America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 21 years ago by eleltea. 58 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Ultimatum
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
eleltea Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 6:47 AM EST
Joined: 03-03-2002
Posts: 4,562
The militant muslims have vowed to kill us all. An idea making the rounds is an ultimatum. Let them know if they succeed in destroying something as sacred to us as, for example, the statue of liberty, we will utterly destroy mecca. While we are at it, I think we should take over the oil. Naturally, this will piss a few people off.
CCBAXTER Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 7:35 AM EST
Joined: 06-24-2002
Posts: 25
Nah, I think what we otta do, is completely cut our dependence from oil. Dedicate the money now used to subsidize oil producers and put it toward solar, wind, and wave power generation, and further the development of the fuel cell Then when we don’t need their oil anymore we can tell them to take their oil, and all the sand the can find and go pound it up their a$$es. That would also cut off the money pipeline used to finance all their international shenanigans. It would be the patriotic thing to do.
SteveS Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 7:42 AM EST
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
I'm not in favor of such threats nor am I much of a fan of retaliation ... I don't think we should raise the topic of their "hitting" ANY target, or specifying what we'd do if they did ...

I think we need to develop the collective mind-set and will-to-act that if something like you suggest were to happen, we'd go after Mecca, or any other appropriate target, not only for strategic but also psychological purposes ... it's pretty G-D sad, but we've come to a kill-or-be-killed fork in the road ...

I think that rather than wait to react to what THEY do, we need to take action ... yes, I know it's not the traditional American posture to strike first, but do you really want to wait until the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge, Disneyland, The Alamo, St Louis Arch, Trademart, or whatever has joined the Trade Center in a pile of rubble??

A fork in the road is right! ... fork THEM!!
SteveS Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 7:47 AM EST
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
Oh, right!! ... let's cut off oil. Let's put money into raising a mast through the roof of the car and let the gentle breeze blow us to work ... In your DREAMS maybe ...

I'm all in favor of technology and am not welded to the internal combustion engine, but frankly, you can waft on the breeze to wherever you're going if you like, but I'm sticking with oil until a realistic alternative comes along ...
CCBAXTER Offline
#5 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 8:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-24-2002
Posts: 25
Steve, I’m not saying “cut it off.” What I’m saying is we, through our tax dollars, should stop paying to keep it as cheap as it is. Conservatives always claim they want the market to dictate what happens in the economy. Fine, then stop subsiding oil, and let the market bear the true weight of its cost. It makes no difference to me if I have to pay at the pump to the oil companies, then again on April 15th or pay it all up front But if people saw the true cost of oil, they would demand a change. Then we could, after a period of time, wean ourselves from oil as we develop new technologies and then eventually never need it at all. By the way, there are realistic and workable alternatives right now. When I was in Iceland a few years ago I was surprised to see almost no smokestacks on any of the buildings, you know why? Most of their power is generated thermally. Islay not only turns out darn fine Scotch, but they also have a plant that generates power with clean and cheap hydrogen. You may also want to check out a Scottish company called Wavegen. People are afraid of change, but the journey that takes the longest to complete is the one you never start.
E-Chick Offline
#6 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 9:17 AM EST
Joined: 06-15-2002
Posts: 4,877
Ok, everybody in! We're going on a road trip! I want to check out your claims CC. Oh, and CC, you're in charge of the sails (I'm assuming my car floats), when we get to the Atlantic. Maybe I'll have the first amphibious 'Vette! Otherwise, we split the cost of gas til then!
daveyg2 Offline
#7 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 9:42 AM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
We only use about 10% Middle Eastern Oil. A lot of people dont realize that. We use most of our own anyway. The trouble is that our ALLIES use a TON of Middle Eastern Oil and that spells trouble for us economically. We dont need the oil. Our allies do and if we sever that tie, then we cut off our allies hands. Now think from there.
CCBAXTER Offline
#8 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 9:47 AM EST
Joined: 06-24-2002
Posts: 25
No that’s okay we can fly there e-chick, for a lot less. The reason why is that the newest jets in service, like the Triple 7 are the most fuel efficient planes ever built. Know why? Because their customers, the airlines, demanded it! In fact in 98, NASA and Pratt and Whitney redesigned the engine, creating one half percent greater fuel efficiency. Know why? Their customers demanded it! Meanwhile the CAFÉ ratings of the big three have been flat for the last 20 years. Why? Because we’ve been willing to listen to their bulls**t whining about how expensive it would be, and how hard it would be and how it would cost jobs. It’s all a load of horse crap. All they want to do is protect high rate for return for investors. All I’m saying is, why don’t we demand better? Even one half a percent better. Is that too much to ask?
E-Chick Offline
#9 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 9:53 AM EST
Joined: 06-15-2002
Posts: 4,877
Oh...
CCBAXTER Offline
#10 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 10:29 AM EST
Joined: 06-24-2002
Posts: 25
That's true Dave. But, the we have already drilled up and produced around 90% of the oil under the ground right now in the lower 48. That leaves only 10% left. That does not count Alaska of course, which will be harder to get to and move out to transport. I imagine that Driller ****** will have us dropping shafts into the ANWR soon enough though.
daveyg2 Offline
#11 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 10:44 AM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
Weve been using that much of our own oil forever. What makes you think that this oil will deplete anytime soon? The govt doesnt seem too worried about it. Im not sure that 10% is an accurate number because we as a govt arent worried about us as much as we are worried about our friends. Yes, we are worried about our friends BECAUSE of our stability, but im trying to keep it simple here. It will probably then last us for another 150 years. By then hopefully we will have some better ideas about what we will use as fuel.. Im glad that hybrid cars are coming out when they are.
CCBAXTER Offline
#12 Posted: Tue, Jul 2 2002, 11:06 AM EST
Joined: 06-24-2002
Posts: 25
The gap between domestic oil supply and demand is projected to grow even larger than it is today. The Department of Energy projects U.S. oil consumption to increase by 1.4 percent per year through 2020, increasing by about a third. Meeting such growth with domestic sources would be virtually impossible. DOE expects domestic crude oil production to decline an additional 14 percent by 2020. Net oil imports are projected to increase by two thirds by 2020 and would account for 70 percent of U.S. oil supply by 2020. Given the concentration of the world's remaining oil in the Middle East and the vital importance of oil to the nation, this high level of risk to the nation's security must be considered intolerable. .(See, U.S. Department of Energy, "Annual Energy Outlook 2001" available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/.)
eleltea Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Jul 3 2002, 4:03 AM EST
Joined: 03-03-2002
Posts: 4,562

Windmill powered autos are still too far in the future.



By all means lets work on tomorrows solutions, but meantime we still have to deal with the here and now.
Danny Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Jul 3 2002, 5:02 AM EST
Joined: 06-21-2002
Posts: 613
That's a great answer, and one I also have advocated. While we're at it, let's also get the Israelis to make Palestinian mothers take care of the bodies of the dead Israeli children who get blown up. If they are force to deal with the bodies of dead children, they hopefully will see that dead children are dead children, and perhaps begin to feel that another road is the answer. After all, a mother is a mother and children are children
CCBAXTER Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Jul 3 2002, 6:16 AM EST
Joined: 06-24-2002
Posts: 25
You guys keep missing my point. I’m not saying close all the gas stations this weekend and break out the horses. What I’m saying is that we as a nation are doing nothing to further the cause of alternative energies. On September 12th, 1962 JFK said “We will go to the moon.” At that time the technology to go to the moon did not exist. Less than seven years later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. Now all we do is listen to how hard everything is, and how it can’t be done. I say BULLS**T! Where’s that America? Where’s this America?
“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. “ John F Kennedy, Rice University 1962
daveyg2 Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Jul 3 2002, 7:58 AM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
We never went to the moon. Probably the biggest hoax that this earth has seen next to War of the Worlds. Did you ever see that show that dispells all the moon stuff? I did a little research as well after that and all that they said is true. You have to see that theory show. I think youll think differently after that. I think it was a huge movie production to claim our spot as the biggest superpower.
CCBAXTER Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Jul 3 2002, 8:21 AM EST
Joined: 06-24-2002
Posts: 25
I have heard about that and here’s the problem I have with it…do you imagine a government that couldn’t keep 4 guys breaking into a hotel room a secret and let it lead to the downfall of administration, is gonna be able to keep what would have to be the most massive and complex conspiracy ever devised, a secret? There is no way one of the hundreds of people who would have had to be involved in it would not by now have spilled the beans and has incontrovertible proof to back it up. Besides, institutions with telescopes can see the equipment that was left on the moon, and people with short wave radios could pick up signals that came from space. Plus, don’t think for a minute that if the Soviets had even gotten the SLIGHTEST wind of the fact that this was a hoax, they wouldn’t have absolutely busted their balls to rat us out. I guess we can all find out in the next few years when the Japanese land their people on the moon, if they do in fact go forward with their stated goals of doing so.
tailgater Offline
#18 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 6:06 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
CCB: relating to the alternative energy sources, why should Government dictate the research with our tax dollars? You yourself stated that the reason for the more fuel efficient aircraft was the CUSTOMER. That is how a Capitalistic society works. We don't need to stretch our over-taxed nations resources to appease oil hating tree huggers. "Alternative" fuel sources will manifest themselves by choice or by necessity. They don't need to be forced with my tax dollars.
carmine7075 Offline
#19 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 9:20 AM EST
Joined: 10-17-2001
Posts: 40
I am sure that the big three already have working models of alternative energy vehicles and extremely fuel efficient vehicles. However, a shift in production would cost millions of dollars in order to retool the engine plants or to build new plants and lay off the old workers. To do that they would be battling the UAW, and that is not a union you can push around. The end result would be higher production costs, higher costs to the consumer, and layoffs in the oil industry as well as the auto industry. Because of these factors, I do not feel that we will see the alt fuel vehicles anytime soon. They will buy the rights to new patents and shelf them as well to protect their current interests. When there is no alternative, and fuel reserves are truly depleted (20 to 30 years from now) we will see the shift to new types of fuels. Not to mention the very powerful oil companies that will not reliquish market share to a new fuel.
Charlie Offline
#20 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 3:40 PM EST
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
We shouild just simply take the entire Middle East and call it New Texas or Was There's and do what the Romans did to Carthage, plough it under and salt it! Charlie
daveyg2 Offline
#21 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 4:06 PM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
Unions should be destroyed. there is no more disgusting than a person who has more rights than someone else because he pays some money every month. Its actually the biggest organized crime in the world. Making sure you do a good job is what should keep your job intact, not paying some gangsters to make sure you keep a job.
daveyg2 Offline
#22 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 4:19 PM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
CCBaxter, it wasnt a big section of people that actually knew what was going on. Just because one govt moron slipped doesnt mean that they slip every time. some of the men who were key and all knowing that were working on the project were killed shortly after. did you know that? because thre were 10,000 people making the parts to a space shuttle, there were 5000 people at the controls at NASA and there were some other thousand people doing some other garbage in the project, doesnt mean that ANY of those people had the information of what went on. It only needed to be a small few people to pull it off. I dont believe in a lot of conspiracy garbage, but i believe that could have happened. it was our governments stake at the worlds superpower.

there are too many other elements involved in why they really couldnt have gone there. why havent we been back? why hasnt there been any photographs of the flag on the moon since we went? we can see other galaxys with telescopes, but they claim to not be able to see that because its too far. the technology they have is unparalleled with any other country in the world for years to come. whats easier, building machines and other devices to go millions of miles to another rock in space thats blocked by deadly radiation and other factors, or staging a landing with some cameras and doing a crappy job at that. There is so much evidence that shows a hoax its riddiculous. even the makers of the cameras they used said himself that the pics seemed doctored. its really bad. i have the tape that shows it. EVERY SINGLE PERSON that i showed this tape now believes otherwise. Even me. I never would have thought that.
daveyg2 Offline
#23 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 4:22 PM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
40 years later, we still or anyone on this planet, hasnt gone back. Our technology is so far advanced past what we had, and we still havent gone back. There are NO pictures of equipment left there and NASA has said that themselves. They claim that it is "too far to accurately depict"
daveyg2 Offline
#24 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 4:25 PM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
Sorry for the 100 time posting. CC, the sources of the info are VERY credible. They include, people that DID work on the project, the makers of the equipment, relatives of people that worked on it, special effects experts( same people that have done Jurassic Pk, T2 and other HUGE movies), physics professors and experts and MANY other experts. Its really some thing to see and think about.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#25 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 6:48 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
daveyg2 --- no moon landing? you mean the rock i won at auction is a fake?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#26 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 6:51 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
CCBAXTER ---yes and oswall was the lone gunman. didn't you watch x files?---"their here aren't they?"---they've been here."
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#27 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 6:54 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Charlie-----
"We shouild just simply take the entire Middle East and call it New Texas or Was There's and do what the Romans did to Carthage, plough it under and salt it" yes, yes, yes.--- i knew there was a side of you that i liked.


RICKAMAVEN Offline
#28 Posted: Sat, Jul 6 2002, 6:57 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
daveyg2 ---please send me a dupe of the tape. i love conspiracies.--- they keep me going. --- email me and i'll give you my address. [email protected].
CCBAXTER Offline
#29 Posted: Mon, Jul 8 2002, 7:06 AM EST
Joined: 06-24-2002
Posts: 25
Well guys for every point you make to prove the moon landing was a hoax, there is conflicting proof that it was a real event. So instead of going back and forth here, let’s all meet up here next year. By then the Japanese spacecraft, SELENE, will have begun its one year mission of orbiting and mapping the moon in preparation for eventual manned landing on the moon by Japan. Japan has a thirty year plan for permanent manned presence on the moon. Then I guess we’ll all know if it was a fake or not. As to the most commonly asked question: “How come we never went back?” It’s really pretty simple; there was no political will, and no real scientific reason why we should go back. We had finished what we had to do there, and were getting ready to move on to the “Space Truck”, the shuttle. If you remember by the mid seventies congress was hitting NASA pretty hard about spending all that dough, and what were we getting from manned space flight and blah, blah, blah, so NASA redefined it’s mission and off we went to near earth orbit with the shuttle and now the ISS. Kinda boring in comparison, but the good news is DS1 is an unqualified success, so the ION drive testing continues, once that’s finished it’s off to Mars! No, for real this time! LOL
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#30 Posted: Mon, Jul 8 2002, 8:36 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
the only reason we used a manned flight to the moon was and is because the public is not really interested so much in the scientific discoveries as the adventure. send a toy to the moon, so what. send a man to the moon, better than football. nascar or any sport. that was the reason for the manned flight. i personally could care less that there may have been life, or water, or an arby's on mars. kids in this country go to bed hungry. besides, when the guys in the saucers land and say howdy, they can tell us.
SteveS Offline
#31 Posted: Mon, Jul 8 2002, 8:56 AM EST
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
The moon mission was mankind's single, most significant advancement of the 20th Century and one of a handful of the greatest advancements EVER ... the knowledge that was gained and the various applications to which it has been applied in the years since then justify not only the budgets spent then, but more now ... it's no secret that I'm politically pretty conservative, but will tell you that Kennedy's announced goal of landing a man on the moon did more to galvanize the minds and resources of this country than anything else since WWII and with clearly greater long-term benefit ... I greatly admire Kennedy for the bold vision he exhibited in stating that goal and in martialing the resources needed to accomplish it ...
CCBAXTER Offline
#32 Posted: Mon, Jul 8 2002, 11:03 AM EST
Joined: 06-24-2002
Posts: 25
I completely agree with you Steve. A human being setting foot on another planet will go down as a transcending moment in human history. It truly is a moment unequalled in the course of human achievement.
Rick-Kids do go to bed hungry in this country, but one thing has nothing to do with the other. If we truly had an interest in doing away with poverty in this country and this world, we could. We just don’t have the will to do it. To imply that kids go hungry because there is money spent on spaceflight is a non sequitur.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#33 Posted: Mon, Jul 8 2002, 12:56 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
CCBAXTER ---. "If we truly had an interest in doing away with poverty in this country and this world, we could. We just don’t have the will to do it."--aye, there's the rub.
tailgater Offline
#34 Posted: Mon, Jul 8 2002, 5:07 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
I believe it was Jackie Gleason who first envisioned the trip to the moon...
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#35 Posted: Mon, Jul 8 2002, 5:32 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
tailgater---nice to see you respond with humor.
daveyg2 Offline
#36 Posted: Mon, Jul 8 2002, 8:10 PM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
Honestly, I dont think that because a man said that we were going to the moon, means that we were going to the moon. Science is my reason for an argument, not unrealistic and popularity enhancing political dreaming.
SteveS Offline
#37 Posted: Mon, Jul 8 2002, 9:04 PM EST
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
Think as you will ... I have no doubts at all that the moon missions were authentic, that the benefits of the space program have been spectacularly numerous and beneficial to each and every one of us ...
carmine7075 Offline
#38 Posted: Tue, Jul 9 2002, 3:30 AM EST
Joined: 10-17-2001
Posts: 40
I think that the missions were real. I can't see that large of a hoax standing the test of time as it has. Also would be quite a risk if the American people found out in those days, it would have been disaterous. All that for bragging rights. . . . I doubt it.
tailgater Offline
#39 Posted: Tue, Jul 9 2002, 5:41 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Rick, you just aren't listening hard enough. Davey, name ONE piece of "evidence" that the moon landing was hollywood magic.
xrundog Offline
#40 Posted: Tue, Jul 9 2002, 6:42 PM EST
Joined: 01-17-2002
Posts: 2,212
If we didn't go to the moon then the Apollo 13 drama was pure genius. Why would the Gov. fabricate a failure? Hmmm because failure shows realism and credibility? Nope the flag is on the moon. The scientist who does the Bad Astronomy website goes over the argument point by point. He is very persuasive and, I think, right.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#41 Posted: Tue, Jul 9 2002, 7:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
tailgater--i'm listening as hard as i can and waiting for a copy of a tape. i think the landing was real, but i'm open to see other input.
daveyg2 Offline
#42 Posted: Wed, Jul 10 2002, 9:14 AM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
Tailgater--Photos of the landing site and other objects had the lens reference crosshairs OVER the objects they were shooting. Shadows of the objects were in the SAME directions as the light sources. The LLAM had no crator or dust expelled from the site when the flame kernel was ignited or when it lifted off. The photography was perfect and the cameras were mounted to the astronauts' STOMACHS. How accurate are you with a camera that you can take pics from your stomach and have them all come out beautiful? We have absolutely no evidence that the items used in the landing are even on the moon. They say that its too far to see accurately yet they can see other galaxies. I can go on and on. What proof do you have that they did get there and go? I swear that Im no nut or crazy conspirator. There is so much evidence about it, its crazy. I believed that they did up until the part where i saw the tape. Believe me, im not easily swayed either. Im very skeptical about anything and everything. I dont live in a house where i have like 17 cats or anything and im not some crazy hermit. Hehe. Im sending a tape to Rick. Hell see too. You should just see it and give it a chance. Hey, everyone thought the world was flat too.
daveyg2 Offline
#43 Posted: Wed, Jul 10 2002, 9:15 AM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
I meant that the crosshairs were covered by the objects themselves. Sorry for the typo.
daveyg2 Offline
#44 Posted: Wed, Jul 10 2002, 9:19 AM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
Tailgater--send me your address, I'll ship a tape to you. [email protected]
daveyg2 Offline
#45 Posted: Wed, Jul 10 2002, 9:43 AM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
Tailgater-- Do you remember the video of the flag being in the ground on the moon? Well why was the flag blowing in the wind if there is no atmosphere on the moon? There are no winds on the moon without there being some kind of air convection. You cant have air convection WITHOUT AIR. Sorry for the 900 posts in a row guys. Its just that i think of things right after i post and i cant help it. hehe. im freaky that way. Tailgater, get back to me about the tape. I want to hear what you have to say after seeing it.
daveyg2 Offline
#46 Posted: Wed, Jul 10 2002, 10:02 AM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
I just looked at the BAD ASTRONOMY site that dispells the hoax theory and this is why i dont believe this source to be reliable at all.


First, this is one man dispelling everything that over 50 people had said. he doesnt really sound like he knows what he is talking about. he is presenting things he calls proof, yet it just doesnt make sense. Physics doesnt lie. i think that people here have a pretty good sense of what the common effects of physics laws are. You drop something, it falls. Simple deduction. He is saying how the flag could have moved in a vaccuum by the pole having been manipulated before the pics was taken. Maybe thats why the flag kept blowing in different ripple patterns. Wavelength and its science tells different. I was a physics major in college and what he says isnt really true. I do in fact have to dispell a lot of what this man says is proof of how the hoax never happened. Remember, its really convenient for 1 man to be able to give EVERY reason why this couldnt be a hoax. He tries to dispell EVERY sinlge thing said. Sounds like hes trying really hard, no?
Charlie Offline
#47 Posted: Wed, Jul 10 2002, 11:29 AM EST
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Davey, the flag is not blowing in the wind, that is the way it was attached to the pole, so the flag would be visible. Framed so to speak! Charlie
SteveS Offline
#48 Posted: Wed, Jul 10 2002, 12:20 PM EST
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
the flag is NOT blowing in a breeze of any kind ... the flag is RIGID and is fixed in that position expressly BECAUSE there is no atmosphere there ... I remember that being explained clearly at the time of the moon landing(s) ...
daveyg2 Offline
#49 Posted: Wed, Jul 10 2002, 1:09 PM EST
Joined: 04-24-2002
Posts: 288
if you saw the video, you would see the flag blowing in the wind! its not even a small movement. You can obviously see it blowing in the wind. There are arguments why it would be blowing in the wind by the people saying that it wasnt a hoax. It is not remotely still. Its flapping and rippling. Thats my whole point.
E-Chick Offline
#50 Posted: Wed, Jul 10 2002, 1:25 PM EST
Joined: 06-15-2002
Posts: 4,877
This is a disclaimer for the following sarcastic remarks made in jest: Caution! Do not read the following remarks if you are easily offended by E-Chick, faint of heart, or are a totally humorless being. Do not try this at home. It was typed under controlled circumstances and in a closed room.




Daveyg2: The video is a hoax...step away from the mushrooms...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top