Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority  

Go Back   Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority > General Sports > Debate Forum

Hello Guest!
Take a minute to register, It's 100% FREE! What are you waiting for?
Register Now
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old 08-10-17, 08:33 AM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 20,240
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleGuy View Post
We should pragmatically continue to develop renewables from a national security standpoint, creating a "diversified portfolio" (hedging). Thankfully, nuclear appears dead - at least for the time being. And, I am totally against "neighborhood" nuclear installations as was once proposed.

Issues, such as birds being fried (solar) or cut to ribbons (wind), need to be resolved.
This is reasonable with a couple of caveats:

* The recent innovation in fossil fuel discovery & extraction has essentially removed the concept of "peak oil" from our thinking. This is an extraordinary occurrence which indicates that oil & natural gas reserves should last us at least another couple of centuries even assuming significant increases in consumption. Even better the USA is now an oil & natural gas superpower with enormous reserves in hand. This lessons the strategic risk that depending on foreign oil sources represented in the past. Bottom line is that we have the time to wean ourselves from oil.

* Most people are not aware that one of the reasons the US has reduced it's carbon footprint in spite of a growing population & economy is the increasing use of natural gas. While still a carbon based fossil fuel NG produces much less CO2 than coal or oil. In fact serious R&D should be underway to convert our gasoline fueled cars & trucks to safely run on NG. That would probably be more effective then increasing our investments in solar power R&D.

* Coal reserves remain in abundance and I would propose that the technical challenges of developing truly clean coal based energy are about the same as the challenges facing the development of truly economical & efficient solar/wind energy sources. Net we should be working on BOTH problems and not ignoring coal which is present in enormous quantities.

* I get your concern with neighborhood nuclear power plants, I would be uneasy with them also. But I wouldn't want those giant, humming wind turbines anywhere near my neighborhood either. Nuclear reactors that are somewhat isolated could be a useful source of energy and should not be ruled out.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-10-17, 08:47 AM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,438
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish82 View Post
No, #tryinghard to sound smarter than you actually are does.



See above.
Please, do tell me how smart I am. I'm interested.

Shall I point out how you've resorted to basic ad hominem attacks, or is that too pretentious as well?

#tryinghard
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-10-17, 08:55 AM
Neopolitan Neopolitan is online now
All American
 
Join Date: 10-12-16
Posts: 1,572
Neopolitan is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
There is literally no singular number like you are so intent on. That is why your question is stupid. To understand you have to read and comprehend the facts.
So we don't know how much of the warming is due to human activity, and therefore can not make even a ballpark prediction for what effects any of the proposals will or won't have on climate change? So basically there's zero way to calculate the cost/benefit of anything progressives are claiming we HAVE to do.

Yeah, that doesn't seem like a problem at all....
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-10-17, 08:55 AM
TigerPaw TigerPaw is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 03-19-02
Posts: 8,816
TigerPaw is on a distinguished road
Don't you know fish82 is too smart for NASA, NOAA, etc. They can't fool him. Everyone is corrupt except for Fox News. When they aren't trying to bang the new hire with the nice tits.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-10-17, 09:01 AM
Neopolitan Neopolitan is online now
All American
 
Join Date: 10-12-16
Posts: 1,572
Neopolitan is on a distinguished road
This random Fox News host really has you worked up huh?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-10-17, 09:02 AM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,438
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neopolitan View Post
So we don't know how much of the warming is due to human activity, and therefore can not make even a ballpark prediction for what effects any of the proposals will or won't have on climate change? So basically there's zero way to calculate the cost/benefit of anything progressives are claiming we HAVE to do.

Yeah, that doesn't seem like a problem at all....
I mean, I posted two links detailing what will happen if we do nothing. Did you even read them?

You can lead a horse to water...
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-10-17, 09:05 AM
Neopolitan Neopolitan is online now
All American
 
Join Date: 10-12-16
Posts: 1,572
Neopolitan is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
I mean, I posted two links detailing what will happen if we do nothing. Did you even read them?

You can lead a horse to water...
How are those predictions more valid than the ones from 10+ years ago that wildly missed the mark? What incentive do climate scientists have to be right that counteracts their incentive to make their work appear important?
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-10-17, 09:20 AM
TigerPaw TigerPaw is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 03-19-02
Posts: 8,816
TigerPaw is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neopolitan View Post
So we don't know how much of the warming is due to human activity, and therefore can not make even a ballpark prediction for what effects any of the proposals will or won't have on climate change? So basically there's zero way to calculate the cost/benefit of anything progressives are claiming we HAVE to do.

Yeah, that doesn't seem like a problem at all....
Can we calculate these costs?: Current health hazards and cost of treatment, residential hazards, work hazards, environmental remediation, defense etc. Shorter life expectancy aint a cost to conservatives, so we can't use that one.

From a climate change standpoint, I don't have crusaders patience to even try to explain what melting glaciers or 1 or 2 degrees means to every random idiot. Hell I don't even understand it all. My degree is in Operations and Industrial Management. And of course he is exactly right it is fruitless to explaining the cost/benefit of acting or failing to, for something you do not believe in anyhow.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-10-17, 09:22 AM
fish82 fish82 is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 11,046
fish82 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
Please, do tell me how smart I am. I'm interested.
It's more fun watching you tell us how smart you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
Shall I point out how you've resorted to basic ad hominem attacks, or is that too pretentious as well?

#tryinghard
I haven't "resorted" to anything. I applauded you filling a previously empty role on the board.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-10-17, 09:27 AM
fish82 fish82 is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 11,046
fish82 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerPaw View Post
Don't you know fish82 is too smart for NASA, NOAA, etc. They can't fool him.
I don't recall ever making such a claim. I'd hate to think you're just throwing sht against the wall (again) here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerPaw View Post
Everyone is corrupt except for Fox News. When they aren't trying to bang the new hire with the nice tits.
And the go-to TP random Fox News reference.

Everybody drink.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 08-10-17, 09:29 AM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,438
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish82 View Post
It's more fun watching you tell us how smart you are.



I haven't "resorted" to anything. I applauded you filling a previously empty role on the board.
Instead of actually discussing the topic you tried to turn the tables on me. That is literally the definition of ad hominem.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 08-10-17, 09:33 AM
fish82 fish82 is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 11,046
fish82 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
Instead of actually discussing the topic you tried to turn the tables on me. That is literally the definition of ad hominem.
Not really, since I'm not using it as a rebuttal to any of your arguments. I'm merely making an observation.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 08-10-17, 09:33 AM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,438
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neopolitan View Post
How are those predictions more valid than the ones from 10+ years ago that wildly missed the mark? What incentive do climate scientists have to be right that counteracts their incentive to make their work appear important?
It literally just sounds like you don't trust science as a whole.

You asked for estimates of what will happen. I provided links to those estimates. You rejected those estimates outright without even addressing them. As I pointed out before...it is a logical fallacy to say we can't trust science because it has been wrong in the past. The failings of past scientific endeavors is no reason to cast aside current science, nor do they make current knowledge invalid.

How am I supposed to converse with you if you don't even understand that basic premise?
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 08-10-17, 09:34 AM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,438
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish82 View Post
Not really, since I'm not using it as a rebuttal to any of your arguments. I'm merely making an observation.
That is literally what ad hominem means. You are trying to discredit me without regard to any of my arguments. Goodness gracious.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 08-10-17, 09:35 AM
TigerPaw TigerPaw is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 03-19-02
Posts: 8,816
TigerPaw is on a distinguished road
Yeah but when have politicians ever been wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 08-10-17, 09:54 AM
fish82 fish82 is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 11,046
fish82 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
That is literally what ad hominem means.
No it isn't. It's used to attempt to discredit a specific argument or set of arguments...since I'm not engaging you on any specific statement or position (merely making an observation as to your overall shtick) it doesn't apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
You are trying to discredit me without regard to any of my arguments. Goodness gracious.
Unless it's in regard to one or any of your arguments, it's not an ad hom.

Goodness gracious, indeed.

If you want to go down that road, chs1971 is guilty for the "classic pretentious BS" response to your somewhat loose interpretation of the continuum fallacy. That's an ad hom.

Hope this helps.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 08-10-17, 09:57 AM
Neopolitan Neopolitan is online now
All American
 
Join Date: 10-12-16
Posts: 1,572
Neopolitan is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
As I pointed out before...it is a logical fallacy to say we can't trust science because it has been wrong in the past. The failings of past scientific endeavors is no reason to cast aside current science, nor do they make current knowledge invalid.
That would be valid if we were discussing climate change and say...cancer risks.

But the climate scientists are using the same modeling they used 10 years ago to predict the progression of global temperature and the effects it will have on the earth. So far, that model has not proven to be particularly accurate, yet you're asking the global community to trust it anyway because "this time it will be right."

I haven't heard a climate scientist address what went wrong in their predictions from 10+ years ago, and how they have updated their model to correct for those failures. Care to provide an explanation I might have missed?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 08-10-17, 10:09 AM
winbypin winbypin is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-12-06
Posts: 6,773
winbypin is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
It literally just sounds like you don't trust science as a whole.

You asked for estimates of what will happen. I provided links to those estimates. You rejected those estimates outright without even addressing them. As I pointed out before...it is a logical fallacy to say we can't trust science because it has been wrong in the past. The failings of past scientific endeavors is no reason to cast aside current science, nor do they make current knowledge invalid.

How am I supposed to converse with you if you don't even understand that basic premise?
I read one of your links about possible outcomes. It's littered with terms like "uncertainty", "may cause problems", "could have large effects", "some scientists believe one thing, some another, and some less convinced", "wild-cards", "models suggest"....I think that is why some people are a little skeptical. It appears that the "experts" can't agree either.

Do I think humans have contributed to global warming or a changing climate? Yea, I'd say we impacted it somehow. It's a fair question to ask what amount is because of humans and what amount is just part of a natural cycle of the earth. Because if you don't know how much impact humans have had you can't begin to figure out how much humans can change it.

Personally, I think the earth will adjust and survive. Things may be very different in future centuries but things were very different centuries ago too. As humans, we should put in a reasonable effort to counter our input. I'd say the US has done a decent job of this as have other countries. But until you get places like China & India to get on board....
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 08-10-17, 10:19 AM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,438
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish82 View Post
No it isn't. It's used to attempt to discredit a specific argument or set of arguments...since I'm not engaging you on any specific statement or position (merely making an observation as to your overall shtick) it doesn't apply.



Unless it's in regard to one or any of your arguments, it's not an ad hom.

Goodness gracious, indeed.

If you want to go down that road, chs1971 is guilty for the "classic pretentious BS" response to your somewhat loose interpretation of the continuum fallacy. That's an ad hom.

Hope this helps.
Ad hominem attacks are anything that attempts to shift the focus from the topic to the person. You bringing my "overall shtick" (an opinion which has no relevance to this topic) into play is ad hom by definition. Whether or not you are using said ad hom in relation to specific argument is academic.

He is guilty of it just like you are.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 08-10-17, 10:26 AM
TigerPaw TigerPaw is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 03-19-02
Posts: 8,816
TigerPaw is on a distinguished road
Well of course the earth will survive, lol. It will survive nuclear war too.

Btw, by dropping out of our leadership role, where we DID have influence, we have none now. It's only the #1 job growth of the future but no biggie, China, India, Russia and Europe will happily fill the void. US is only a minor setback. A bigger one for us.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 08-10-17, 10:38 AM
winbypin winbypin is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-12-06
Posts: 6,773
winbypin is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerPaw View Post
Well of course the earth will survive, lol. It will survive nuclear war too.

Btw, by dropping out of our leadership role, where we DID have influence, we have none now. It's only the #1 job growth of the future but no biggie, China, India, Russia and Europe will happily fill the void. US is only a minor setback. A bigger one for us.
You're talking about the Paris accords? That was a bad deal for the US. The US is still a leader in the world. That's not going to change.

Random thought....I always felt it was weird that people who put so much stock into science, evolution, etc. feel they can stop what could very well be a natural process.....maybe humans' time on this planet is starting to wind down?
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 08-10-17, 10:41 AM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,438
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by winbypin View Post
I read one of your links about possible outcomes. It's littered with terms like "uncertainty", "may cause problems", "could have large effects", "some scientists believe one thing, some another, and some less convinced", "wild-cards", "models suggest"....I think that is why some people are a little skeptical. It appears that the "experts" can't agree either.

Do I think humans have contributed to global warming or a changing climate? Yea, I'd say we impacted it somehow. It's a fair question to ask what amount is because of humans and what amount is just part of a natural cycle of the earth. Because if you don't know how much impact humans have had you can't begin to figure out how much humans can change it.

Personally, I think the earth will adjust and survive. Things may be very different in future centuries but things were very different centuries ago too. As humans, we should put in a reasonable effort to counter our input. I'd say the US has done a decent job of this as have other countries. But until you get places like China & India to get on board....
To be honest, those terms don't worry me too much in regards to scientific studies. There will always be a degree of uncertainty when modeling future events. And while different scientists might draw varying conclusions based on what their models predict, that 97% of them independently came to a general consensus speaks louder to me than whether or not they 100% agree

I wish there were a simple, single number to go off of, but climate change is such a big question and problem that I just don't think there is a way to boil it all down to something like that.

I think it will survive, but I'm not sure how much it will adjust back. But agreed. It can't just be us. That is fighting a losing battle for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 08-10-17, 10:43 AM
WestSideBomber WestSideBomber is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 04-16-05
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,438
WestSideBomber is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by winbypin View Post
You're talking about the Paris accords? That was a bad deal for the US. The US is still a leader in the world. That's not going to change.

Random thought....I always felt it was weird that people who put so much stock into science, evolution, etc. feel they can stop what could very well be a natural process.....maybe humans' time on this planet is starting to wind down?
I've had that thought too. If we can't figure it out and find a way to survive any potential upcoming changes (whether they are by our own hands or not)...were we really meant to?
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 08-10-17, 10:53 AM
fish82 fish82 is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 11,046
fish82 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
Ad hominem attacks are anything that attempts to shift the focus from the topic to the person.
False. You're clearly confused what an Ad hominem is. If you and I were debating a position and I did it, then it's an Ad hom. In this case, it is not.

I'm a little unsure why you seem to think this is a hill worth dying on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
You bringing my "overall shtick" (an opinion which has no relevance to this topic) into play is ad hom by definition.
See above. Still false, and you're still confused as to the definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
Whether or not you are using said ad hom in relation to specific argument is academic.
You can repeat this as much as you like. It's still patently false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
He is guilty of it just like you are.
Nope. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 08-10-17, 11:06 AM
fish82 fish82 is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 09-16-05
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 11,046
fish82 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neopolitan View Post
That would be valid if we were discussing climate change and say...cancer risks.

But the climate scientists are using the same modeling they used 10 years ago to predict the progression of global temperature and the effects it will have on the earth. So far, that model has not proven to be particularly accurate, yet you're asking the global community to trust it anyway because "this time it will be right."

I haven't heard a climate scientist address what went wrong in their predictions from 10+ years ago, and how they have updated their model to correct for those failures. Care to provide an explanation I might have missed?
Just bumping this, as I'd be interested in an answer to this question as well.

I've not read anything about any adjustments to the modeling. They seem to essentially ignore the fact that every prediction made 10-15 years ago for today failed to materialize.

The only change I've seen is that they're now using a 50+ year prediction window instead of 10-15. Absent any clarification on modeling improvements, the cynic in me can come up with a pretty simple reason for this.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 08-10-17, 11:08 AM
cabezadecaballo cabezadecaballo is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-06-12
Location: over here
Posts: 26,542
cabezadecaballo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_buffalo View Post
Buffalo fart too man. Big contributor.
What is the only English word that can form a proper sentence by repeating it five times ?




Buffalo

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 08-10-17, 12:22 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 16,208
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestSideBomber View Post
I mean, I posted two links detailing what will happen if we do nothing. Did you even read them?

You can lead a horse to water...
We don't really know that anymore than we know that that could be what happens if we completely eliminate fossil fuel use next week. It could be what happens if we killed 2/3rds of the people on the planet and reduced our dependence on fossil fuels by 75%. You do understand that, right?
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 08-10-17, 12:28 PM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 16,208
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleGuy View Post
We should pragmatically continue to develop renewables from a national security standpoint, creating a "diversified portfolio" (hedging). Thankfully, nuclear appears dead - at least for the time being. And, I am totally against "neighborhood" nuclear installations as was once proposed.

Issues, such as birds being fried (solar) or cut to ribbons (wind), need to be resolved.
Agree, but I also see nuclear as part of the equation. It doesn't appear to be an imperative that something be done immediately since much of the remediation seems to be creating a market for transferring wealth vs actually cleaning up the atmosphere.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 08-10-17, 12:38 PM
lotr10 lotr10 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 08-26-03
Location: fairfield, ohio
Posts: 20,240
lotr10 will become famous soon enough
Climate Change arguments are on par with those "pubic versus private" high school football debates on Yappi but with less facts. I'm not going to jump into the argument because after a while beating a dead horse is disgusting work but:

* Asking Climate Change alarmists to quantify to what extent human beings are changing the climate is a fair question to ask. This is the single most important piece of information we need to know in order to decide how best to approach "climate change". Since even most skeptics readily concede we are changing climate to at least a small degree it is the responsibility of the alarmists to provide a scientifically rigorous estimate for how much we are changing it. The failure to do so indicates that the theory of human caused catastrophic climate change is far from proven and is actually quite weak.

* Why do we skeptics obsess on this question? It's simple because solving this problem is very different if the human race is responsible for 20% of the change versus being responsible for 80% of the change.

* My other question is why on earth are people still throwing out that ridiculous survey result claiming that "97% of scientists support the idea of man made climate change". This survey has been widely discredited and shown to be nothing more than a poorly worded bit of propagandist push polling .
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 08-10-17, 02:33 PM
JediMaster JediMaster is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 02-16-11
Location: Mason, OH
Posts: 743
JediMaster is on a distinguished road
I don't see why it's unreasonable or even worthy of scorn to imagine that people can both accept climate change as occurring while at the same time acknowledging to-date there have been no viable long term solutions to mitigate the effects of the already irreversible build-up of GHGs in the atmosphere, resulting in a "warming" Earth.

Wind, solar and nuclear power ARE the future of the energy industry, but I argue that their development and need for global utilization are required due to future inevitable fossil fuel scarcities that if left unrecognized, could lead to true global energy crises. The technology in the "safest" of these renewable sources however is still in the infancy stages of their development when considering efficiency, output and availability on a global scale.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=99888903

There's been studies conducted that suggest if we were to completely cease all CO2 emissions today, BOTH human and non-human produced, it would take at least a thousand years for the CO2 already stored in the atmosphere to be reduced at least 80%. So not only would you have to stop the literal life-force of billions on this planet FOREVER (I'm sure that wouldn't be apocalyptic in its implementation or anything), you would have to prevent nature from emitting its own CO2. Accepting this part of the "scientific consensus" is key to understanding the vast majority of what alarmists refer to as "deniers"' mentality on the subject. Yes global warming is real, yes humans contribute to it, no, there is not a single way to stop it right now or even a thousand years from now without allowing billions to die and us reverting back to the stone age - and that's a GUESS as to whether or not that would even help in that time-frame, no guarantees of reversal.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Registration Booster - Powered By Dirt RIF CustUmz