to do so in order to vindicate himself. Instead, no answers, no clarification, but instead continued belittling of Bernard and me in terms of our intelligence, our mental condition, and many other varied accusations. I have come to the conclusion that kuvasz truly does not know what he advocates, or he does not now wish to admit what he advocates.

Debating on this forum is a challenge, and disagreements are to be expected, but it is even worse when the participants refuse to even admit what their true opinions are, but instead choose to be coy and arrogant, and simply criticize the opposition.

I have no hesitance to say what my opinion is. I am not ashamed of it, and am happy to repeat it for anyone that cares. Frustrating to say the least when the person you debate is not willing to clarify their arguments.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I have agreed with Bernard, because I believe as he does that severe political action to combat CO2 emissions would probably hurt the economy, at least to the extent that any action would actually be sufficient to affect CO2 in a significant way, would in fact be very severe on the economy.

Debating on this forum is a challenge, and disagreements are to be expected, but it is even worse when the participants refuse to even admit what their true opinions are, but instead choose to be coy and arrogant, and simply criticize the opposition.

I have no hesitance to say what my opinion is. I am not ashamed of it, and am happy to repeat it for anyone that cares. Frustrating to say the least when the person you debate is not willing to clarify their arguments.

Kuvasz -- Bernie/Massa is not currently under a ban but, he has been kicked off [in the past] for his behavior.

I transferred some of Okie's post because of the unique grammar here. The poor man has trouble understanding the post's of others -- hence, the mix up over Bernie's present status, because he uses non-standard grammar.

0 Replies

Okie- Kuvasz and Parados still have not responded to my posts. They can't.

And they don't dare to make statements which will put them into a corner!

They have assiduously avoided,Okie( I am sure you have noticed) saying something like---If we don't cut x % of our coal emissions and y% of our oil usage in a year, our surface temperature will rise to z.

They are frauds!!!!

0 Replies

Plain Ol Me has not read the rules recently. People do get suspended and they do return. It appears that Frank Apisa( potty mouth) is gone and Cicerone Imposter may have left. Cicerone Imposter himself has noted that he was suspended three times already. However, Plain Ol Me may be in luck, because of the ASPCA, Cows wearing sunglasses are never in peril!!

0 Replies

Okie_ Parados and Kuvasz can fulminate and fuss but they cannot answer challenges. Neither of them were able to respond to this question-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point # 1---

Question for Mr. Parados--

Recent data have shown that the alleged warming of the troposphere has not achieved the temperatures noted by the Global Warming enthusiasts. Indeed, the new evidence has shown that the troposphere's temperature gain is BELOW that listed by the Global Warming hysterics and that the temperature needed in the troposphere to achieve the kind of warming needed to raise surface temperatures is far below what it should be.

DOES MR. PARADOS REJECT THE NEW EVIDENCE? IF SO, WHY?

0 Replies

It's not anything so complicated as what you're blathering - it isn't like they can't muster an answer to your magnificent logic or unassailable reasoning, or whatever.

It's just that they avoid confronting your simple ass, in an effort to spare us all more of your boring ass prattling. Of course that doesn't stop you anyway massagatto - do you have a job, or significant other, or is this about it for you?

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Okie_ Parados and Kuvasz can fulminate and fuss but they cannot answer challenges. Neither of them were able to respond to this question-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point # 1---

Question for Mr. Parados--

Recent data have shown that the alleged warming of the troposphere has not achieved the temperatures noted by the Global Warming enthusiasts. Indeed, the new evidence has shown that the troposphere's temperature gain is BELOW that listed by the Global Warming hysterics and that the temperature needed in the troposphere to achieve the kind of warming needed to raise surface temperatures is far below what it should be.

DOES MR. PARADOS REJECT THE NEW EVIDENCE? IF SO, WHY?

Are you ever going to answer my question or not Bernard? Until you do I see no reason to answer yours.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If I am understanding this argument, and I say if, because instead of intelligent debate, useless accusations are hurled back and forth. But to summarize, Bernard has asserted that kuvasz advocates draconian measures to combat global warming, which Bernard asserts will hurt the economy in a big way. Kuvasz, and perhaps you as well, but certainly kuvasz keeps daring Bernard to find any statement where he advocated hurting the economy. This argument is of course silly.

I have agreed with Bernard, because I believe as he does that severe political action to combat CO2 emissions would probably hurt the economy, at least to the extent that any action would actually be sufficient to affect CO2 in a significant way, would in fact be very severe on the economy.

Kuvasz of course denies advocating hurting the economy. I have attempted to get him to clarify his position as to what he actually does advocate as a response to global warming, and to give him a chance to deny that he advocates any draconian measures. If he does, I would think he would be happy to do so in order to vindicate himself. Instead, no answers, no clarification, but instead continued belittling of Bernard and me in terms of our intelligence, our mental condition, and many other varied accusations. I have come to the conclusion that kuvasz truly does not know what he advocates, or he does not now wish to admit what he advocates.

Debating on this forum is a challenge, and disagreements are to be expected, but it is even worse when the participants refuse to even admit what their true opinions are, but instead choose to be coy and arrogant, and simply criticize the opposition.

I have no hesitance to say what my opinion is. I am not ashamed of it, and am happy to repeat it for anyone that cares. Frustrating to say the least when the person you debate is not willing to clarify their arguments.

Really? What is your opinion then okie? Since you are not ashamed to say so. Do you think that Kuvasz and myself have advocated destroying the economy? Please provide some actual evidence to back up this opinion.

Are you implying that advocating any measures to cut back on CO2 emissions would destroy the economy? Bush has advocated some such measures. Is he trying to destroy the economy?

It is hardly the arrogance or being coy to refuse to let your strawman stand. Your argument IS a strawman. Kuvasz and myself have never advocated destroying the US economy. The only one being arrogant is yourself and Bernard in your demands that we admit that our opinion must fit your outlandish strawman.

History is full of the luddites that have claimed leaving behind a technology would destroy the economy. If we stop using horses, our economy will fail. If we stop using trains to move all our goods our economy will fail. If we stop using typewriters our economy will fail. Our economy didn't fail when we created new technologies. We became more efficient. We grew. The claim that new technology MUST lead to a failing ecomomy is Bull *** okie. Complete and total BS.

Are you really willing to stand with Bernard on this one? If you are, then you will be relegated to the same place in history as the other luddites. (and the same place on A2K as Bernard is.)

0 Replies

(Throwing my arms over my head to protect myself from the wrath that will follow this post.)

I finally saw the Al Gore movie this weekend. He says that there is 100
% agreement among scientists about the existence of global warming and man's contribution to it. However, he said that 53% of all media reports claim the jury is still out and that there is a reasonable doubt.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Really? What is your opinion then okie? Since you are not ashamed to say so. Do you think that Kuvasz and myself have advocated destroying the economy? Please provide some actual evidence to back up this opinion.

Are you implying that advocating any measures to cut back on CO2 emissions would destroy the economy? Bush has advocated some such measures. Is he trying to destroy the economy?

It is hardly the arrogance or being coy to refuse to let your strawman stand. Your argument IS a strawman. Kuvasz and myself have never advocated destroying the US economy. The only one being arrogant is yourself and Bernard in your demands that we admit that our opinion must fit your outlandish strawman.

History is full of the luddites that have claimed leaving behind a technology would destroy the economy. If we stop using horses, our economy will fail. If we stop using trains to move all our goods our economy will fail. If we stop using typewriters our economy will fail. Our economy didn't fail when we created new technologies. We became more efficient. We grew. The claim that new technology MUST lead to a failing ecomomy is Bull *** okie. Complete and total BS.

Are you really willing to stand with Bernard on this one? If you are, then you will be relegated to the same place in history as the other luddites. (and the same place on A2K as Bernard is.)

Parados, obviously you have never advocated destroying the economy. Let us say "4" is equivalent to destroying the economy. I think Bernard's argument is that kuvasz has not advocated "4," but he has advocated 2 + 2, which Bernard adds up to get "4." Kuvasz argues that it does not add up to 4. Perhaps we could rephrase the equation to "x + y," whereas Bernard interprets the x and the y to be the draconian economic and technical policies that add up to 4, while kuvasz do not see x and y as affecting the economy at all.

In the course of this argument, I have asked for a clarification from kuvasz as to what measures he actually does advocate, as he disputes that Bernard's and my conclusion is accurate. Okay, so if not accurate, why not provide a clarification. Still waiting, Parados.

Your reference to stop using horses, typewriters, etc. is an interesting one. I could agree with you except that it was the economy, the free market that drove the changes you speak of. To my knowledge, nobody made a government mandate to make any of those changes. The market and technologicial innovation drove the change. What we have here is the suggestion that the most efficient form of energy be abandoned in favor of more expensive and yet unproven technologies, so your illustration is exactly bass-ackward. I am not opposed to change, and I am sure Bernard is not either. What I am in favor of is change driven by technological advance by more efficient and more economical methods of energy. When the government mandates a less efficient energy, it is essentially going back to the horse and buggy days.

I am a free marketer, and I believe in the ability of entrepeneurs to innovate and improve, driven by price and availability. I am not in favor of artificial government mandates, which may be draconian, counterproductive, wasteful, and inefficient, therefore bringing about negative economic impacts.

0 Replies

Okie- Either Parados cannot read or he won't read.

I have posted the following before- at least three times. I will repost it so that Parados can read it AND RESPOND DIRECTLY TO IT.

He will not because it ruins his thesis.

Again-Dr.Lomborg-

P. 322

The Skeptical Environmentalist

quote

"We should not spend VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY to cut a TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERAURE INCREASE when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds for more efficiently in the developing world"

end of quote

and, again,

quote

p.323

"since cutting back this CO2 EMISSIONS quickly becomes very costly, and easily counterproductive, we shuld focus more of our effort at finding ways of easing any of the emissions of greenhouses gases ONLY OVER THE LONG RUN. Partly this means that we need to invest much more in research and development of solar power, and other likely power sources in the future"

end of quote

You see, Okie, there is no problem acknowleding the necessity for technological advances in the future. The problem would be if, a future president, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, saying( and even she would not be so dumb), our society must shift to auto Hybrids in the next five years. No auto will be allowed on our highways that is not a hybrid!!

Or, all coal fired power plants that are not capable of storing Co2 emissions must be closed by 2010

Or, Wind power is a must--therefore there will be an all out effort to install 500,000 Windmills in the US before 2011---even, in Nantucket Bay.

No, Hillary is smarter than that- She knows the kind of political and economic price that would have to be paid if she listened only to the scientists who have loaded up their computer models with all kinds of implausible assumptions--e.ge. Population Growth in the future or( as Mr.McGentrix reported, the amount of snowfall in the Antarctic).

Parados and Kuvasz are losers, Okie and the most important element in that description is their ADAMANT REFUSAL to sketch out any of the REFORMS AND STEPS TO BE TAKEN IF WE ARE FACING DEATH AT THE HANDS OF THE SATANIC CO2.

They will not do that because any program that they lay out would be

l. Done too frantically in the next decade

2.Be much too expensive

3.Be Politically and economically impossible.

They are frauds, Okie!!

0 Replies

And, Okie, please note that I posted my Point # 1 since Parados did not rebut it. He is great at blah-blah-blah but if he is at all knowledgeable about the alleged global warming he should be able to rebut my points completely and adequately--this he has not done.

So, here is my Point # 2

Point # 2

It is accepted by all, even the global warming hysterics, that the surface temperatures in the Twentieth Century shows two spikes. One in the early part of the Century and the second after 1975. Given the accepted fact that the CO2 emissions, which the Global Warming Hysterics blame for warming, were only one fifth as high in the early part of the century with a spike in the temperatures, and then five times higher in the latter part of the century, why has the surface temperature in the latter part of the century not been higher?

Can you answer this, Mr. Parados

***********************************************************

First of all, the word spikes is not necessary, periods of warming will do.

Secondly,in the third line, he hurries away from the question. Why did the surface tempearature increase almost as fast from 1910 to 1945 as it did from 1975 to 2000?

He does not answer that except with a vague allusion( AS USUAL HE GIVES NO REFERENCES TO SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS) to two large volcanic eruptions increasing the SO2--This is just not enough according to all the studies to have caused the extent of the increase from 1910 to 1945( I will show this with scientific reference and the So2 allusion made by Mr, Parados as causes is simply incorrect( I will show this with scientific references( which he, Mr.Parados, asking me to take his word for it-LOLLOLLOL--will not do)

First, If Mr. Parados can reference Barnett et. al. "Detection and Attribution of Recent Climate Change"

http://ams.allenpress,com

he would find that all of the twentieth century's temperature increase has occurred abruptly within two time periods from 1910 to 1945 and from 1975 to 2000. Rere

The same article notes that while 1975 t0 2000 fits well within the concerns of the envrionmental hystericsm the time period from 1910 to 1945 is harder to align with the human emission of grfeenhouse gases SINCE THE CONCENTRATION AND INCREASE IN THE EARLY PART OF THE CENTURY WAS S L I G H T( I will give evidence below)

But, first, a reference for Mr. Parados( if he is able to understand it).

"Global and hemispheric temperature anomalies-land and marine instrumental records"

Global temperature 1856-2000

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

0 Replies

Bernard, we openly repeat and clarify our opinions. Yet, kuvasz will not even acknowledge what his opinion is! I am still waiting. Parados continues to defend the same reasoning, yet also refuses to acknowledge his opinion. In a nutshell, what we have here is kuvasz and Parados daring us to find a quote of theirs where they advocated destroying the economy. Of course the accusation was never that they literally said those words, which of course is a stupid sidetracking of what the argument is about. The argument is over whether the policies they advocate would hurt the economy. Now, they will not admit to the policies they advocate. I would say unless they are willing to admit what their opinions are, the debate is over. They lost.

Debating is a challenge to begin with, but when a participant refuses to acknowledge what his opinion is or has been, but instead resorts to name calling and denigrating the intelligence of the opponent, it is a complete waste of time.

Then add to this the occasional plainoldme poking her milkcow head into the debate with really off the wall, disconnected comments, such as "pringles are crap" and you end up with a really screwed up debate. Smile

0 Replies

Okie- You can write off Plain Ol Me. Her posts are never up to the kind of level where they can or should be responded to.

But, if Parados and Kuvasz were really serious, if they were really skilled. if they really had the facts on their side, they would be able to tell us:

l. Exactly how high will the temperature of the earth be in 2010, 2020, 2050, 2100? Why? What is the proof?

2. Are the Models used in the predictions of Global Warming really immune from receiving skewered data which will, of course, change the predictions materially

and

3. Again, and again for the seventh time, Should we spend tons of money to cut a tiny sliver of global warming when our funds can be used more efficiently and effectively?

I think, Okie, that the reason that Pardos and Kuvasz will NOT give us the specific information we ask for is that if they did, If they said the US must close XYZ plants or change our automobile industry by doing ABC, and that ALL THIS MUST BE DONE by 2010? 2015 at the latest?

They do not give us this specific information because they know most of the other posters would laugh at thier infeasible and unenforceable ideas.

0 Replies

Parados did not give a satisfactory response to this question either, Okie!

As you know from your research on this topic of Solar Warming, there is no scientific evidence that there is no solar warming affecting the surface temperature even so slightly and there is no evidence that this effect might not be synergistic>

NOTE QUESTION # 3 to Parados which he did not answer satisfactorally:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point # 3.

Given the fact that the IPCC has acknowledged the solar effect on temperature, but has mentioned solar effects only briefly,what is the effect of solar radiation on the surface temperature of the earth? Is there no effect at all. If not, how has the IPCC proved there is none.

Can you answer this question--Mr. Parados?

0 Replies

Okie,

Your argument of 2+2 is complete BS... 4 is not equivalent to destroying the economy. 10,000 is.

Kuvasz has argued x and y.. Bernard has argued that must add up to Z. There is no way to argue that pointing out that global warming exists can only lead to destroying the economy. It is a strawman. False logic. Complete BULL S***.

You have argued that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 emissions. Not doing anything could lead to the deaths of billions. Ergo we add 2+2 and get 10,000 and see that you are advocating killing billions of people. Why don't you admit your opinion instead of being coy. Just admit it. I admit my opinions. Are you scared of your obvious opinion? You are for killing billions obviously we only need to add 2 + 2. (I will leave out the name calling for now but your argument certainly leaves you open to being called one.)

Prove that slowing down CO2 emissions MUST destroy the economy. You can't. In fact, history SHOWS us that we can grow our economy while decreasing CO2 emissions. Look at how much more energy efficient the US economy is today than it was in the 70s. We use flourescent lighting and have reduced electrical usage for lighting by over 50%. Within 10 years we will be using LEDs for most of our lighting and our energy usage for lighting will be less than 50% of what it is now. (Maybe about 10% of current usage.) http://www.luxeon.com/

Why did companies move to flourescent lighting? Because the government gave them tax breaks to help with the upfront cost, that's why.

Your argument that the government had no part of the changes in the past shows complete ignorance of history. Try riding a horse down a city street. You will find it is illegal these days. No, no government mandates at all. Rolling Eyes

Who paid for most of the research in computers and the internet? The government. (What the hell do you think a State university is if not government funded?) In the early years of the internet EVERY routing computer was at a university. Look up ARPA sometime. Who provided the land for the train tracks that created cross country railroads? The governnment. Who created the present road system in the US? The government. Who created the cafe standards for automobiles that raised our mpg? The government. Who gave rebates to move to more efficient appliances and lighting? The government. The government has helped to move a lot of technologies forward through paying for research, tax breaks to implement it, or outright mandates.

All of this history PROVES your argument is BULL ****.
Saying we need to reduce our CO2 emissions in no way calls for a destruction of the US economy.

What the hell do you call this?
http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm This is filled with incentives by the government to move to more efficient energy use like...

Quote:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005, offers consumers and businesses federal tax credits beginning in January 2006 for purchasing fuel-efficient hybrid-electric vehicles and energy-efficient appliances and products. Most of these tax credits remain in effect through 2007.

I see you think Bush is destroying the economy based on your simplistic argument so far.

Go burn your ****** strawman and get in the real world. Neither Kuvasz or myself has proposed destroying the US economy. Asking for clarification about your strawman is completely pointless. It is YOUR STRAWMAN (or Bernards' in this case) Your argument is BS. Nothing to clarify at all. BS.

0 Replies

Bernard,

I am surprised you can breathe with your head shoved up that methane producing canal.

I see you have haven't modified any of the errors of fact in your question #3 that were pointed out earlier. You must be completely oxygen deprived.

You still have not become a man of honor. You still have not lived up to your statement that you would answer my question. Ah well..

Falsus in omnia Bernard. As per your usual Falsus in omnia.

0 Replies

Quote:

What we have here is the suggestion that the most efficient form of energy be abandoned in favor of more expensive and yet unproven technologies,

I am curious as to who proposed this okie? Please provide us with a citation and some simple facts to back it up.

What is the unproven technology? How can you possibly know it is less efficient if it hasn't been proven? Your statement is silly in its logic.

What is this "most efficent form of energy"? What does "efficient" mean in your reality? You do realize that a heat pump is more efficient than a gas powered furnace, don't you? Now tell us which is this form that is the MOST efficient.

0 Replies

With all your huff and puff, Parados, tell us what the technology is that will actually reduce CO2 emissions in a significant enough manner to impact global warming, that is not draconian, given that we are near the tipping point and that billions of people will die as you apparently now claim. The fact is you can't. You have not one shred of credible evidence that some government mandate will amount to a hill of beans.

So now, billions are going to die, Parados? I think you are close to losing your mind. If you actually believe that, I think you should suggest we all park our cars and buy horses. Except what about the methane problem then?

I have no problem with practical solutions, to encourage conservation and innovative technology, but seriously Parados, if CO2 is as bad as you claim, token measures don't amount to a hill of beans and you know it.

0 Replies

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know