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

Last post 4 years ago by frankj1. 152 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
How dare you!
opelmanta1900 Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
delta1 wrote:
now, compared to this thoughtful dialogue, I feel even worse about my joking and crass response to tail's post......

geez ... thanks, Frank

You guys should all be ashamed... Not talking
frankj1 Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
victor809 wrote:
You're right. I've been using "to be fair" too often recently. I think it's becoming something of a "tick".
Jury's still out on Tittums (why has NOBODY given him a new name welcome??!?!?) but he's had some good posts and some questionable posts.

good and questionable puts him ahead of me.
Can we keep him?
Tittums Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
This is where I was hoping the topic would go to (other than one or two people feeling guilty for things they said). Everything has a drawback. When I mentioned nuclear power I am admittedly not fully aware of its negative impacts but one solution is burying the waste in salt mines where the salt collapses around it as it decays which is supposed to prevent it from escaping it's 10,000 year tomb before it is neutral. The decay rate to energy return is horrible but it's not like we can't get our salt from the oceans? Also, the waste is not polluting the air/ozone, etc like coal.

I will speak very little on clean coal because I honestly do not know how clean it truly is. The power companies sell the idea of awesome carbon capture but every time I hear clean coal I imagine some progressive is having an aneurysm somewhere. What I don't want to hear is the same old wind/solar until I see proof these work when the wind doesn't blow and the sun does not shine. Solar, I am more open to because in most places (not all, places near polar regions?) you can predict how long the sun will be out but wind is one I had a very hard time with. It is too dependant on the wind blowing. I am not 100% against solar or wind but these need to be in places where they can thrive and where they cannot thrive people need to be more accepting of alternatives be it "clean coal" or nuclear.

Someone mentioned hydropower. I fully agree with this when there is minimal impact on the environment. I am hardly a tree hugger here (far from it) but I want viable solutions that impact the American people's wallets less or the same as something like coal. The hoover dam is a wonderful achievement and offers low-cost power. I admit, I am ignorant of the environmental impact if any but no one is complaining about it.

Victor told me I am wrong about solar and wind power. I hate to admit I could be wrong but does this technology not rely on the sun and wind? I would be 100% behind solar if we were a civilization that was advanced enough to build a dyson sphere around the sun but our planet is gone in a billion years when our sun becomes a red giant.

I got into a debate with my progressive brother over electric cars but the summary of that was I disagreed on it being viable because they are too expensive and will argue converting gasoline vehicles to propane is cheaper than electrical for the time being. He also argued giving oil subsidies to electric car manufacturers. Maybe we should stop wasting tax dollars altogether and get us some damned innovation here?

I yielded to my brother's argument that electric cars will eventually become cheaper with or without subsidies but if the milage doesn't improve (the battery technology, unless we do something like fusion cars) you are still limited vs the internal combustion engine. I argued if we are going to go with electric and be stuck with batteries that cannot be charged in 5 minutes (the time it takes to fill a gas tank) then we need to have the same technology that charges a phone without plugging in embedded in every place where you are not moving in your electric car. Be it your driveway, parking lot, or stuck in traffic.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
Everyone forgets that Tesla and Edison had a fight over which one to choose AC or DC.

The backers chose the winners.

Tesla's technology and experiments were seized by our government after his death.
victor809 Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tittums wrote:


Victor told me I am wrong about solar and wind power. I hate to admit I could be wrong but does this technology not rely on the sun and wind? I would be 100% behind solar if we were a civilization that was advanced enough to build a dyson sphere around the sun but our planet is gone in a billion years when our sun becomes a red giant.


Your problem with sun/wind isn't thinking of the power source the proper way.

Solar is easy, so let's look at that one.

Pretend you choose a location with 8hrs of strong sun, and 16 hrs of dark (no in between because I'm lazy). During the sunlight hours it can capture 3 watts/hour for 24 watts total. You attach it to a battery which has the ability to store up to whatever the battery storage equivalent of about 24 watts is. During the daylight the battery is charging, up to 24 watts, during the night it's discharging. You size your system to a demand region of 1 watt/Hr.

you do something similar with wind, with average windy days over a month or so (not a day, as weather is less consistent on a day by day). When you have enough of these (solar and wind) across a large area, you can ensure that there is consistent supply of wind power to your infrastructure, as well as stored power from solar.

Downsides? Lots. Batteries are not environmentally super great (I don't know much about industrial size, but we all know consumer battery manufacture and disposal is terrible), and as I said earlier I'm not sure if our tech has gotten to the point that we can look at these as anything more than energy supplements (ie, I don't think they can generate enough power per square foot/ or mile of space used to ever fully replace power plants). That doesn't make them bad though.

Another way to look at it is this... power usage is not even. We usually put much more demand on our power grid during the day than at night. If your power plant is at the limit of use, and your peak use is in the day, perhaps supplying your grid with solar during the day to offset peak usage would help keep from having to build a second power plant just to supply daytime use?
tailgater Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
I believe you.
.



Should I infer that when you don't lead with this, that you don't believe me?

It's akin to someone saying "let me be honest with you".

As opposed to...?



frankj1 Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
tailgater wrote:
Should I infer that when you don't lead with this, that you don't believe me?

It's akin to someone saying "let me be honest with you".

As opposed to...?




there is a risk to having a friendship with me!

actually, I was just letting you know that I knew you were being sincere despite the expected doubt
frankj1 Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
Wheel would be proud of the correct usage of infer
dstieger Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I admittedly don't know much about the girl....I guess I haven't acknowledged her relevance despite Time.

However, I get just a bit outraged every time a young person who speaks up about something they're passionate about gets attacked.

And...people are laughing and even defending the President of the USA mocking a child who is trying to make a difference? Appalling.


BTW, why aren't we generating substantial amounts of hydro power using tidal action? Not up to date on any green science, but sure seems like an opportunity must be there -- without affecting any rivers
deadeyedick Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 17,102
NIMBY is prolly the answer.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
dstieger wrote:
I admittedly don't know much about the girl....I guess I haven't acknowledged her relevance despite Time.

However, I get just a bit outraged every time a young person who speaks up about something they're passionate about gets attacked.

And...people are laughing and even defending the President of the USA mocking a child who is trying to make a difference? Appalling.


BTW, why aren't we generating substantial amounts of hydro power using tidal action? Not up to date on any green science, but sure seems like an opportunity must be there -- without affecting any rivers

Well I agree with at least part of what you said...

You know who deserves positive attention? Young people who actually do something with what they have to make a positive difference...

Young people who "speak up" about things they're passionate about are a dime a dozen... You want a million? Take a quick trip to Twitter...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
And I would adamantly disagree with the notion that this young lady is trying to make a difference... Making a difference requires real world solutions, of which she has offered up zero...
victor809 Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
opelmanta1900 wrote:

Old farts who "speak up" about things they want to whine about are a dime a dozen... You want a million? Take a quick trip to discount cigar forums...
dstieger Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
opelmanta1900 wrote:
And I would adamantly disagree with the notion that this young lady is trying to make a difference... Making a difference requires real world solutions, of which she has offered up zero...


Really?

I don't know what she's offered up. But, I gotta think that there's value in awareness.

You can certainly disagree with any and all climate change positions. But, it's not like the idea that human behavioral changes can slow global warming is a terribly radical or Jones-ian type of position.

If you believe that behavior should change, I think that a voice with global reach must have a great deal of value. Certainly, there needs to be a message that persists and resonates, but massive media coverage isn't a bad start.

I'm not convinced there's something realistic that can be done about global warming, but I support most non-violent protest and defend the right of the protesters. And I don't disparage any young people for getting involved in their communities, politics, social or global issues. In fact, one of my more common complaints about youth is a lack of engagement and involvement.
Tittums Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
I know she talked a lot but I only heard the "how dare you" that everyone else had and my immediate thought is "how dare you come here, lecture my country and not offer solutions".

I am sure in her speaking tour she offered solutions but we need solutions that do not bankrupt nations or harm the wallets of the people of those nations. That's why I love how this post at one point did turn toward discussion of solutions.

If we can do wind and solar with minimal impact on my wallet and no negative impact on power availability then, by all means, let's get that shyte done. Same goes with other solutions. I will buy a Ferrari before I buy a tesla so we need some cheaper solutions to vehicles one I suggested before in this thread is propane conversions. For those who want or can afford the cheaper than tesla options, or hybrids why not hybrids that use propane as the alternative fuel instead of gasoline?
tailgater Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
You're right. I've been using "to be fair" too often recently. I think it's becoming something of a "tick".


Stealing part of my shtick?

frankj1 Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
I'm so old that I remember when shtick was a Yiddish word
RMAN4443 Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
Walk softly and carry a big shtick....Anxious
frankj1 Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
RMAN4443 wrote:
Walk softly and carry a big shtick....Anxious

your studies have paid off, grasshopper
mazel tov
victor809 Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Stealing part of my shtick?



What, I stole the only coherent part of your posts.
delta1 Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,797
Tittums wrote:
I know she talked a lot but I only heard the "how dare you" that everyone else had and my immediate thought is "how dare you come here, lecture my country and not offer solutions".

I am sure in her speaking tour she offered solutions but we need solutions that do not bankrupt nations or harm the wallets of the people of those nations. That's why I love how this post at one point did turn toward discussion of solutions.

If we can do wind and solar with minimal impact on my wallet and no negative impact on power availability then, by all means, let's get that shyte done. Same goes with other solutions. I will buy a Ferrari before I buy a tesla so we need some cheaper solutions to vehicles one I suggested before in this thread is propane conversions. For those who want or can afford the cheaper than tesla options, or hybrids why not hybrids that use propane as the alternative fuel instead of gasoline?



her impact, as dstieger stated, is in her efforts to raise awareness of the threat of global warming...she began by staging solo "school strike for the climate" protests in Sweden...local media covered it, and the protests by school aged Swedes swept that nation...soon, media throughout the world reported on the "school protests for the climate" in Sweden and they became a world-wide phenomenon among students...

her influence may compel more of her generation to focus on the problem and possibly, hopefully, discover solutions...in the aftermath of the latest world summit on climate change, it seems the current generation, even when confronted with evidence, is hesitant to address the issue...
Tittums Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
delta1 wrote:
it seems the current generation, even when confronted with evidence, is hesitant to address the issue...


I am automatically against anything that impacts my wallet. The way pretty much any government spends money is atrocious so I just see "carbon taxes" as scams.
MACS Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,796
https://tinyurl.com/rj78v5l

Girl from Sweden responds to Greta.
victor809 Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/rj78v5l

Girl from Sweden responds to Greta.


Lot of strawman arguments in that video. Along with complaints like "how are some people supposed to get to work if our gas tax is so high"... which isn't really supposed to be a concern when discussing policy.

At least she is better spoken than the prager crap.
deadeyedick Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 17,102
Looks like most of her beef is with the immigration policies and what they are doing to the local economy. The personal tax rate is over 57% now and expected to go over 61% soon with a sales tax of 25%.

How dare you indeed!
victor809 Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tittums wrote:
I am automatically against anything that impacts my wallet. The way pretty much any government spends money is atrocious so I just see "carbon taxes" as scams.


That's not really an appropriate argument for things however.

I mean... let's back things up and look at it from one extreme... let's take gasoline taxes (because the "rape is up because there are immigrants in sweden" woman was discussing gas tax).

Let's start at 0% tax. Pretend that there was no tax on the gasoline you purchased. Pretty awesome, right? I agree.

However, there are two things going on: 1 - Use of gasoline has an externality (this is a negative impact which impacts others, not the person using the object, or which is spread out across many people)... driving a vehicle creates some amount of emissions, which has a negative impact on air quality. You don't live in a closed system, so you're only going to personally experience a very small percentage of the externality. Therefore the externality is NOT a disincentive for your to use the gasoline (as opposed to a closed system, like your garage. You are not likely to run your car indefinitely in a garage because the externality is suddenly an "internality" (see what I did there? I crack myself up))... In these cases, taxes on a good are collected with the intent of either a) reducing use (sin taxes) or b) putting the tax revenue towards abating the negative externality. 2 - Some goods have infrastructure directly tied to the use of that good. Gas is an excellent example of this, as use of roads is almost directly tied to use of gas. Taxing gas to pay for road work ensures that for the most part, that common infrastructure is paid in an equitable way, where those who use it contribute proportionately to the use.

Both those items above are very rational reasons to implement a tax... and both of those reasons above would negatively impact your wallet if we started at a zero tax point.

MACS Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,796
deadeyedick wrote:
Looks like most of her beef is with the immigration policies and what they are doing to the local economy. The personal tax rate is over 57% now and expected to go over 61% soon with a sales tax of 25%.

How dare you indeed!


Which is exactly what the left wants to bring to America.
victor809 Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
deadeyedick wrote:
Looks like most of her beef is with the immigration policies and what they are doing to the local economy. The personal tax rate is over 57% now and expected to go over 61% soon with a sales tax of 25%.

How dare you indeed!


So this is interesting.
I was curious about whether this "immigrants are raping everyone" data was accurate... I mean, it sounds good. It has numbers... those numbers are huge. That should be an easy thing to believe. Hell, the wikipedia page even agrees with the numbers (more about that later).

so here's the big problem.

The swedish police don't collect ethnic or immigration status in rape reports. This is apparently something they decided to do at some time.

So, Victor, without police reports, how could the statistics this nice woman with the nose ring cited be known?
I'm glad you asked. All references to rape by immigrants in sweden tie back to a television show where the reporter claims to have counted all court convictions from 2013 to 2018. Of the 843 convictions, they claim 197 were from the Middle East and North Africa, with 45 coming from Afghanistan. (I don't know how they get the 58% claim from those numbers.... maybe they're bad at math? Or something is missing...)

Anyway... lots of people can see the problem in extrapolating convictions back to crimes, right? Poor people get convicted at a much higher rate than wealthy. Immigrants get convicted at a much higher rate than citizens. And not all of those convictions are correct. The US went through this exact problem a generation or two ago.

Let's do a little math ... population of sweden is 10MM. In 2018, there were about 76 reported rapes per 100k people. That comes to 7600 reported rapes in 2018 alone. over a 5 year period we are looking at about 32,500 reported rapes. And the tv show was attempting to extrapolate from 843 specific convictions.

Apparently statistical mapping of reported rapes by region has indicated that the statement is not accurate. That there isn't an abnormally high amount of rape by immigrants in sweden. But that won't stop people from saying it. Heck, doesn't stop our president from repeating it.

http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2019/06/24/swedish-report-shows-no-connection-between-immigration-and-rape/
tailgater Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
That's not really an appropriate argument for things however.

I mean... let's back things up and look at it from one extreme... let's take gasoline taxes (because the "rape is up because there are immigrants in sweden" woman was discussing gas tax).

Let's start at 0% tax. Pretend that there was no tax on the gasoline you purchased. Pretty awesome, right? I agree.

However, there are two things going on: 1 - Use of gasoline has an externality (this is a negative impact which impacts others, not the person using the object, or which is spread out across many people)... driving a vehicle creates some amount of emissions, which has a negative impact on air quality. You don't live in a closed system, so you're only going to personally experience a very small percentage of the externality. Therefore the externality is NOT a disincentive for your to use the gasoline (as opposed to a closed system, like your garage. You are not likely to run your car indefinitely in a garage because the externality is suddenly an "internality" (see what I did there? I crack myself up))... In these cases, taxes on a good are collected with the intent of either a) reducing use (sin taxes) or b) putting the tax revenue towards abating the negative externality. 2 - Some goods have infrastructure directly tied to the use of that good. Gas is an excellent example of this, as use of roads is almost directly tied to use of gas. Taxing gas to pay for road work ensures that for the most part, that common infrastructure is paid in an equitable way, where those who use it contribute proportionately to the use.

Both those items above are very rational reasons to implement a tax... and both of those reasons above would negatively impact your wallet if we started at a zero tax point.




Enter electric cars...

But never fear.
Massachusetts has a tax for that.

victor809 Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Enter electric cars...

But never fear.
Massachusetts has a tax for that.



Correct. I was going to say bicycles as well.

Once electric cars becomes a large enough user of roads, it would make sense to try to find a way to have them pay their fair share of infrastructure costs. Why would you disagree with that?
tailgater Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Correct. I was going to say bicycles as well.

Once electric cars becomes a large enough user of roads, it would make sense to try to find a way to have them pay their fair share of infrastructure costs. Why would you disagree with that?


Not disagreeing, just showing that MA is ahead of the curve.

They're floating a mile tax out there.

And the collected money goes into the general fund. By default it pays for the roads, but it isn't earmarked for it. So it's a scam. At least in my home state.

victor809 Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Not disagreeing, just showing that MA is ahead of the curve.

They're floating a mile tax out there.

And the collected money goes into the general fund. By default it pays for the roads, but it isn't earmarked for it. So it's a scam. At least in my home state.



The exercise wasn't to promote any specific tax, but to show that making a blanket statement against anything which negatively impacts ones pocketbook is not a rational way to approach political decisions. There are rational reasons and methods to tax, and rational uses for taxes.

My point is simply that everything needs to be approached individually, and that making blanket statements only ensures you will be wrong at least some of the time.
tailgater Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:


My point is simply that everything needs to be approached individually, and that making blanket statements only ensures you will be wrong at least some of the time.


Isn't that a blanket statement?

If there's one thing I find to be true, it's that people who generalize are annoying.

dstieger Offline
#134 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Did you just prove that Victor is only wrong some of the time?
victor809 Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Isn't that a blanket statement?

If there's one thing I find to be true, it's that people who generalize are annoying.



Honestly, I was thinking that as I typed it.

delta1 Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,797
Down comforters are too heavy and retain too much warmth.

Geese hate them.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
"Screw the geese" - drafter
victor809 Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
"Is it in yet?" - the geese
tailgater Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Might help explain the dead geese up near frankie T's house.
victor809 Offline
#140 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
"Screw Frankie T" - drafter
delta1 Offline
#141 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,797
drafter can attest that it is better to screw FrankieT than......
frankj1 Offline
#142 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
dstieger wrote:
Did you just prove that Victor is only wrong some of the time?

tail told me ya can't prove a negative
frankj1 Offline
#143 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
tailgater wrote:
Might help explain the dead geese up near frankie T's house.

just the females...ya sick bastid
frankj1 Offline
#144 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
WRONG FORUM YA SICK FARKS
victor809 Offline
#145 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
frankj1 wrote:
WRONG FORUM YA SICK FARKS


Is there a "screw/be screwed by Frank" forum?
CelticBomber Offline
#146 Posted:
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
As of now Solar and wind are NOT the way forward.The materials used to build the windmills aren't "green" and windmills kill thousands and thousands of birds a year.Not to mention no wind, no power and the cost of upkeep. Solar just isn't cost effective yet either. For a single home with lots of room for panels it pays off in the long run but building the panels and batteries etc isn't "green" either. So far Tidal power generator tests have not produced results that make it viable either.

Right now our best options are Hydro electric from dams and Nuclear. The biggest problem with dams is the environmental impact of building a dam. Our nuclear reactors in the US are running on decades old designs and it's impossible to license a new reactor in the US because of one thing. Politics. The fossil fuel industry has pumped so much money into politics specifically to stop Nuclear reactors from becoming a viable solution.All that nuclear waste we have sitting around could be reused as fuel in breeder reactors but thanks to Jimmy Carter we can't build breeder reactors in the US. Breeder reactors actually create more fissile material than they use which can then be reprocessed back into usable fuel.Slow breeder reactors can be built so that they CANNOT melt down. By reprocessing the fuel you get tons less nuclear waste too. All of the rare earth nuclear waste we have sitting in dumps all over the US could be used to fuel breeder reactors. All research into these reactors stopped by the 1960's because we found new rich sources of Uranium.

Light water reactors (what we use now) extract about 1% of the energy from the uranium and then that's it. The fuel rods are pulled and have to be replaced. The old fuels rods are now nuclear waste and if not processed to remove to super heavy isotopes can have a half life that is unknown. Because there is more than one type of isotope in the spent rods and all have different half lives. A breeder reactor extracts about 70% of electrical power while creating more fissile material. At present technology levels the goal is a ten year cycle. Meaning a breeder reactor running for 10 years will create enough new material to run another breeder reactor for another 10 years. The big argument against fast breeder reactors is that the extra fissile material created can be processed into weapons grade plutonium. This was the reason Jimmy Carter pulled all Federal money out of the breeder reactor industry and made it impossible for a new permit to be granted to build a new nuclear plant. This is a very simple rundown of the ups and downs of these reactors.

The fast breeder reactors also known as Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors are called fast because the neutrons move fast in these reactions

The slow breeder reactors or Thermal Reactors you've probably heard of before because they can use Thorium. Both use Molten Salt instead of water because water absorbs to many neutrons.

We should be doing crazy research into slow breeder reactors since Thorium is so common we would NEVER run out.
Tittums Offline
#147 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2019
Posts: 524
I hate the idea of forcing things "at gun point" be that gun be taxes or some other form of extortion but the crap going on here in Florida is crazy. My electricity bill always has and always will be insane and none of that money is going towards a nuclear alternative be it "slow" or "fast" as CelticBomber described. (thank you for that by the way, I learned something about nuclear energy today).

I believe in competition but it seems like there is no profit in these alternative power sources (whichever solution it is) otherwise Duke Energy would be lowering their prices or I could simply move (within the state) to the alternative power source that is cheaper.
delta1 Offline
#148 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,797
new and improved is never cheaper...
tailgater Offline
#149 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Is there a "screw/be screwed by Frank" forum?


Check out the trades.

frankj1 Offline
#150 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
tailgater wrote:
Check out the trades.


and figure out what wallet candelas are...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>