Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:11 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6304 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 ... 158  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Those on the side of 'anti-science' are just unknowingly being ignorant puppets of smart, rich, unscrupulous people. How the likes of the Koch brothers must laugh at their devoted sheep.

Unfortunately many of the denialist ringleaders are not 'unknowingly' ignorant, but willingly so. In fact you can't even call it ignorance, more like deliberate deceit, such as in the case of Lomborg, Monckton, Milloy, Inhofe, Booker, Nova etc, all of whom have been shown to be not merely misinformed, but outright liars.

On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill, who have been shown up time and again as comprehensively wrong in most of their claims, but that does not stop them making these same claims over and over. If we 'warmists' were proved to have been so comprehenmsively wrong as often as these guys are, our claims to credibility would be in ruins. But it makes absolutely no difference to Bilver & co, because they are not trying to argue an honest case, and never have been.



+1

It's a strange thing for some people to keep up a LIE, just to win some ideological battle with people they don't know on an internet forum.

I honestly don't know why they can't just admit that they don't care. I've never seen a debate so strange. It's like one side is taking the piss. I can understand why the Koch brothers and co are doing what they're doing. They keep these puppets spraying their chosen lines everywhere as it provides the semblance of a 'debate' and some people who don't take too much notice confuse this 'debate' with 'doubt'.

'Doubt' means the rich people WIN. That's okay with me as I'm not at all concerned, however I can't for the life of me understand these 'anti-science warriors' who seemingly spend much of their time trying to convince others of a 'truth' that they surely must know is non-existent.

These deniers act like members of a cult and their 'faith' is very strong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2801
Location: Perth
Waratah wrote:
On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill


Wait... what? For real, or hyperbole?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4565
Location: Straya c**ts.
DazGoneSouth wrote:
Waratah wrote:
On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill

Wait... what? For real, or hyperbole?

Figurative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4565
Location: Straya c**ts.
towny wrote:
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Those on the side of 'anti-science' are just unknowingly being ignorant puppets of smart, rich, unscrupulous people. How the likes of the Koch brothers must laugh at their devoted sheep.

Unfortunately many of the denialist ringleaders are not 'unknowingly' ignorant, but willingly so. In fact you can't even call it ignorance, more like deliberate deceit, such as in the case of Lomborg, Monckton, Milloy, Inhofe, Booker, Nova etc, all of whom have been shown to be not merely misinformed, but outright liars.

On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill, who have been shown up time and again as comprehensively wrong in most of their claims, but that does not stop them making these same claims over and over. If we 'warmists' were proved to have been so comprehenmsively wrong as often as these guys are, our claims to credibility would be in ruins. But it makes absolutely no difference to Bilver & co, because they are not trying to argue an honest case, and never have been.



+1

It's a strange thing for some people to keep up a LIE, just to win some ideological battle with people they don't know on an internet forum.

I honestly don't know why they can't just admit that they don't care. I've never seen a debate so strange. It's like one side is taking the piss. I can understand why the Koch brothers and co are doing what they're doing. They keep these puppets spraying their chosen lines everywhere as it provides the semblance of a 'debate' and some people who don't take too much notice confuse this 'debate' with 'doubt'.

'Doubt' means the rich people WIN. That's okay with me as I'm not at all concerned, however I can't for the life of me understand these 'anti-science warriors' who seemingly spend much of their time trying to convince others of a 'truth' that they surely must know is non-existent.

These deniers act like members of a cult and their 'faith' is very strong.

And yet the 'warmists' are the ones accused of being dupes and compared to religious believers.

Like you say, you can understand why the big industrialists - those with the most to lose - would fight the idea of AGW and do everything they can to distort the debate and retard moves to a lower carbon economy. Their motivation is very easy to understand. Just like Big Tobacco's attempts to deny the fatal effects of their product, it's all about protecting their bottom line, their profit.

The like of Bill and Silver, however, have no such motivation. They have no bottom line to protect, no profit to lose. They just doggedly stick to their arguments because it makes them feel like they are the smart ones, and everyone else, (including every reputable scientific body on earth), has been duped. It's classic contrarian stuff. It gets them attention, and it makes them feel smarter than everyone else. These are two things they crave so much it blinds them to the objective truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15746
towny wrote:
There's lot of hunger, wars, genocide, deforestation and lots of really bad shit happening RIGHT now.

We do fudge all. But.... when it becomes about OUR future children, it becomes the biggest problem of all.

The people in Africa who just want to drink clean water must think our priorities are f**ked up.

First world guilt and arrogance.

There is 0% chance we can stop AGW. FACT.

Why not pump the billions and trillions into things which have a chance of working. How about we buy all the trees in the Amazon? Why not build a million wells in Africa? Why not put electricity through the third world and give them a chance?

nah. fudge that. There was a polar bear struggling to find a feed on TV last night.....

I'm going to back the winners of this f**ked up argument. I couldn't give a rat's arse, and I honestly don't reckon most of you guys do either.

It's cool to be green....



Rancid. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Those on the side of 'anti-science' are just unknowingly being ignorant puppets of smart, rich, unscrupulous people. How the likes of the Koch brothers must laugh at their devoted sheep.

Unfortunately many of the denialist ringleaders are not 'unknowingly' ignorant, but willingly so. In fact you can't even call it ignorance, more like deliberate deceit, such as in the case of Lomborg, Monckton, Milloy, Inhofe, Booker, Nova etc, all of whom have been shown to be not merely misinformed, but outright liars.

On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill, who have been shown up time and again as comprehensively wrong in most of their claims, but that does not stop them making these same claims over and over. If we 'warmists' were proved to have been so comprehenmsively wrong as often as these guys are, our claims to credibility would be in ruins. But it makes absolutely no difference to Bilver & co, because they are not trying to argue an honest case, and never have been.



+1

It's a strange thing for some people to keep up a LIE, just to win some ideological battle with people they don't know on an internet forum.

I honestly don't know why they can't just admit that they don't care. I've never seen a debate so strange. It's like one side is taking the piss. I can understand why the Koch brothers and co are doing what they're doing. They keep these puppets spraying their chosen lines everywhere as it provides the semblance of a 'debate' and some people who don't take too much notice confuse this 'debate' with 'doubt'.

'Doubt' means the rich people WIN. That's okay with me as I'm not at all concerned, however I can't for the life of me understand these 'anti-science warriors' who seemingly spend much of their time trying to convince others of a 'truth' that they surely must know is non-existent.

These deniers act like members of a cult and their 'faith' is very strong.

And yet the 'warmists' are the ones accused of being dupes and compared to religious believers.

Like you say, you can understand why the big industrialists - those with the most to lose - would fight the idea of AGW and do everything they can to distort the debate and retard moves to a lower carbon economy. Their motivation is very easy to understand. Just like Big Tobacco's attempts to deny the fatal effects of their product, it's all about protecting their bottom line, their profit.

The like of Bill and Silver, however, have no such motivation. They have no bottom line to protect, no profit to lose. They just doggedly stick to their arguments because it makes them feel like they are the smart ones, and everyone else, (including every reputable scientific body on earth), has been duped. It's classic contrarian stuff. It gets them attention, and it makes them feel smarter than everyone else. These are two things they crave so much it blinds them to the objective truth.



Yep.

It's always why the 'deniers' are almost always from the lunatic right-wing fringe. This group has always been easy for the very rich to use as puppets. This fringe unknowingly always vote against their own interests and do so for reasons which are irrelevant. They allow themselves to get distracted with issues such as abortion or gay marriage and then use that vitriol to argue for lower Capital Gains Tax; something they generally don't have to pay.

I understand why VERY rich people are on the extreme right, however only ignorance can explain why the rest of them are.


Those puppeteers - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Koch, Murdoch - must all get together and laugh about the dumb, old, poor, angry people which regurgitate the shit they want them to.

How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4565
Location: Straya c**ts.
towny wrote:
I understand why VERY rich people are on the extreme right, however only ignorance can explain why the rest of them are.

And in the US at least, because they're afraid Democrats want to take away their automatic weapons. They're also paranoid about commies. Anything like nationalised health that sounds even remotely related to socialism (and therefore communism) is ripe for scaring up a little 1950s-style paranoid witchhunting among the trailer park militias.

It's astonishing the number of Americans who genuinely believe Obama is either a socialist or communist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2801
Location: Perth
towny wrote:
Are we REALLY worried about our grandchildren?

Then why isn't 'the' focus on deforestation?!! Shirley, a much more important and more preventable catastrophe.

I can't help but feel that the global push to stop AGW is all just a middle class guilt trip on over drive.

I don't believe 99% of people genuinely give a fudge. If they did, they wouldn't be still all flying on jumbo jets for weekends in bali and working in industries directly linked to the biggest producers.

Excuse me all, but I reckon it's just all a big wank that you're on.


http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
I understand why VERY rich people are on the extreme right, however only ignorance can explain why the rest of them are.

And in the US at least, because they're afraid Democrats want to take away their automatic weapons. They're also paranoid about commies. Anything like nationalised health that sounds even remotely related to socialism (and therefore communism) is ripe for scaring up a little 1950s-style paranoid witchhunting among the trailer park militias.

It's astonishing the number of Americans who genuinely believe Obama is either a socialist or communist.



I've discussed this very thing with many Americans.

You can't pin them down on a topic and they'll change from guns to faith to socialism to healthcare in a blink of an eye.

Someone who can't stay on point with a direct question is usually someone who doesn't really know WHY they believe something. Bill, Silver, Refry, etc - all pretty stupid people who are just re-hashing something they heard or read but don't really understand.

Ideological warriors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
DazGoneSouth wrote:
towny wrote:
Are we REALLY worried about our grandchildren?

Then why isn't 'the' focus on deforestation?!! Shirley, a much more important and more preventable catastrophe.

I can't help but feel that the global push to stop AGW is all just a middle class guilt trip on over drive.

I don't believe 99% of people genuinely give a fudge. If they did, they wouldn't be still all flying on jumbo jets for weekends in bali and working in industries directly linked to the biggest producers.

Excuse me all, but I reckon it's just all a big wank that you're on.


http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity



Nice link....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16533
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Lets be fair. I know a number of very intelligent geologists (most have PhDs) who are currently leaders in their field, are certainly not right leaning (they are champions of equality for women in the workforce for example), who, from a scientific standpoint believe that global warming is not man made.

Their arguments mostly centre around the fact that through geological history the climate has changed dramatically, and that the level of CO2 has also changed dramatically. Of course they are talking millions of years, and I believe that is where their argument falls down.

But to call them the loony right is just plain wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
Farva wrote:
Lets be fair. I know a number of very intelligent geologists (most have PhDs) who are currently leaders in their field, are certainly not right leaning (they are champions of equality for women in the workforce for example), who, from a scientific standpoint believe that global warming is not man made.

Their arguments mostly centre around the fact that through geological history the climate has changed dramatically, and that the level of CO2 has also changed dramatically. Of course they are talking millions of years, and I believe that is where their argument falls down.

But to call them the loony right is just plain wrong.



Fair point!

I misspoke.

People should be allowed to disagree about the evidence, however they'd want to have an idea of what the fudge they are talking about.



Anyway, AGW...... who cares? :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4565
Location: Straya c**ts.
towny wrote:
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
I understand why VERY rich people are on the extreme right, however only ignorance can explain why the rest of them are.

And in the US at least, because they're afraid Democrats want to take away their automatic weapons. They're also paranoid about commies. Anything like nationalised health that sounds even remotely related to socialism (and therefore communism) is ripe for scaring up a little 1950s-style paranoid witchhunting among the trailer park militias.

It's astonishing the number of Americans who genuinely believe Obama is either a socialist or communist.



I've discussed this very thing with many Americans.

You can't pin them down on a topic and they'll change from guns to faith to socialism to healthcare in a blink of an eye.

Someone who can't stay on point with a direct question is usually someone who doesn't really know WHY they believe something. Bill, Silver, Refry, etc - all pretty stupid people who are just re-hashing something they heard or read but don't really understand.

Ideological warriors.


Gish Gallopers. Silver and Bill are experts at this.

Quote:
Gish Gallop

Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation. A true Gish Gallop generally has two traits.

1) The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure bullshit and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education.

2) The points are all ones that the Galloper either knows, or damn well should know, are totally bullshit. With the slimier users of the Gish Gallop, like Gish himself, its a near certainty that the points are chosen not just because the Galloper knows that they're bullshit, but because the Galloper is deliberately trying to shovel as much bullshit into as small a space as possible in order to overwhelm his opponent with sheer volume and bamboozle any audience members with a facade of scholarly acumen and factual knowledge.

In a debate on the morality of America's Founding Fathers, a Gish Gallop might look like this:

"Sure we think that they were good folks, but did you know that Washington not only had more than 100,000 slaves, but he also staged gladiatorial games and made them fight to the death? He also ran a network of opium dens and used his gladiators as couriers to deliver opium all over the 52 states. In fact Washington's opium smuggling got so bad that the British had to step in which caused the Opium War that led to the Revolutionary War and John Locke's famous statement that he had to be given the liberty to smoke opium, or he'd prefer death. That also points out another problem, in that most of the Founding Fathers were part of Washington's opium cult and Ben Franklin's most harmful invention was actually a process to purify the active ingredient in opium and inject it. That's right, Ben Franklin invented heroin! What's more, by the time Andrew Jackson was president the US government was so full of drug addicts that they created a soft drink that was just a way to get cocaine into their systems. Don't believe me? It was called Coca Cola because it was a cola with cocaine in it. Go look it up and you'll find I'm right, coca cola really did contain cocaine!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
:lol:

I'm actually a bit pissed off that I'm just learning about this tactic now. I could have been using this Gish stuff all last week!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
Farva wrote:
Lets be fair. I know a number of very intelligent geologists (most have PhDs) who are currently leaders in their field, are certainly not right leaning (they are champions of equality for women in the workforce for example), who, from a scientific standpoint believe that global warming is not man made.

Their arguments mostly centre around the fact that through geological history the climate has changed dramatically, and that the level of CO2 has also changed dramatically. Of course they are talking millions of years, and I believe that is where their argument falls down.

But to call them the loony right is just plain wrong.


That's scientific scepticism. Arguing the world is flat because it looks that way from your ranch in Alaska is stupid. Arguing it is flat because you can visualise five dimensional geometry is merely insane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9983
Farva wrote:
towny wrote:
6roucho wrote:
towny wrote:
There's lot of hunger, wars, genocide, deforestation and lots of really bad shit happening RIGHT now.

We do fudge all. But.... when it becomes about OUR future children, it becomes the biggest problem of all.

The people in Africa who just want to drink clean water must think our priorities are f**ked up.

First world guilt and arrogance.

There is 0% chance we can stop AGW. FACT.

Why not pump the billions and trillions into things which have a chance of working. How about we buy all the trees in the Amazon? Why not build a million wells in Africa? Why not put electricity through the third world and give them a chance?

nah. fudge that. There was a polar bear struggling to find a feed on TV last night.....

I'm going to back the winners of this f**ked up argument. I couldn't give a rat's arse, and I honestly don't reckon most of you guys do either.

It's cool to be green....


Who does fudge all? For my part I spent a few years working on a humanitarian medical translation research project - without pay. I guess I must have done it guiltily, and arrogantly.

I also took the financial risk of building a carbon accounting system. I did that for profit, but then I'm a businessman and think industry-led solutions are a good thing.

When I mentioned that on these threads I was roundly criticized for my 'hypocrisy'... by self-described capitalists. Funny old world.

We can't solve world hunger either, but that's not a good argument for not doing all we can to alleviate it.

Or for sneering at the people who are trying to do something.



6roucho.

Firstly, I have the utmost respect for anyone that puts their skin in the game and have no doubt that you are genuine in your beliefs.

But from 99% of people out there, I just don't buy it. Al Gore is a crusader..... now! When he was VP he did fudge all. Same with Bill Clinton; perhaps history's greatest pretender.

The PR 'world' is full of crusaders, but their argument seems to stem around a 'left wing' ideology more than anything else.

You and I have been to the third world. It's a f**ked up place, and imo at least, this should be our immediate concern. These countless millions have no future of any kind and for us to concentrate on our rich grandchildren just shows misplaced priorities imo.

So, apologies to you for any offence I may have caused.


In regard to world hunger, and also population growth, global warming has a massive impact.
The prodcution of food is massively impacted by the climate. There is currently a significant drought in the horn of Africa and also in West Africa. While we cannot categorically say it, I am of the opinion that these droughts have been worsened by AGW. On top of that there have been significant droughts in Eastern Europe and the US, that has forced the price of food up. Also, many subsitance farmers are reporting that they can no longer accurately predict the seasons meaning that their food production is impacted. Global warming has directly impacted the amount of food we can produce today.
Now this does relate directly to population growth. People world wide want to make sure that they have a future generation. It has been provided that when people are not confident that their children will survive childhood they overcompensate and produce more children. The way to curb the population explosion is to drastically decrease child mortality rates. Drought and hunger dont help this. Stop AGW and we will go some way to reducing hunger and population growth. Of course, this needs to be coupled with the flow down on improved technology, an increase in education (especially targetting women), providing access to clean drinking water and access to health services.

Therefore, controlling population growth does have a vested interest in controlling AGW. We also need to meet, or exceed, our obligations in foreign aid (which I have been advocating for some time) of 0.7% of GDP.


Typical. This is about all CAGW is built on.


Last edited by Silver on Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
towny wrote:
Farva wrote:
Lets be fair. I know a number of very intelligent geologists (most have PhDs) who are currently leaders in their field, are certainly not right leaning (they are champions of equality for women in the workforce for example), who, from a scientific standpoint believe that global warming is not man made.

Their arguments mostly centre around the fact that through geological history the climate has changed dramatically, and that the level of CO2 has also changed dramatically. Of course they are talking millions of years, and I believe that is where their argument falls down.

But to call them the loony right is just plain wrong.



Fair point!

I misspoke.

People should be allowed to disagree about the evidence, however they'd want to have an idea of what the fudge they are talking about.



Anyway, AGW...... who cares? :P


You'll care if the jet stream gets stuck in a position disadvantageous to European agribusiness for a year or two. That'd be a strong candidate for a tipping point for a global depression.

Of course there's nothing we can do about it now. We seemingly have about a 20 year lead time to modify the short term effects of climate change. Unfortunately that's just a bit too long to exist within our economic attention span.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9983
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Those on the side of 'anti-science' are just unknowingly being ignorant puppets of smart, rich, unscrupulous people. How the likes of the Koch brothers must laugh at their devoted sheep.

Unfortunately many of the denialist ringleaders are not 'unknowingly' ignorant, but willingly so. In fact you can't even call it ignorance, more like deliberate deceit, such as in the case of Lomborg, Monckton, Milloy, Inhofe, Booker, Nova etc, all of whom have been shown to be not merely misinformed, but outright liars.

On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill, who have been shown up time and again as comprehensively wrong in most of their claims, but that does not stop them making these same claims over and over. If we 'warmists' were proved to have been so comprehenmsively wrong as often as these guys are, our claims to credibility would be in ruins. But it makes absolutely no difference to Bilver & co, because they are not trying to argue an honest case, and never have been.


Alarmists are the flat-earthers. They completely ignore the evidence (including climategate etc). And put money or ingrained beliefs above evidence and common sense etc.

edit

And I'm not trying to convince you waratah. You are a lost cause. You want to believe (just like a religious devotee) regardless of the evidence.


Last edited by Silver on Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
Silver wrote:
Farva wrote:
While we cannot categorically say it, I am of the opinion that these droughts have been worsened by AGW.


Typical. This is about all CAGW is built on.


Yes, probabilities, the same as risk management.

You might similarly argue there is no reason to insure your compound in Waco, because we cannot be absolutely sure the FBI will flatten it with gunfire after you poison your disciples. But when they do, you'll be sorry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
6roucho, that's precisely it.

Nothing can possibly change the immediate effects. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen.



Also, one of the reasons that a LOT of people don't care, is that the doom and gloom is perhaps ill-founded. We've had warmer periods than we're heading for and the world didn't stop spinning.


Anyway, if everything goes to shit and we get colossal droughts and shit, global depression would actually reduce our emissions by more than any treaty or carbon tax ever would, so if that occurs, it will arguably be an effective measure to actually deal with it long term.

Ignoring the threat is a win/win..... :thumbup:


(kind of...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4565
Location: Straya c**ts.
towny wrote:
:lol:

I'm actually a bit pissed off that I'm just learning about this tactic now. I could have been using this Gish stuff all last week!!


I think Silver might actually be this guy.

Image

Quote:
Inflated sense of expertise

Schlafly frequently claims expertise in whatever subject he is debating, and has repeatedly attacked and overturned opinion, evidence, and references by qualified editors, making unsubstantiated claims that are opinion, assertion, or uneducated guesses, and of which he brooks no criticism. He has declared himself supremely knowledgeable in the fields of anthropology, astronomy, biblical scholarship and translation, the entertainment industry, microbiology, nutrition, oncology, psychiatry, mathematics, relativity, statistics, and world history. (For a detailed list of claims, see here.)

Schlafly is openly contemptuous of credentialed experts, particularly so when they conflict with his uncited assertions. His slogan "Don't read a book to learn, write a book to learn" underlines this stance, and while this statement may seem impressively philosophical at first glance, it becomes less so after one gives more than one second's thought as to what it actually means.


Quote:
Disrespect for academic qualifications

Schlafly is highly dismissive of academia and academics in general, and believes that "the process of inducing people to rely on 'the perceived view of experts' is a misleading one." Schlafly's view is that learning is best achieved by ignoring experienced, qualified researchers in any given field and instead "thinking for oneself."


Quote:
Politicization of curriculum

Andrew Schlafly politicizes most topics he teaches. He believes that movies, books and music have underlying political messages that are either liberal or conservative, and in particular has refused to watch any movie featuring Tom Hanks (a well known liberal) in the belief that his films push a liberal agenda. He furthermore claims that the dictionary has become affected by liberal bias as it contains an entry on CE (common era). For information on how he has politicized his math course, see the corresponding section and links below.

In October 2008, in order to justify teaching a very large homeschool class, Schlafly claimed that all teachers' unions were liberal, and seek smaller classes in order to enhance liberal mind control. He also contended that small homeschool groups are often liberal public school teachers teaching outside their class who are thoroughly indoctrinated in the small-class mind control.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Schlafly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9983
I added this as an edit above

And I'm not trying to convince you Waratah. You are a lost cause. You want to believe (just like a religious devotee) regardless of the evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
Silver wrote:
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Those on the side of 'anti-science' are just unknowingly being ignorant puppets of smart, rich, unscrupulous people. How the likes of the Koch brothers must laugh at their devoted sheep.

Unfortunately many of the denialist ringleaders are not 'unknowingly' ignorant, but willingly so. In fact you can't even call it ignorance, more like deliberate deceit, such as in the case of Lomborg, Monckton, Milloy, Inhofe, Booker, Nova etc, all of whom have been shown to be not merely misinformed, but outright liars.

On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill, who have been shown up time and again as comprehensively wrong in most of their claims, but that does not stop them making these same claims over and over. If we 'warmists' were proved to have been so comprehenmsively wrong as often as these guys are, our claims to credibility would be in ruins. But it makes absolutely no difference to Bilver & co, because they are not trying to argue an honest case, and never have been.


Alarmists are the flat-earthers. They completely ignore the evidence (including climategate etc). And put money or ingrained beliefs above evidence and common sense etc.

edit

And I'm not trying to convince you waratah. You are a lost cause. You want to believe (just like a religious devotee) regardless of the evidence.


blah, blah, blah...

no one cares what you think plum.

You're just a waste of space!! The bored joke. A jerk. A human fuck-stain. A puppet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
towny wrote:
Anyway, if everything goes to shit and we get colossal droughts and shit, global depression would actually reduce our emissions by more than any treaty or carbon tax ever would, so if that occurs, it will arguably be an effective measure to actually deal with it long term.


That's a good point and one that's made often recently. A large correction in industrial capacity will do more for emissions than any amount of political engineering. There's a theory amongst crystal knitters that the planetary ecosystem is self-healing and will fudge us off if we annoy it, which of course could be true. I think there's a much better argument that our financial system has the same capabilities. I think it's about to fudge us off, big-time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4565
Location: Straya c**ts.
towny wrote:
Silver wrote:
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Those on the side of 'anti-science' are just unknowingly being ignorant puppets of smart, rich, unscrupulous people. How the likes of the Koch brothers must laugh at their devoted sheep.

Unfortunately many of the denialist ringleaders are not 'unknowingly' ignorant, but willingly so. In fact you can't even call it ignorance, more like deliberate deceit, such as in the case of Lomborg, Monckton, Milloy, Inhofe, Booker, Nova etc, all of whom have been shown to be not merely misinformed, but outright liars.

On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill, who have been shown up time and again as comprehensively wrong in most of their claims, but that does not stop them making these same claims over and over. If we 'warmists' were proved to have been so comprehenmsively wrong as often as these guys are, our claims to credibility would be in ruins. But it makes absolutely no difference to Bilver & co, because they are not trying to argue an honest case, and never have been.


Alarmists are the flat-earthers. They completely ignore the evidence (including climategate etc). And put money or ingrained beliefs above evidence and common sense etc.

edit

And I'm not trying to convince you waratah. You are a lost cause. You want to believe (just like a religious devotee) regardless of the evidence.

And as if by magic, Silver appears to confirm precisely the denialist methodology I've just described: make several unfounded statements, provide no supporting evidence for any of them, ignore substantial evidence to the contrary for all of them, rinse and repeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9983
towny wrote:
Silver wrote:
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Those on the side of 'anti-science' are just unknowingly being ignorant puppets of smart, rich, unscrupulous people. How the likes of the Koch brothers must laugh at their devoted sheep.

Unfortunately many of the denialist ringleaders are not 'unknowingly' ignorant, but willingly so. In fact you can't even call it ignorance, more like deliberate deceit, such as in the case of Lomborg, Monckton, Milloy, Inhofe, Booker, Nova etc, all of whom have been shown to be not merely misinformed, but outright liars.

On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill, who have been shown up time and again as comprehensively wrong in most of their claims, but that does not stop them making these same claims over and over. If we 'warmists' were proved to have been so comprehenmsively wrong as often as these guys are, our claims to credibility would be in ruins. But it makes absolutely no difference to Bilver & co, because they are not trying to argue an honest case, and never have been.


Alarmists are the flat-earthers. They completely ignore the evidence (including climategate etc). And put money or ingrained beliefs above evidence and common sense etc.

edit

And I'm not trying to convince you waratah. You are a lost cause. You want to believe (just like a religious devotee) regardless of the evidence.


blah, blah, blah...

no one cares what you think plum.

You're just a waste of space!! The bored joke. A jerk. A human fuck-stain. A puppet.


I think that's you TE

Look I will ignore your posts if you please ignore mine. Maybe you are not but you seem to be a bit unstable so would sooner we just ignore each other


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
6roucho wrote:
towny wrote:
Anyway, if everything goes to shit and we get colossal droughts and shit, global depression would actually reduce our emissions by more than any treaty or carbon tax ever would, so if that occurs, it will arguably be an effective measure to actually deal with it long term.


That's a good point and one that's made often recently. A large correction in industrial capacity will do more for emissions than any amount of political engineering. There's a theory amongst crystal knitters that the planetary ecosystem is self-healing and will fudge us off if we annoy it, which of course could be true. I think there's a much better argument that our financial system has the same capabilities. I think it's about to fudge us off, big-time.



I'm not sure about globally, but I've got huge concerns about Australia. My plan is to get the fudge out of dodge asap!! Australia has got a HUGE problem coming up. Our resource bubble is over.....

Will it POP or slowly inflate...... ?

I don't plan to stick around to find out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
Silver wrote:
towny wrote:
Silver wrote:
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Those on the side of 'anti-science' are just unknowingly being ignorant puppets of smart, rich, unscrupulous people. How the likes of the Koch brothers must laugh at their devoted sheep.

Unfortunately many of the denialist ringleaders are not 'unknowingly' ignorant, but willingly so. In fact you can't even call it ignorance, more like deliberate deceit, such as in the case of Lomborg, Monckton, Milloy, Inhofe, Booker, Nova etc, all of whom have been shown to be not merely misinformed, but outright liars.

On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill, who have been shown up time and again as comprehensively wrong in most of their claims, but that does not stop them making these same claims over and over. If we 'warmists' were proved to have been so comprehenmsively wrong as often as these guys are, our claims to credibility would be in ruins. But it makes absolutely no difference to Bilver & co, because they are not trying to argue an honest case, and never have been.


Alarmists are the flat-earthers. They completely ignore the evidence (including climategate etc). And put money or ingrained beliefs above evidence and common sense etc.

edit

And I'm not trying to convince you waratah. You are a lost cause. You want to believe (just like a religious devotee) regardless of the evidence.


blah, blah, blah...

no one cares what you think plum.

You're just a waste of space!! The bored joke. A jerk. A human fuck-stain. A puppet.


I think that's you TE

Look I will ignore your posts if you please ignore mine. Maybe you are not but you seem to be a bit unstable so would sooner we just ignore each other


Why would I ignore you? I said you're the bored joke! I laugh at jokes and I find you amusing.



But just to be clear, you think I'm a left wing devotee right? ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
towny wrote:
6roucho wrote:
towny wrote:
Anyway, if everything goes to shit and we get colossal droughts and shit, global depression would actually reduce our emissions by more than any treaty or carbon tax ever would, so if that occurs, it will arguably be an effective measure to actually deal with it long term.


That's a good point and one that's made often recently. A large correction in industrial capacity will do more for emissions than any amount of political engineering. There's a theory amongst crystal knitters that the planetary ecosystem is self-healing and will fudge us off if we annoy it, which of course could be true. I think there's a much better argument that our financial system has the same capabilities. I think it's about to fudge us off, big-time.



I'm not sure about globally, but I've got huge concerns about Australia. My plan is to get the fudge out of dodge asap!! Australia has got a HUGE problem coming up. Our resource bubble is over.....

Will it POP or slowly inflate...... ?

I don't plan to stick around to find out.


What you need is to live in a third world country and bill in a first world country. I unfortunately do the opposite. I live in Australia and bill in Europe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9983
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Silver wrote:
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Those on the side of 'anti-science' are just unknowingly being ignorant puppets of smart, rich, unscrupulous people. How the likes of the Koch brothers must laugh at their devoted sheep.

Unfortunately many of the denialist ringleaders are not 'unknowingly' ignorant, but willingly so. In fact you can't even call it ignorance, more like deliberate deceit, such as in the case of Lomborg, Monckton, Milloy, Inhofe, Booker, Nova etc, all of whom have been shown to be not merely misinformed, but outright liars.

On PR we have flat-earthers like Silver and Bill, who have been shown up time and again as comprehensively wrong in most of their claims, but that does not stop them making these same claims over and over. If we 'warmists' were proved to have been so comprehenmsively wrong as often as these guys are, our claims to credibility would be in ruins. But it makes absolutely no difference to Bilver & co, because they are not trying to argue an honest case, and never have been.


Alarmists are the flat-earthers. They completely ignore the evidence (including climategate etc). And put money or ingrained beliefs above evidence and common sense etc.

edit

And I'm not trying to convince you waratah. You are a lost cause. You want to believe (just like a religious devotee) regardless of the evidence.

And as if by magic, Silver appears to confirm precisely the denialist methodology I've just described: make several unfounded statements, provide no supporting evidence for any of them, ignore substantial evidence to the contrary for all of them, rinse and repeat.


If you want to believe the world is going to almost end due to tiny increases of CO2 so be it. Unless of course we hand over huge money to the ruling elite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
6roucho wrote:
towny wrote:
6roucho wrote:
towny wrote:
Anyway, if everything goes to shit and we get colossal droughts and shit, global depression would actually reduce our emissions by more than any treaty or carbon tax ever would, so if that occurs, it will arguably be an effective measure to actually deal with it long term.


That's a good point and one that's made often recently. A large correction in industrial capacity will do more for emissions than any amount of political engineering. There's a theory amongst crystal knitters that the planetary ecosystem is self-healing and will fudge us off if we annoy it, which of course could be true. I think there's a much better argument that our financial system has the same capabilities. I think it's about to fudge us off, big-time.



I'm not sure about globally, but I've got huge concerns about Australia. My plan is to get the fudge out of dodge asap!! Australia has got a HUGE problem coming up. Our resource bubble is over.....

Will it POP or slowly inflate...... ?

I don't plan to stick around to find out.


What you need is to live in a third world country and bill in a first world country. I unfortunately do the opposite. I live in Australia and bill in Europe.



nice!!

I'll be 'okay' if I stay here as my role is 'global'. However I want to beat the rush into the next growth market which is obviously Africa.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4565
Location: Straya c**ts.
Silver wrote:
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Silver wrote:
Alarmists are the flat-earthers. They completely ignore the evidence (including climategate etc). And put money or ingrained beliefs above evidence and common sense etc.

edit

And I'm not trying to convince you waratah. You are a lost cause. You want to believe (just like a religious devotee) regardless of the evidence.

And as if by magic, Silver appears to confirm precisely the denialist methodology I've just described: make several unfounded statements, provide no supporting evidence for any of them, ignore substantial evidence to the contrary for all of them, rinse and repeat.


If you want to believe the world is going to almost end due to tiny increases of CO2 so be it. Unless of course we hand over huge money to the ruling elite.


SILVERBOT
Image

"learning is best achieved by ignoring experienced, qualified researchers in any given field and instead "thinking for oneself."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
Silver wrote:

If you want to believe the world is going to almost end due to tiny increases of CO2 so be it. Unless of course we hand over huge money to the ruling elite.



:lol: :lol:

I wonder who this ruling elite is?

Silver contends that it's not the following:
- Oil & Gas companies (some of the richest and post powerful organisations on earth)
- Political Conservative parties (GOP)
- People with lots of money (Cheney, Romney, Koch, Murdoch)
- The very people who've always had the power


Nope. He reckons the ruling elite are educated people and scientists.


:lol:


Where does he get this shit from????? Truly bizarre rationale!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9983
Waratah wrote:
Silver wrote:
Waratah wrote:
towny wrote:
Silver wrote:
Alarmists are the flat-earthers. They completely ignore the evidence (including climategate etc). And put money or ingrained beliefs above evidence and common sense etc.

edit

And I'm not trying to convince you waratah. You are a lost cause. You want to believe (just like a religious devotee) regardless of the evidence.

And as if by magic, Silver appears to confirm precisely the denialist methodology I've just described: make several unfounded statements, provide no supporting evidence for any of them, ignore substantial evidence to the contrary for all of them, rinse and repeat.


If you want to believe the world is going to almost end due to tiny increases of CO2 so be it. Unless of course we hand over huge money to the ruling elite.


SILVERBOT
Image

"learning is best achieved by ignoring experienced, qualified researchers in any given field and instead "thinking for oneself."


Yes yes evil man made CO2 will do us in for our sinful life style. So hand over your money.

It will not make a scrap of difference but hand it over anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:56 pm
Posts: 391
Location: AGM, Association for Bringing Down Statues
Silver wrote:
Unless of course we hand over huge money to the ruling elite.


I love this argument. The global elite have already stolen trillions and put it in tax havens. No-one on the right bats an eyelid. But if anyone suggests that applying some brakes might stop the car from going over the cliff, a 45-page shitfight ensues


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
Silver, don't you understand that you are able to separate the science from the suggested remedies?

What exactly is your argument? You seem to spin all over the place and blindly lurch from one attack to another.

You don't like the science? Based on what?

You don't like the taxation? Just say so.

You think this the whole thing is a con to consolidate the power with the ruling elite?? You're insane!!! The 'ruling elite' are the precise people who are paying for the websites you are getting your 'information' from.


You are seriously being deluded here mate. Please, please, please, have a look around and look at who's pulling your strings!! Really rich people involved in old industries like energy; i.e. the RULING ELITE!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9983
Psychologist wrote:
Silver wrote:
Unless of course we hand over huge money to the ruling elite.


I love this argument. The global elite have already stolen trillions and put it in tax havens. No-one on the right bats an eyelid. But if anyone suggests that applying some brakes might stop the car from going over the cliff, a 45-page shitfight ensues


Trillions????? Who do you think the ruling elite are?

The Aussie carbon tax is going to the treasury. It's just another tax that will do nothing to reduce world temperatures. But it gives meddling Govts an excuse to tax and regulate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
Silver wrote:
Psychologist wrote:
Silver wrote:
Unless of course we hand over huge money to the ruling elite.


I love this argument. The global elite have already stolen trillions and put it in tax havens. No-one on the right bats an eyelid. But if anyone suggests that applying some brakes might stop the car from going over the cliff, a 45-page shitfight ensues


Trillions????? Who do you think the ruling elite are?

The Aussie carbon tax is going to the treasury. It's just another tax that will do nothing to reduce world temperatures. But it gives meddling Govts an excuse to tax and regulate.


Psychologist is right. The hidden private wealth of individuals has been in the news recently and the number is indeed trillions.

I thought you said a $10 carbon price would result in a revenue shortfall? You can;t hold two opposing ideas simultaneously. Well, you can but it's not considered psychiatric best practise.


Last edited by 6roucho on Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16381
Location: Perth
Silver wrote:
Psychologist wrote:
Silver wrote:
Unless of course we hand over huge money to the ruling elite.


I love this argument. The global elite have already stolen trillions and put it in tax havens. No-one on the right bats an eyelid. But if anyone suggests that applying some brakes might stop the car from going over the cliff, a 45-page shitfight ensues


Trillions????? Who do you think the ruling elite are?

The Aussie carbon tax is going to the treasury. It's just another tax that will do nothing to reduce world temperatures. But it gives meddling Govts an excuse to tax and regulate.



I actually agree!!

The oz carbon tax is just a fund raising exercise and also allows the Govt to maintain power.

Let's go to the real question - Who do you think the 'ruling elite' are? Who's really in charge mate?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16533
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Silver wrote:
Psychologist wrote:
Silver wrote:
Unless of course we hand over huge money to the ruling elite.


I love this argument. The global elite have already stolen trillions and put it in tax havens. No-one on the right bats an eyelid. But if anyone suggests that applying some brakes might stop the car from going over the cliff, a 45-page shitfight ensues


Trillions????? Who do you think the ruling elite are?

The Aussie carbon tax is going to the treasury. It's just another tax that will do nothing to reduce world temperatures. But it gives meddling Govts an excuse to tax and regulate.


Silver, what about the tax cuts that have come about at the same time as the carbon tax was implemented? You know, the one where the tax free threshold is increased to $18,000 as a part of it? The one that makes the carbon tax a revenue neutral tax?

Towns, its really not worth it, Silver genuinely believes that printing money is a great way to pay off government debt, and is in no way inflationary. He is a genuine loon. He would not look out of place with a tin foil hat making unvalidated claims that Area 51 was a secret CIA base where the Sept 11 attacks were plotted from by our alien overlords.


Last edited by Farva on Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6304 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 ... 158  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: assfly, backrow, Bobless, danny_fitz, DragonKhan, Edinburgh01, frillage, Google Adsense [Bot], HighKingLeinster, Jensrsa, Lemoentjie, Liathroidigloine, Lorthern Nights, Luckycharmer, mdaclarke, mr bungle, msp., Mullet 2, MunsterMan!!!!!, nardol, ovalball, Petros, PornDog, Raggs, rialtoblue, RodneyRegis, Rowdy, Rugby2023, sturginho, tc27, Tez, The Sun God, Toddyno7, Troll, Varsity Way, Wilderbeast, Winnie and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group