I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
I realised that what Monbiot was referring to was the energy stored in one year of fossil fuels, but he leaves it a bit ambiguous in his article how this would relate to the annual requirement for BF. I am not sure whether this is because he has misunderstood, or whether it is the simplification that inevitably occurs in the popular media.
Someone could ask him for clarification - he might respond to a polite request. _________________ It's all downhill from here
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
EnergySpin, once again you roped me into treating your pro-biofuels posts seriously. I read you summation of Dukes (comparing it to the Univ. of Utah press release) and agree until the following,
Quote:
This should be considered a minimum requirement; a dramatically larger share of NPP would be needed if the efficiency of energy generation from biomass remained lower than the efficiency of energy generation from fossil fuels (Table III), or if biomass were to be converted to ethanol or other liquid fuels (Giampietro et al., 1997; Kheshgi et al., 2000)
This does not appear in the Utah paper. What does it mean? How is this relevant? No matter. My radar and personal history suggested the rant that would follow. You did not disappoint. The subsequent numbers about other biofuels (Switchgrass/miscanthus-ethanol etc.) you offhandedly toss off make no sense. Then the personal attacks on Monbiot for misquoting Bush make no sense. The unrelated information about phytoplankton, and newage-talk (“die-off meme”) make no sense and are in fact derogatory.
Energy Spin you seem to once again regaled us with another interminably long bit of nonsense. I do not see how these two statements (the first from the Monbiot article and the second from the Eurekalert synopsis of Dukes paper) contradict each other
Monbiot wrote:
Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter “containing 44×10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet’s current biota.”(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries’ worth of plants and animals.
Bush wrote:
Dukes also calculated that the amount of fossil fuel burned in a single year – 1997 was used in the study – totals 97 million billion pounds of carbon, which is equivalent to more than 400 times "all the plant matter that grows in the world in a year,"
The only practical difference I ascertain is that Monbiot apparently extrapolated out the number of years needed to grow the fuels we use in one year. big deal.
You need to offer up a peer-reviewed critique of Bush before your unrelated attack on both Monbiot and Bush will be heard here. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:11 am Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
pstarr wrote:
This does not appear in the Utah paper. What does it mean? How is this relevant? No matter. My radar and personal history suggested the rant that would follow. You did not disappoint. The subsequent numbers about other biofuels (Switchgrass/miscanthus-ethanol etc.) you offhandedly toss off make no sense. Then the personal attacks on Monbiot for misquoting Bush make no sense. The unrelated information about phytoplankton, and newage-talk (“die-off meme”) make no sense and are in fact derogatory.
They do appear in the paper pstarr (you have to download the paper from the website in Standford and read it carefully) .I thought that you among all other people should see the relevance of the particular piece
Dukes tried to make two pretty good points 1) fossil fuels do contain an enormous amount of sunlight 2) one can get the equivalent amount of sunlight (in real time) but there are other consequences that tell us we should not do that. I will not go in the numbers sicne I have done so, in more than one threads. You do not get it ... there is nothing I can do about it.
pstarr wrote:
Energy Spin you seem to once again regaled us with another interminably long bit of nonsense. I do not see how these two statements (the first from the Monbiot article and the second from the Eurekalert synopsis of Dukes paper) contradict each other
Monbiot did a pretty good piece of propaganda. The relevant question in the biofuel "debate" is not whether the energy return is positive. Everyone else (with the exception of Prof Pimentel) has proved that the energy gain is positive . It is not my fault that you refrained from doing the numbers when I challenged you or that you fail to read all the other papers on this particular subject.
Re-reading Monbiot's paper I think he did read Duke's paper, but he deliberately used the first statement to make people think that if we had to use biomass we would have to harvest 400 times the amount of the annual NPP to fuel the cars. If he is worried about the conseqeunces he should focus on them - and as I said there are plenty of non-energy considerations NOT to do it on a grand scale (except as a stop-gap measure).
pstarr wrote:
The only practical difference I ascertain is that Monbiot apparently extrapolated out the number of years needed to grow the fuels we use in one year. big deal.
You need to offer up a peer-reviewed critique of Bush before your unrelated attack on both Monbiot and Bush will be heard here.
Monbiot did not write a scientific paper ... he wrote an article in a newspaper which used techniques from the masters themselves (Her Goebbels). Who the hell is Bush? GW?
Let me repeat it again, cause people did miss my position on BF:
EnergySpin wrote:
The calculations do suggest otherwise ... the reason for not doing so should not be based on energy calculations (because they are (+) ) but on other considerations..... non-energy considerations that argue against us (humans) turning this planet into a "gasoline" plantation.
......
BFs are a stop-gap measure towards an electricity based sustainable society.
I hope this was loud and clear
Liamj ... I apologise for the energybulletin.net comment . But it seems that by uncritically adopting any kind of anti-BF piece out there (and not examining the big picture) one makes more harm than good .
One needs to examine these solutions/questions/fixes with the eye of an engineer. A solution (A) might not work for various reasons X1,X2,...Xn. One has to know which reason is the one responsible for the failure of the particular solution. Simply stating that it will not work, is not enough .
I will clarify this a little bit further to see why failure to make this distinction is a grave error.
Fact1: We are about to see a peak in oil production
Fact2: We are not prepared to deal with it
Possible societal response1: Deploy stop gap measures to deal with the liquid energy crunch, while we "figure out something else to do" and address both supply and demand
Possible societal response2: Deploy stop gap measures to deal with the liquid energy crunch, while we "figure out something else to do" in terms of supply so that business as usual proceeds as far as possible
The "deploy stop gap measures" is the key phrase here ; a sane person would not go down a negative EROIE pathway, and when faced with multiple positive EROIE fixes he or she will make the decision based on issues like scalability, collateral damage etc. By killing the BF debate on the basis of wrongful conclusions (not all BF are created equal!) one clears the path for much nastier "alternatives" (CTL). You have to remember that you are willing to powerdown, I am willing to powerswitch but we are two and they are millions. The majority will decide ; if one eliminates solutions/fixes too early then the majority will decide among the alternatives that are left . Have you considered the impact of such alternative pathways of action i.e. massive CTL deployment on a planetary scale? It will make the point about eco-system destruction mute; there will be no ecosystem to worry about
It is this short-termism/lack of overview that green environmentalists in general demonstrate that worry me. The inability to consider social dynamics and their influence on engineering and technology has gotten us here; and both sides in this "debate" have failed to see the impact of neglecting the reciprocal relation between technology and society
I see no reason to lie/resort to propaganda techniques in order to sell to the general public to "It will not work meme". I do agree with most of what Monbiot wrote in the second part of the article... but It seems that he is missing important elements in the BF debate.
I will spell out the names of them: jatropha, miscanthus,switchgrass, wood-coppice methanol and even algae. All these are different entities and in the swithgrass case we do know that it's cultivation does not lead to environmental degradation (hell it was used in the CRP program in the US before cellulosic ethanol technology was conceived).
I have said it before and I will repeat it here; if people are worried about the envirommental impact of bio-energy crops they should explicitly state so and not use the lies/misleading arguments. The moment someone decides to get nasty with Monbiot (we have seen the same trick applied before: Hint events that happened in 2002/2003) he will lose a big % of his credibility when it comes to the really important question: environmental impact and we will go down the much nastier alternatives.
I rest my case .... one's got to be careful with these things especially if he is a public figure. _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Last edited by EnergySpin on Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:36 am; edited 4 times in total
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:37 am Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
I don't blame Monbiot's critics for applying forensic dissection techniques to his article - and such criticism is surely welcomed if it's meant as an aid to clarification. Whether he's misquoted or misappropriated Dukes' conclusions, we can't escape the fact that we've somehow nearly exhausted fossil fuels, which took millions of years to accumulate, in just over a century's worth of concentrated exploitation. His catchy soundbite may be inexact on this point, but the substantial truth of it remains intact.
He's also correct in drawing our attention to the pitfalls of biodiesel - used even as a stop-gap measure. And surely the problem with stop-gap measures, is that they inevitably caress us into a state of denial about the actual nature and cause of our problem - obstructing us from taking the necessary (if unpalatable) action needed to correct it.
It's like getting into debt, and applying for more and more credit cards to meet the bills - when what's really required is to sit down, and take a long, hard look at your spending habits.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:24 am Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
untothislast wrote:
I don't blame Monbiot's critics for applying forensic dissection techniques to his article - and such criticism is surely welcomed if it's meant as an aid to clarification. Whether he's misquoted or misappropriated Dukes' conclusions, we can't escape the fact that we've somehow nearly exhausted fossil fuels, which took millions of years to accumulate, in just over a century's worth of concentrated exploitation. His catchy soundbite may be inexact on this point, but the substantial truth of it remains intact.
Ever since the press used similar techniques to justify a particular incident in 2003, I have been applying "forensic techniques". I hope you do not object to that.
untothislast wrote:
He's also correct in drawing our attention to the pitfalls of biodiesel - used even as a stop-gap measure.
Not all forms of biodiesel are created equal. Think of biodiesel = electricity. There are multiple ways of generating electricity .... some of them are really nasty from an environmental standpoint (think coal).
untothislast wrote:
It's like getting into debt, and applying for more and more credit cards to meet the bills - when what's really required is to sit down, and take a long, hard look at your spending habits.
This is orthogonal to the biodiesel question; and someone could say that looking for more energy is not always equivalent to applying for a new credit card.
One really needs to look at the BIG Picture ... which according to my humble brain skills is the following
EnergySpin wrote:
But it seems that by uncritically adopting any kind of anti-BF piece out there (and not examining the big picture) one makes more harm than good .
One needs to examine these solutions/questions/fixes with the eye of an engineer. A solution (A) might not work for various reasons X1,X2,...Xn. One has to know which reason is the one responsible for the failure of the particular solution. Simply stating that it will not work, is not enough .
I will clarify this a little bit further to see why failure to make this distinction is a grave error.
Fact1: We are about to see a peak in oil production
Fact2: We are not prepared to deal with it
Possible societal response1: Deploy stop gap measures to deal with the liquid energy crunch, while we "figure out something else to do" and address both supply and demand
Possible societal response2: Deploy stop gap measures to deal with the liquid energy crunch, while we "figure out something else to do" in terms of supply so that business as usual proceeds as far as possible
The "deploy stop gap measures" is the key phrase here ; a sane person would not go down a negative EROIE pathway, and when faced with multiple positive EROIE fixes he or she will make the decision based on issues like scalability, collateral damage etc. By killing the BF debate on the basis of wrongful conclusions (not all BF are created equal!) one clears the path for much nastier "alternatives" (CTL). You have to remember that maybe you are willing to powerdown, amd I am willing to powerswitch but we are two and they are millions. The majority will decide ; if one eliminates solutions/fixes too early then the majority will decide among the alternatives that are left . Have you considered the impact of such alternative pathways of action i.e. massive CTL deployment on a planetary scale? It will make the point about eco-system destruction mute; there will be no ecosystem to worry about
It is this short-termism/lack of overview that green environmentalists in general demonstrate that worry me. The inability to consider social dynamics and their influence on engineering and technology has gotten us here; and both sides in this "debate" have failed to see the impact of neglecting the reciprocal relation between technology and society
_________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:56 am Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
EnergySpin wrote:
This is orthogonal to the biodiesel question; and someone could say that looking for more energy is not always equivalent to applying for a new credit card.
I hope you didn't think my use of the phrase 'forensic dissection' was intended perjoratively - it wasn't. I'm all for people with in-depth knowledge of their subject helping to put the matter straight, if needs be.
I don't doubt that Monbiot may be quite shaky with the science, but I do believe his overall assumption is correct; i.e. that biodiesel is perhaps not the Holy Grail its proponents make out. True, it may (by necessity) come to occupy an important place in our energy portfolio, but Monbiot is right to ask us to question our understanding of what is required to produce it.
The section I've quoted from your reply is, I think, fundamental to nearly every debate on this forum. Do we keep looking for more and more energy supplies - probably running into the same eventual culs-de-sac of depletion and exhaustion everytime - or do we try to go about modifying the way we live? Without making at least some effort in this direction (elimination of unnecessary waste being a large, and easily managed, part of it) we'll be wasting our time.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:35 am Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
untothislast wrote:
I hope you didn't think my use of the phrase 'forensic dissection' was intended perjoratively - it wasn't. I'm all for people with in-depth knowledge of their subject helping to put the matter straight, if needs be.
I don't doubt that Monbiot may be quite shaky with the science, but I do believe his overall assumption is correct; i.e. that biodiesel is perhaps not the Holy Grail its proponents make out. True, it may (by necessity) come to occupy an important place in our energy portfolio, but Monbiot is right to ask us to question our understanding of what is required to produce it.
You are right it was not ... I'm keyboard trigger happy :D
BD will have to occupy a % of our energy .... because of the two simple facts I quoted earlier: PO is here + we are not prepated.
All the questions have to be asked .... the energy question has been solved as far as biofuels are concerned. We can certainly make them more efficient, but the EROIE is not an issue now ...
Time to take it to the next level .... what are the side-effects now we have a potentially useful treatment. It is important that Monbiot stays in the game (i.e. as someone who dares ask these questions) and he will not accomplish that if he does not get the science and the numbers right.
untothislast wrote:
The section I've quoted from your reply is, I think, fundamental to nearly every debate on this forum. Do we keep looking for more and more energy supplies - probably running into the same eventual culs-de-sac of depletion and exhaustion everytime - or do we try to go about modifying the way we live? Without making at least some effort in this direction (elimination of unnecessary waste being a large, and easily managed, part of it) we'll be wasting our time.
I'm a medical professional with an engineering training background.
I am trained to respond to such questions in a broad manner. The "dialysis" example I offered is the best way I can summarize our present situation. Dialysis (biofuels) are not optimal because they have side-effects. The benefits far outweight the side effects (this is a personal call). For me the alternative of going cold turkey will have such nasty implications that I'd rather take the side effects. Dialysis (biofuels) come in various flavours ; some are better than others for specific patients (countries-applications) and each one has its specific side effect/complication profile. A comprehensive treatment plan (peak oil mitigation) will try and minimize the probability of complications and will deal with them as they appear. The specific goal is to make sure the patient gets a transplant (reach a sustainable society). In the process one will apply techno-fixes (dialysis sessions) and the patient (us) will have to modify his behaviour (i.e. restrict the amount of water he is drinking, conserve fuel, change habbits) so that the imperfect therapy has a chance to sustain him long enough to get the transplant (reach the sustainable society). Someone would argue, hell give him the transplant right here , right now ... but this is not always an option (the patient does not have a living related donor, the existing donor list is long). Therefore in the general case both techno-fixes and behavioural modifications are necessary. If the physician (engineers, journalists, media) refrain from discussing all the dialysis options with the patient, they will do him/her a disservice and will likely cause harm (in many cases the patient has a much clearer understanding of the best path for him/herself provided he is given all the data).
There are implicit assumptions made by all the sides in this "debate" ;
a) the optimists: the patient is a good transplant candidate/we can find him a kidney and while we do that he can drink 20lbs of diet coke a day, the b) doomers: let the bastard die and the
c) capitalists: I will make $$$ irrespective of whether he is dialyzed (money from the consumables), get a transplant (immunosuppresive medications), or is buried (I also own the McTomb undertaker/funeral home chain )
There is also the realist's approach to the situation:
The situation is as follows ... you have to have the dialysis (if you want to survive) and while you do that there are certain restrictions/life style modifications you will have to make. We will make sure that you do not have to compromise on the important things in your life but the restrictions are there and you will have to observe them. Simultaneously we will work you up for a kidney transplant ... if you are a good candidate the operation will entail another change in your behaviour but it will be a more normal life.
My position: the patient (society) is a good transplant candidate irrespective of the past history. I do foresee that it will be a long period till we get her a kidney , but it is do-able and it can happen. However she has to show up for her dialysis sessions, stick with the dietary modifications (this is a much better example than I thought initially ) till we get there.
For our energy problem: a transplant = nuclear+wind. While we are in this process someone might come up with room temperature superconductivity (developing organs in the test tube) which will enable us to scrap the nuclear future (it will not make much sense) and go with a world wide grid powered by renewables in a planetary scale. But this is not here yet ... and I am a realist. _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:15 am Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
I feel whatever course of action we choose to take, we're only staving off inevitable decline, because of the ruinous adoption of conspicuous over-consumption as the prevailing lifestyle template.
Rationally, you can't expect continual economic 'growth', if the planet itself isn't actually 'growing'.
Therefore, even if we were to stumble upon some incredible new source of seemingly unlimited power (as provided, say, by one of the aliens holed up in Area 51), we'd still be locked into the same cycle of increasing resource depletion, caused by exponential population growth and demand in those societies appropriating the ideal of a 'western lifestyle'.
Whether we use nuclear energy or bio-diesel as the stepping stone, the truth is, we'll be no nearer to establishing any sort of 'sustainable' society until wisdom - or disaster - offers us an opportunity to change or abandon our belief in the perverse and distorted world view we're currently locked into.
To hijack (probably inaccurately) your medical analogy; when the patient is flatlining, how long do you keep up with the defibrillator?
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:25 am Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
untothislast wrote:
To hijack (probably inaccurately) your medical analogy; when the patient is flatlining, how long do you keep up with the defibrillator?
[QUOTE]
The point being: without transitional energy sources in a world of declining hydrocarbons,you won't be able to start the defibrillator.If it's your wife/husband or your child that needs the 'techno-fix',you're going to have a whole new attitude towards alternative fuels.
At some point in reality it all gets personal.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:38 am Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
untothislast wrote:
To hijack (probably inaccurately) your medical analogy; when the patient is flatlining, how long do you keep up with the defibrillator?
As I said.... I consider the patient a good transplant candidate and not in need of defibrillation.
During the long process it will take to get him to the transplant, defibrillations might be required. But the decision about the duration and the number of attempts will be required by the prevailing conditions at that instant.
If the patient agrees with the end goal ... he has to play ball. And this will invariably mean techno-fixes and behavioural modifications.
It gets tricky because the patient is a part of me (I'm a member of this society as much as you are) and I'm willing to go for the transplant.
Are you? _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
Our planet (which I am sorry to say includes people) can not live with any more extractive technofixes, especially agricultural ones. It is impossible and ludicrous to suggest that the waste energy of such an entropic agricultural system could actually power that system. How can the oil we squeeze from a palm tree kernel actually power the big machinery--the tractors, the presses, the cookers, the refinery that we need to grow the stuff. Furthermore, how can we expect any of this oil to leak out of the system for mom's SUV and the kid's soccer games. This is energy voodo.
And for those who dream of an organic alternative. That is more ludicrous. ALL modern industrial crop-production system depend completely on external nutrient input. I am including large-scale organic systems that supplies the bulk of the food you see in your natural food supermarket. Organic depends completely year after year, on industrial inputs--rock phosphate and conventional (non-organic) chicken-farm manure. These organic systems are just as energy intensive as chemical based ones.
Face it. We are either screwed or we accept the inevitable: powerdown and rural relocation. Say goodbye to the mall, Starbucks, and your other indulgences. Sorry for the bad news. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:45 am Post subject: Re: Monbiot Gives Biodiesel A Kicking
pstarr wrote:
Face it. We are either screwed or we accept the inevitable: powerdown and rural relocation. Say goodbye to the mall, Starbucks, and your other indulgences. Sorry for the bad news.
I'm finding myself very close to pstarr's view on this.
Having reached our present impasse by basing our entire civilisation on the use, and waste, of one natural resource - we're now proposing to carry on just as before by doing exactly the same thing - only, using something else from the pantry. It isn't going to work.
What governments will seemingly avoid at all costs, is having to give their respective populations the bad news that the old consumerist model, based as it is on overt over-consumption and prodigious waste, is the root cause of the malaise - and that whatever solution (whether biodiesel, nuclear) is mooted, is destined to fail under the immense and unrelenting strain likely to be placed upon it.
As yet, I haven't seen so much as one major government discuss anything like a thorough energy saving policy for the next decade - which convinces me that they're already preparing themselves for inevitable societal collapse, and know that even if they could have prepared a transition towards an alternative structure, the foundations had to be in place over 30 years ago to have had any chance of success.
Correspondents to this thread have talked about bridging solutions (biodiesel) towards an ultimate techno-fix which might yet save the day. But if we're pinning our hopes on some technology we haven't even imagined or conceived of yet, the chances of it (whatever 'it' may be) actually arriving this century - not to mention the time it might take to integrate it into our chosen modes of living. The fact that, after nearly 110 years of continuous production, we still haven't managed to get the internal combustion engine anywhere near even 50% efficiency, shouldn't fill anyone with unbridled hope that science will ultimately come to the rescue.
The situation becomes murkier, and more desperate, when we realise that any such crucial decisions having to be made on the planet's behalf, are currently in the domain of some of the most stupid, plainly evil, and venal politicians ever to have graced the world stage. That a consensus can't even be reached on something as obviously vital as climate change, shouldn't top up anyone's cup of hope.
Finally, we're presently locked into a myopic global economic system, to the extent that it can only embrace innovation and development when there is obvious scope for money-making possibilities. Scientific and technological research has moved away from the realms of 'pure' science, ignoring the historical importance of chance and serendipitous discovery, to be harnessed largely in the pursuit of saleable 'product'. The value and importance of oil - apart from its intrinsic energy-providing capacity - is that because it has a specific geographical location, it can be owned and possessed, and then sold in discrete amounts at whatever price its owners see fit to apply. Any technological solution to our energy needs (100% efficient solar; Star Trek dilithium crystals - or whatever) which thus frees the user from this sort of hegemony underpinning our global economy, is not going to be given the time of day.
Business runs the planet, on business terms. And business wants you to consume something, then have to come back for more. Which is why we've arrived at biodiesel.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
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 You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
) till we get there.
