How America Lost Her Mind

The place for general political discussion.

Re: How America Lost Her Mind

Postby spacemonkey » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:14 am

Being a fit mother or father does not happen at birth. It plays out in the next 18-20 years.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4834
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: How America Lost Her Mind

Postby Kane » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:50 am

John Galt wrote:During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

you know, Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship. it's about what is actually happening. it's the devolution of facts to factoids and worse, it's people being turned into morons by TV, by media. it's about everyone agreeing to burn books -- ideas -- that offend one group until nothing is left. it's the people that have done this to themselves, with political correctness replacing the facts of books with the truthiness of tv. with social media this shit just gets kicked up to 11


Political correctness didn't do this. People's perceptions of what that actually represents has been triangulated to fit politically driven narratives driving out any nuance on what "political correctness" actually aims to accomplish. It's all been hijacked by partisanship and the loudest voices in the room. Those seeking to bend it to their will.

Contemporary conservatives have learned how to play the victim to an astounding degree. Where minorities have fewer opportunities, demonstrably less wealth as a result of slavery that lasted over a century, conservatives see a pc community seeking to control what they can and can't call a person or thing. Who they can and can't provide services to based on color, sex, etc. And the best part? If they simply utilized other criteria to deny a person service they can easily do so - it just can't be blatantly discriminatory as laid out by SCOTUS.

It's astonishing.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote:When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.
User avatar
Kane
Governor
 
Posts: 7313
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: The Yay
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 299 times
Been thanked: 498 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: How America Lost Her Mind

Postby Kane » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:51 am

This is really born of ignorance, complacency, and satiation. Americans have it pretty good and so they ignore things/don't care.

Trump will correct that in four years time.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote:When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.
User avatar
Kane
Governor
 
Posts: 7313
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: The Yay
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 299 times
Been thanked: 498 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: How America Lost Her Mind

Postby exploited » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:57 am

Saz wrote:
I brought up the car to demonstrate that having a defective process does not change the nature of the object. The fact that a person is infertile due to genetic transcribing errors or external stimuli does not make them dead. In the same way, my car coming off the line with a bad gasket doesn't make it not a car.


Well that depends on the definition of a car. If a car by definition requires a gasket, then whatever the thing coming off the assembly line without a gasket is, it's not a car. You posed a tautology, and asked if a car is a car. Honestly I'm not sure you are bright enough to see the distinction here.

Indeed, the nature of life itself is imperfect. Genes get mutated. Those genes are passed on to successive generations. Sometimes those mutations are positive, like people born with mouth bacteria that leads to significantly less cavities. Sometimes they are negative, like male pattern baldness or a susceptibility to cancer or infertility. Sometimes infertility is caused by other issues, like exposure to nasty chemicals. Literally none of this contradicts the biological definition of life, because absent a very specific error in the process that leads to such a definition, there would be no issue.

Life is a binary, either you are alive or you arent. The other shit you listed is on a spectrum, balding for instance. In any case, I'm sure there is actually some threshold where losing hair becomes male pattern baldness...that is a bright line standard. There simply isn't one for life.

Thing is, you already knew this. Obviously infertile people are alive.

Yes, which is why your definition of life is not scientific. We just went through this

"But what about this supposed definition of life? I mean they only hit 7/8 points!" Yeah, dude, science is f**k imprecise. Is climate science not science because the models are incomplete? Do people who work on understanding cancer not practice science because they really don't understand cancer? Is our understanding of DNA or chemistry or physics unscientific because we have an incomplete understanding of those things?


Lmao, so how is your definition of life scientific, if one or more elements can not apply, and it's still life. What is only 1 of the 8 points is present? What about 5/8? There is no bright line standard, I've said this many times.

I mean shit son. What you are really arguing is that NOTHING is science, because let's face it, there really isn't any scientific theory that is perfect and applicable at all times. Even the "laws" of physics break down in certain circumstances.
No, what I'm saying is it's not scientific if there is a KNOWN exception. Of course there will always be situations where we have tested a hypothesis 10,000 time, it all came back the same...but its possible if we tested it 10,001 times, we would find an exception. You can push that 10,000 number out to infinity, we can't be sure. Until we find the exception that disproves the rule, it is considered scientific. Once we find an exception that disproves the rule, we adjust our hypothesis and retest until we stop finding such exceptions. This is basic shit man, have you heard of the SCIENTIFIC method?

That being said, I'd love to hear your scientific reasoning behind the idea that an embryo isn't human life but a fetus is. We both know you don't have any such reasoning. It is just an arbitrary line that you have drawn in the sand because it is convenient for your particular philosophical argument. My approach is much simpler: a human life meets all or most of the biological criteria I listed above and belongs to our specific species. The only reason you really object to this is because of a shoddy understanding of the "perfection" of science, and an ideological desire to eliminate any moral or philosophical consideration for aborting a child before 11 weeks. The pro-choice movement really created this argument, and they act to expand it further by developing shaky theories centered around personhood. These theories are significantly weaker than anything I've posted on this thread, which can at least describe a specific species and a specific set of criteria that nearly all of what we call life meets. To give an example:
Yea, you are lost. I'm saz, i really don't give a shit if you call it murder or not and im perfectly happy to say a 10 week old fetus is a human life that can legally be aborted for convenience. But you just said it has MOST, not not necessarily all, of the conditions of life. So to say SCIENTIFICALLY that it is life is stupid. It's a philosophical and moral issue, and I agree that there are many similarities to actual life that should come into play when making the moral determination as to if it is alive. But to call it scientific is absurd and betrays a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method.

What is personhood? Is it consciousness? I suppose a person in a coma isn't a person, then. Maybe suffering? Well, animals suffer, but they aren't people. Maybe intelligence? I guess that means retards aren't people but dolphins are. Maybe it is a combination of all things, to some degree?
Yea, it's a tricky philosophical question. Precisely because there is no scientific definition for person-hood either. Personally, I think it's like porn: I know it when I see it.

By introducing these vague terms and then developing an entire philosophy that rests atop them, the goal is to eliminate any moral culpability for the decision to abort. You can tell yourself that you are not ending human life, and if you can't make that work, then you at least have not ended a person.
That's not the goal and honestly you give (at least me and I'm sure many other pro-choice people) way more moral credit than we deserve. Honestly I don't care if it is or isn't a human life, it wouldn't alter my view one bit.

To bring it all back around to my original explanation for you, how is this in anyway stronger than my justification for supporting pro-choice politics?
I'm not trying to justify anything. I've told you, this is my opinion. As far as I'm concerned legally abortion is legal up until he point where i probably wouldn't be comfortable with it, so I'm not trying to justify or change anything here. I'm just telling you this isn't a SCIENTIFIC issue because there is no scientific definition for things like (alive). We have criteria to observe and guide us, but there is no bright line rule.

The reason why I support abortion rights is because the moral wrongs created by forbidding it are greater than the moral wrongs created by allowing it. A mostly unconscious creature that doesn't feel much pain as a result and isn't aware of itself vs. having a child that will be neglected, abused, in extreme physical or mental agony, etc. The problem for pro-choice people, ideologically, is that by following this train of logic, they must also accept that some abortions are immoral. That is not the ideology that want to promote. They want to promote "no judgment." So if you get f**k, and get pregnant, and decide to abort it at 5 months, not because of any particular reason, but simply because you don't want it - who cares?! It isn't human life! It isn't a person! And then half these f**k would promote jail time for killing a cat. God it's so annoying.
I think you are putting words in other people's mouths. I told you I don't really give a shit about that aspect of it, and honestly I haven't met a pro-choice person who has. I don't even think its immoral, even if you take the view it is a human. People kill people all the time, not always immoral, really depends on context.


Straight incoherent nonsense. I thought you wanted to play?

According to you, the laws of physics are not scientific because we KNOW they break down in black holes.

According to you, climate science is not science because we KNOW there are inaccuracies in the models.

According to you, quantum mechanics is not science because we KNOW we can't integrate it with the general theory of relativity.

Goddamn you're shit at this kind of thing.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20961
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: How America Lost Her Mind

Postby John Galt » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:11 pm

Kane wrote:
John Galt wrote:During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

you know, Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship. it's about what is actually happening. it's the devolution of facts to factoids and worse, it's people being turned into morons by TV, by media. it's about everyone agreeing to burn books -- ideas -- that offend one group until nothing is left. it's the people that have done this to themselves, with political correctness replacing the facts of books with the truthiness of tv. with social media this shit just gets kicked up to 11


Political correctness didn't do this. People's perceptions of what that actually represents has been triangulated to fit politically driven narratives driving out any nuance on what "political correctness" actually aims to accomplish. It's all been hijacked by partisanship and the loudest voices in the room. Those seeking to bend it to their will.

Contemporary conservatives have learned how to play the victim to an astounding degree. Where minorities have fewer opportunities, demonstrably less wealth as a result of slavery that lasted over a century, conservatives see a pc community seeking to control what they can and can't call a person or thing. Who they can and can't provide services to based on color, sex, etc. And the best part? If they simply utilized other criteria to deny a person service they can easily do so - it just can't be blatantly discriminatory as laid out by SCOTUS.

It's astonishing.


i was talking about the book bro. yes, i was saying the book written over 60 years ago is remarkable in how its warning was not heeded and here we are -- but that is in part because the warning was ignored entirely as being something that could happen and instead people claimed the book was about government censorship; bradbury himself left the stage when giving speech about the book, and how it is about what i said it was, because he was being yelled at that what he said wasn't true: it was about the government censoring things

I mean the book literally says

Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn it.


it's the logical conclusion of political correctness, which is "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people". get rid of things that insult people, burn the books

Bradbury imagined a democratic society whose diverse population turns against books: Whites reject Uncle Tom’s Cabin and blacks disapprove of Little Black Sambo. He imagined not just political correctness, but a society so diverse that all groups were “minorities.” He wrote that at first they condensed the books, stripping out more and more offending passages until ultimately all that remained were footnotes, which hardly anyone read. Only after people stopped reading did the state employ firemen to burn books.


http://www.laweekly.com/news/ray-bradbu ... ed-2149125
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12349
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 577 times
Been thanked: 1284 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: How America Lost Her Mind

Postby Saz » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:51 pm

exploited wrote:Straight incoherent nonsense. I thought you wanted to play?


Honestly I just get bored with you because inevitably this ends with your embarrassment. Unlike other posters you rarely ave unique or insightful points, you just repeat the first 4 links on google in an attempt to seem intelligent. I'm not sure why you try so hard tbh

According to you, the laws of physics are not scientific because we KNOW they break down in black holes.


No, we actually don't please read up on this topic. If the laws of physics were broken, they would not be considered laws. Right now scientists cannot reconcile what we have theorized about black holes with the laws of physics as we know them. One or the other will be wrong, maybe both. But until the theories surrounding black holes are proven, the laws of physics are just that, laws.

According to you, climate science is not science because we KNOW there are inaccuracies in the models.

What models, specifically? You have no clue what you are talking about. There is not scientific consensus on climate change but 95% agreeing one way is good enough for me. I wouldn't pass it off as fact though. I also have no idea what the other 5% of scientists are doing, presumably their methods are flawed or they have introduced bias into their research. Or maybe the same could be said for the 95%. In any case, if you have specific models to reference, we can debate if is scientific or not because ultimately that depends on their method. FWIW I don't think projections are scientific, so any climate "science" would actually have to be backward looking. Today, all we can scientifically say is that the climate has changed from a particular past reference point. Projecting this data out into the future though is rarely a scientific endeavor, and usually ends up with some 95/99% confidence interval or something.

According to you, quantum mechanics is not science because we KNOW we can't integrate it with the general theory of relativity.

We don't know that, we just haven't found a way to integrate it yet. Yes, one theory will have to give, but so far, no one can say which one will have to give when. To use an earlier analogy, both are hypothesis that have been tested 10,000 times with no exceptions, but we know they contradict each other, so if we continue testing it out, we know we will come to a point where we find an exception in one theory.

Also, note the use of the word THEORY.

Goddamn you're shit at this kind of thing.

I did very well on AP physics thank you very much. I'm positive that is more than can be said for you. If it will help you feel better we can make a thread about pizza and you can be the smart guy and everyone will agree that you are super intelligent despite your other shortcomings in life. Would that make you feel better?
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8457
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 899 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: How America Lost Her Mind

Postby Saz » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:04 pm

John Galt wrote:During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

you know, Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship. it's about what is actually happening. it's the devolution of facts to factoids and worse, it's people being turned into morons by TV, by media. it's about everyone agreeing to burn books -- ideas -- that offend one group until nothing is left. it's the people that have done this to themselves, with political correctness replacing the facts of books with the truthiness of tv. with social media this shit just gets kicked up to 11


Love it but i wouldn't say its not about censorship. It was about censorship but it was censorship sanctioned by the ignorant masses. I actually think its a brutal critique of democracy, as the state was merely a vehicle for the masses, who were the true culprits. In any case, very very applicable today. I don't think we will ever burn books, but someone will summarize them completely out of context, and the book will sit on the shelf unread...and for all practical purposes, destroyed. The epople will never have the curiosity or agency to read the book themselves, and so the mistruths and lies about its actual contents end up being taken for fact. very similar to the Google memo, which was described as a bigoted rant by some outlets, while others just made up arguments wholesale that were never in the memo. The fact that the memo hasn't been burned is irrelevant if no one reads it because "im not even going to dignify such bigotry by reading it."

Good literary shout.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke

These users thanked the author Saz for the post (total 2):
John GaltKane
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8457
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 899 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: How America Lost Her Mind

Postby exploited » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:21 pm

Saz wrote:
exploited wrote:Straight incoherent nonsense. I thought you wanted to play?


Honestly I just get bored with you because inevitably this ends with your embarrassment. Unlike other posters you rarely ave unique or insightful points, you just repeat the first 4 links on google in an attempt to seem intelligent. I'm not sure why you try so hard tbh

According to you, the laws of physics are not scientific because we KNOW they break down in black holes.


No, we actually don't please read up on this topic. If the laws of physics were broken, they would not be considered laws. Right now scientists cannot reconcile what we have theorized about black holes with the laws of physics as we know them. One or the other will be wrong, maybe both. But until the theories surrounding black holes are proven, the laws of physics are just that, laws.

According to you, climate science is not science because we KNOW there are inaccuracies in the models.

What models, specifically? You have no clue what you are talking about. There is not scientific consensus on climate change but 95% agreeing one way is good enough for me. I wouldn't pass it off as fact though. I also have no idea what the other 5% of scientists are doing, presumably their methods are flawed or they have introduced bias into their research. Or maybe the same could be said for the 95%. In any case, if you have specific models to reference, we can debate if is scientific or not because ultimately that depends on their method. FWIW I don't think projections are scientific, so any climate "science" would actually have to be backward looking. Today, all we can scientifically say is that the climate has changed from a particular past reference point. Projecting this data out into the future though is rarely a scientific endeavor, and usually ends up with some 95/99% confidence interval or something.

According to you, quantum mechanics is not science because we KNOW we can't integrate it with the general theory of relativity.

We don't know that, we just haven't found a way to integrate it yet. Yes, one theory will have to give, but so far, no one can say which one will have to give when. To use an earlier analogy, both are hypothesis that have been tested 10,000 times with no exceptions, but we know they contradict each other, so if we continue testing it out, we know we will come to a point where we find an exception in one theory.

Also, note the use of the word THEORY.

Goddamn you're shit at this kind of thing.

I did very well on AP physics thank you very much. I'm positive that is more than can be said for you. If it will help you feel better we can make a thread about pizza and you can be the smart guy and everyone will agree that you are super intelligent despite your other shortcomings in life. Would that make you feel better?


Again, this is just a bunch of horseshit. It isn't coherent. It has no consistent logic. On one hand an incomplete theory with known exceptions isn't science, on the other hand it is. That's fine but please for the love of God stop pretending you know about any of this.

Reminder: you have said things in this thread that are literally the most retarded claims ever made on PCF. You have demonstrably failed to understand even basic scientific concepts like homeostasis, adaptation or organic change. To then proceed to talk down to ANYONE here, even spacemonkey, is absurd on its face.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20961
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: How America Lost Her Mind

Postby NAB » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:23 pm

exploited wrote:
Saz wrote:
exploited wrote:Straight incoherent nonsense. I thought you wanted to play?


Honestly I just get bored with you because inevitably this ends with your embarrassment. Unlike other posters you rarely ave unique or insightful points, you just repeat the first 4 links on google in an attempt to seem intelligent. I'm not sure why you try so hard tbh

According to you, the laws of physics are not scientific because we KNOW they break down in black holes.


No, we actually don't please read up on this topic. If the laws of physics were broken, they would not be considered laws. Right now scientists cannot reconcile what we have theorized about black holes with the laws of physics as we know them. One or the other will be wrong, maybe both. But until the theories surrounding black holes are proven, the laws of physics are just that, laws.

According to you, climate science is not science because we KNOW there are inaccuracies in the models.

What models, specifically? You have no clue what you are talking about. There is not scientific consensus on climate change but 95% agreeing one way is good enough for me. I wouldn't pass it off as fact though. I also have no idea what the other 5% of scientists are doing, presumably their methods are flawed or they have introduced bias into their research. Or maybe the same could be said for the 95%. In any case, if you have specific models to reference, we can debate if is scientific or not because ultimately that depends on their method. FWIW I don't think projections are scientific, so any climate "science" would actually have to be backward looking. Today, all we can scientifically say is that the climate has changed from a particular past reference point. Projecting this data out into the future though is rarely a scientific endeavor, and usually ends up with some 95/99% confidence interval or something.

According to you, quantum mechanics is not science because we KNOW we can't integrate it with the general theory of relativity.

We don't know that, we just haven't found a way to integrate it yet. Yes, one theory will have to give, but so far, no one can say which one will have to give when. To use an earlier analogy, both are hypothesis that have been tested 10,000 times with no exceptions, but we know they contradict each other, so if we continue testing it out, we know we will come to a point where we find an exception in one theory.

Also, note the use of the word THEORY.

Goddamn you're shit at this kind of thing.

I did very well on AP physics thank you very much. I'm positive that is more than can be said for you. If it will help you feel better we can make a thread about pizza and you can be the smart guy and everyone will agree that you are super intelligent despite your other shortcomings in life. Would that make you feel better?


Again, this is just a bunch of horseshit. It isn't coherent. It has no consistent logic. On one hand an incomplete theory with known exceptions isn't science, on the other hand it is. That's fine but please for the love of God stop pretending you know about any of this.

Reminder: you have said things in this thread that are literally the most retarded claims ever made on PCF. You have demonstrably failed to understand even basic scientific concepts like homeostasis, adaptation or organic change. To then proceed to talk down to ANYONE here, even spacemonkey, is absurd on its face.


Enough with the f**k hyperbole. PCF has a long and proud history, and what Saz has written doesn't even make the top 20. Stop defacing our past with your revisionist history.
Welcome to our speak board web page
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 1080 times

Re: How America Lost Her Mind

Postby exploited » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:25 pm

NAB wrote:
exploited wrote:
Saz wrote:
exploited wrote:Straight incoherent nonsense. I thought you wanted to play?


Honestly I just get bored with you because inevitably this ends with your embarrassment. Unlike other posters you rarely ave unique or insightful points, you just repeat the first 4 links on google in an attempt to seem intelligent. I'm not sure why you try so hard tbh

According to you, the laws of physics are not scientific because we KNOW they break down in black holes.


No, we actually don't please read up on this topic. If the laws of physics were broken, they would not be considered laws. Right now scientists cannot reconcile what we have theorized about black holes with the laws of physics as we know them. One or the other will be wrong, maybe both. But until the theories surrounding black holes are proven, the laws of physics are just that, laws.

According to you, climate science is not science because we KNOW there are inaccuracies in the models.

What models, specifically? You have no clue what you are talking about. There is not scientific consensus on climate change but 95% agreeing one way is good enough for me. I wouldn't pass it off as fact though. I also have no idea what the other 5% of scientists are doing, presumably their methods are flawed or they have introduced bias into their research. Or maybe the same could be said for the 95%. In any case, if you have specific models to reference, we can debate if is scientific or not because ultimately that depends on their method. FWIW I don't think projections are scientific, so any climate "science" would actually have to be backward looking. Today, all we can scientifically say is that the climate has changed from a particular past reference point. Projecting this data out into the future though is rarely a scientific endeavor, and usually ends up with some 95/99% confidence interval or something.

According to you, quantum mechanics is not science because we KNOW we can't integrate it with the general theory of relativity.

We don't know that, we just haven't found a way to integrate it yet. Yes, one theory will have to give, but so far, no one can say which one will have to give when. To use an earlier analogy, both are hypothesis that have been tested 10,000 times with no exceptions, but we know they contradict each other, so if we continue testing it out, we know we will come to a point where we find an exception in one theory.

Also, note the use of the word THEORY.

Goddamn you're shit at this kind of thing.

I did very well on AP physics thank you very much. I'm positive that is more than can be said for you. If it will help you feel better we can make a thread about pizza and you can be the smart guy and everyone will agree that you are super intelligent despite your other shortcomings in life. Would that make you feel better?


Again, this is just a bunch of horseshit. It isn't coherent. It has no consistent logic. On one hand an incomplete theory with known exceptions isn't science, on the other hand it is. That's fine but please for the love of God stop pretending you know about any of this.

Reminder: you have said things in this thread that are literally the most retarded claims ever made on PCF. You have demonstrably failed to understand even basic scientific concepts like homeostasis, adaptation or organic change. To then proceed to talk down to ANYONE here, even spacemonkey, is absurd on its face.


Enough with the f**k hyperbole. PCF has a long and proud history, and what Saz has written doesn't even make the top 20. Stop defacing our past with your revisionist history.


It isn't hyperbole. He claimed that embryos don't maintain homeostasis and didn't respond to stimuli. That truly is f**k retarded. These concepts are taught in the sixth grade for God's sake.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20961
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest