Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) chairman removed for allegedly using science for political ends.
www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?...A
This is mentioned below but, as drivers are being persecuted by ever higher taxes, extra Road Fund licence fees for driving bigger, safer cars etc., all in the name of saving the planet from melting, it is very important to note.
It is also noted that, as far as I know , this has not been reported in the UK Press.
Some have known for a long time that the global warming myth was politically inspired and now we have the proof. It should be noted that 76 countries voted against the chairman, not just the USA with it's oil company friends.
|
Alwyn,
I largely share your well-aired view on global warming but not your apparent fixation with the subject. However that is not the point of this particular post.
There are a number of contributors to this site with agendas to push, Bogush being the most notorious, who always claim that a particular website proves their point.
Without going into the merits/demerits of the global warming/speed limits/speed cameras arguments that now bore most of us to death, these reports do not PROVE your arguments. Certainly the opinions expressed in the report you quote do not prove anything against the individual; let alone the wider conspiracy you allege.
On the Web you will find hundreds of reports that conclude just the opposite to the ?proof? you put forward to support your cases.
Marcus
|
Marcus,
76 nations agree with me.
If you wish to believe politicians who tell you that by paying more tax and driving a smaller car, you can change the weather, that is a matter for you.
I find it astonishing that the "global warming" issue, something which affects us all is seen as something of a bore to folks who have not looked into the lies we are being told. When I said "proves", I meant just that; otherwise why would 76 nations vote the guy out.
It confirms much information I have from elsewhere including IPCC scientists complaining bitterly of political interference.
These lies are costing UK drivers a fortune and you are bored by it. Oh dear.
|
|
|
|
you may as well give up Marcus. You are completely right, of course, but you will never make any progress against the small number of conspiracy theorists on this site. (We all know who they are, don't we bogbrush). As you say Marcus, they succeed in boring us all to death with there agendas but I guess in a free society we must tolerate such people.
Not worth losing sleep over!
|
|
|
|
Global warming is great in Essex. Over a month without rain, just nice warm sunny weather! Snow a rarity over the past years and the growing season getting longer.
|
|
|
|
If anything bores me, it is politicians telling me that I must pay more taxes and queue for a bus because my lifestyle is destroying the planet. The temperature in the middle ages was warmer than it is now, and none of the weather patterns we have experienced since global warming became a fashion icon are without precedent if you look back any further than the last few decades.
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
The guys who wrote the scientific reports say that the politicians and their advisers not only wrote executive summaries that did not accord with the science, but even edited the scientific reports to make them tie up better.
There's perfectly good explanations for global warming/cooling, which actually fit the observed data (some wildly fantastic theory about the sun heating the earth I gather).
The "global warmers" storylines don't fit the data and have to be "adjusted" to fit.
The wildest, least probable, least "scientific" storylines are peddled to the gullible, headline hungry press and revenue hungry politicians.
The guy who was the founder of the US weather satellite service, head of the most prestigious US scientific body, developer of the equipment that measured the ozone layer, discoverer of the greenhouse effects of methane, etc, etc, campaigns, along with a mere 20,000 other scientists against the global warming hypothesis, and the 2,000 government advisers who back it.
And I'm a conspiracy theorist.
|
|
well its good in essex and its good in kent, no rain, warm everyday and snow is a thing of the 60s and 70s. I'll be taking the car to tescos then! Keep up those CO2's, i want a hot summer!
|
|
|
The
'Wildly fantastic theory about the sun heating the earth'
Er, I think life on this planet would be a bit bleak without it!
Regards
john
|
|
|
|
Alwyn/Bogush
I ? will ? say ? this ? s-l-o-w-l-y.
Without going into the merits/demerits of the various cases, these reports you quote are not PROOF - merely one side of an argument.
Another flurry of posts from zealots like you will not change the situation.
Do ? you ? u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d?
Marcus
|
|
|
Sorry, I u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d !
Variations in solar activity tie in with earth's climatic changes (well there's a s-u-r-p-r-i-s-e !).
Carbon dioxide levels *follow* climate changes.
Global warmers storylines need to ignore little things like mini ice ages and well documented historical climate variations, and still need "correcting" to fit historical data, and then are adjusted when projected forward to give the "right" answers to "prove" that we need to pay more taxes.
I see what you mean now about "proof".
|
|
|
You are absolutely correct Bogush and you have made me see the light.
I can see now how you carefully examine all facts with an open mind and your definition of proof cannot be questioned.
No need for any more posts now is there?
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I've never seen any of the media hype about global warming.
Nor the government spin.
No, I've just seen the anti case and swallowed it whole, without even realising there was a pro case it was anti.
Unlike yourself of course.
You no doubt read all the media hype about the greens believing (knowing) that there was a problem with the satellite temperature records which showed the earth wasn't warming.
And then went and found the unreported experts re-evalutions which confirmed the satellite records[1].
It was you, no doubt who tracked the two global warming related scientific papers in a scientific journal.
The headlined lead article, peer reviewed, favourably commented on by the editor, by two leaders in the field, opposing the global warming theory.
Which appeared in one broadsheet.
In the world.
And the study of a changed habitat of a butterfly.
By a student.
Which might have been down to global warming.
Or any one or more of a million other things.
Which was headlined around the world as another disaster caused by global warming (no theory referred to).
And no doubt you're more right than I because you've carefully compared every line of all the IPCC scientific reports with the executive summaries issued to the politicians and press.
I freely admit that I haven't
I've just allowed my self to become aware of the fact that the discrepancies exist.
By people such as:
> The guy who was the founder of the US weather satellite service, head of the most prestigious US scientific body, developer of the equipment that measured the ozone layer, discoverer of the greenhouse effects of methane, etc, etc, campaigns, along with a mere 20,000 other scientists against the global warming hypothesis, and the 2,000 government advisers who back it.
But then what would he know about it.
PS did you actually follow the link above?
[1] In case you knew all along, but have forgotten, the story was that the records must be wrong because the satellites orbits decay, and so their readings can't be relied on.
The rebuttal confirmed that the decay was allowed for all along, and regularly cross checked between newly launched satellites and ones already in orbit.
Unlike the greens rigorous analyses, which for example, ignore the last mini ice age, and forget to cross check with any schoolchild who could tell them that the Thames used to freeze solid.
And ignore the Medieval Optimum, when any scholchild could tell them that you could practice viniculture in Britain and even, where was it again, oh, yes Vinland.
Must have been a hell of a lot of cars pumping out CO2 around about then!
|
The
I swore to myself I wouldn't bother again, but here goes.
Hardly anyone is talking about global warming any more; that was a journalism thing. Scientists have always known that it's far more complicated than that. Instead they talk about climate change. They are trying to find out if the rapid changes in climate - warming and cooling - we are currently experiencing (2002 is already on target to be the warmest year for the UK in 1000 years; seven of the ten warmest years in the last century are in the last decade) is down to human activity. If (note the word "if") so, then current climate changes have been caused by activity a century or more ago. Since we are now using as much oil, coal, and gas products in one month as in the whole of the 1940s, don't you think it might be worth doing something about it on the off chance? Because if we are changing things - and such massive activity will have an effect of some kind, even if it's not what we expect - then the change is going to get much quicker, and well within the lifetime of my unborn children.
My second point is that you, Alwyn, et al seem to have a very naive view of science and scientists. They don't prove things as a rule, they just test hypotheses against what is already known. Since what is already known is quite limited in the great scheme of things, and since a complex system such as the global climate is always changing, any results have to be taken as limited and debatable. Remember, Newton was right once. Now he's only a bit right. Even Einstein is less right now than he was fifty years ago.
Chris
|
ChrisR
You're right to point out that efforts are going into assesing the causes and effects of climate change, rather than just warming, given the known significant perturbations in climate over the few hundred years of records, which certainly were not due to over-use of fossil fuels . A very difficult problem to solve, and possibly one which hasn't got a definititive answer.
The snag is that politicians have jumped on the bandwagon and assumed the answer, and are pushing for action. Now in any scientific debate, one scenario for examination is always 'do nothing'. That is, business as usual, and consider the implications of dealing with the (potential) effects.
I'm not saying it's the answer, but in all the discussion, I've never yet seen a rational assessment of that option - all the efforts seem to be based on the 'we must do something' approach. Maybe GWB is opting for this scenario?
regards
John
|
John
You're right; do nothing is one way of doing something in a scientific sense. The problem is that do nothing is very often a bad thing in an evolutionary sense. As animals we're very good at responding to visible and immediate threats, but very bad at assessing and responding to threats that seem far off. In the modern world, most of the threats and challenges we face as a species are far off.
There are of course other arguments than green ones for cutting down on carbon emissions. If it's done thoughtfully, it usually works out cheaper. And if carbon emissions are causing climate change, the potential for saving money in the long run is even greater. If they're not, then cutting down isn't losing us anything. The problem is, short-termist humans respond more quickly to immediate threats to their happiness, like taxes, than they do vague long-term ones such as, for example, the possibility of submerged grandchildren. Hence, taxes are more persuasive.
I think in terms of their scientific advice, politicians have to deal with a public that is largely ignorant of science. For most people, the only scientific information they receive is from newspapers and TV, and therefore more voodoo than anything else. Interestingly, many senior politicians over the last couple of decades have been scientists - off the top of my head, Margaret Thatcher and Jack Cunningham (both chemists) come to mind. This leads me to believe that it's the presentation of science, not the scientific knowledge itself, that has been lacking in Westminster.
Chris
|
|
|
|
A long post, I'm afraid.
The fact is that we don't know. Scientists test theories, but cannot do so by including ALL variables in their analyses, so research is by its nature narrow. At a fairly simple level, like 'discovering' earth's gravity, that might not matter, but climate change is a highly complex issue.
Research is often sponsored by parties who have an interest in the outcome, and sometimes those sponsors have been known to demand changes or prevent publication. That has happened with food, tobacco and energy.
I have this view that mankind is a steward for the planet, and that we have some kind of responsibility towards future generations. On that basis, we have a choice. Either we believe that mankind has an effect on the climate, or we don't. If we do, we must ask ourselves to what extent we can improve things, when measured against other factors, such as solar activity and, say, volcanic activity.
If we reject the theory that we affect the climate, or accept it but don't think we can do anything about it, then we just carry on as we are. If we're right, no problem. If we're wrong, no problem - for this generation anyway, although future generations may pay for our misjudgement.
Otherwise, we can accept some restrictions, inconvenience and cost, JUST IN CASE, the 'greens' are right. It may or may not make any difference to the outcome, but that's just a gamble. The other gamble is that we take no action and carry on as we are, in the hope that we're right and future generations don't suffer. Or we say 'sod it' and live for today.
What does NOT help, in this or any other forum, is the selective quoting of different scientists' research. We KNOW that they won't agree, sometimes out of pure cussedness.
Oh, and can I repeat, in answer to Alwyn's first post above, nothing that mankind can do will cause this planet to 'melt'. That will be the result of solar action. However, how we carry on our lives may (or may not) decide on whether the earth remains habitable in the way that we know it.
Confused? So am I. But on the basis of evidence presentd from both sides, if anything I tend towards the 'green' approach.
|
|
|
|
> I can see now how you carefully examine all facts with an open mind and your definition of proof cannot be questioned.
> b-u-g-g-e-r--o-f-f b-o-g-b-r-u-s-h.
So I was wrongh, all along!
|
|
|
OK, Chris, so at first the "scientists" thought that cars were going to boil the earth with their CO2 emissions.
Now you're saying that cars might freeze the earth with their CO2 emissions.
And, just in case, we should destroy the world economy, and spend billions and billions.
To prevent cars producing CO2.
To be on the safe side.
Very commendable.
Apart fron the fact that I can think of billions and billions of better things to spend money on, just to be on the safe side.
And billions and billions of things THAT WE KNOW WE NEED TO SPEND MONEY ON, to be safe.
Not rocket science, is it?
Oh, and EVERY year is the some thing year since some time.
It doesn't prove anything.
It doesn't even provide the basis for a hypothesis to test.
Unless you wan't to hypothesise that the climate changes.
But we already knew that.
And it changed much more before man, never mind cars, appeared on the scene.
|
Against my better judgement:
>OK, Chris, so at first the "scientists" thought that cars were going to boil the >earth with their CO2 emissions.
>Now you're saying that cars might freeze the earth with their CO2 emissions.
No. I'll explain again. The global climate is a very complex system. We are part of that system. Ergo, whatever we do has an effect on the system. We don't know what the effect will be, but the odds are that the more we change the system, the more dramatic will be the effect. Is that clear now?
>And, just in case, we should destroy the world economy, and spend billions >and billions.
There is a sound economic argument for cutting down on fossil fuel consumption. The costs you mention are short-term costs only. If (that word again) fossil fuels are causing climatic changes, then we are already spending billions repairing the damage. Try insuring a ground floor flat in Kent against flooding.
>To prevent cars producing CO2.
Not just cars.
>Not rocket science, is it?
Rockets burn hydrogen; I suppose you think they are environmentally friendly ;-)
>Oh, and EVERY year is the some thing year since some time.
>It doesn't prove anything.
You're right, proof is a very tough thing to find. I'm glad you've learned from this thread. But we can use descriptions of patterns of events to make hypotheses about what is happening and what might happen in the future. From that we can set about finding out why. Scientists and historians work this way, thankfully.
>And it changed much more before man, never mind cars, appeared on the >scene.
I agree. But humans and cars are now part of the climatic system. They will therefore have an effect on it, even if we don't know what, or how dramatic, that effect is. If nothing else, when we didn't exist it didn't matter to us what happened. Now we do exist, it matters very much. Some things we can't do anything about, others we can. For example, we can't do anything about climate change per se. However, we might be able to do something about climate change caused by fossil fuel consumption. If we can, we should, I think.
By the way, if you write in proper sentences and paragraphs, your posts will be easier to read, and therefore understood.
Chris
|
ChrisR,
You are the most balanced, reasonable and wise person on this forum and l applaud your contributions.
dan
|
|
Yeah, about that footie match last night...
|
|
|
|
|
|
lots of words again, bogbrush, but what point are you making?
|
|
|
"Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm"
Until Bogush's nasty cough clears up, we really should stop winding him up and leave him to suck a Fisherman's Friend in peace.
PJ
|
|
|
Ok, then, let's see if I've got this right.
We have a number of theories:
1a) The earth is warming and this would be exaggerated by CO2 from cars (a tiny amount compared to natural CO2, which is just one of many "greenhouse gases" which would include all the water vapourising from the world's oceans, but it doesn't count as a gas, despite contibuting to the greenhouse effect).
1b) The earth is warming but due to complex factors no more warming could be produced by CO2 regardless of how much you added to the atmosphere.
1c) The earth is warming, and CO2 would tend to add to the warming, but through other complex factors this warming from CO2 would be cancelled out.
1d) The earth is warming but CO2 is a result, not a cause of the warming, and does not add to the warming.
1 e, f, g, h) The earth is cooling and etc, etc.
The general consensus now is that:
2a) Man does affect the climate (as must one butterfly flapping its wings once).
2b) Man's effect is negligible.
2c) If the earth is warming, all of the proposed efforts to reduce man's impact, at a cost of billions, will defer whatever the outcome will have accumulated to (1 degree Farenheit increase?) in 96 years, back all the way to a hundred years.
2d) There isn't actually any warming (hence the change from "global warming" to "climate change").
There are three divergent outcomes:
3a) The earth is warming (unlikely).
3b) The earth isn't doing anything (unlikely).
3c) The earth is actually going into a cooling phase (most likely).
With different danger levels:
4a) If the earth warms, this may have some negative aspects, but it will generally be beneficial.
4b) If the earth cools this will be disasterous.
Excuse me while I suck on a fishermans friend.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
So we really should do something "just in case":
We should churn out as much CO2 as possible until we know for definate.
And in the meantime we can put the money saved to good use.
Like dredging and clearing the rivers and rebuilding the sea defences so we no longer suffer the disasterous floods of recent years, caused by bad management , not global warming.
And we feed and clothe and medicate and educate the worlds population (was it one year's Kyoto expenditure that would sort out clean, safe drinking water for the world?).
PS Sorry for the layout, but I lack a "liberal" education.
However I am attempting to craft a poem based on the above!;-)
|
|
Whoever is right I doubt any of us will be alive to see how it really turns out! Lets enjoy this super spring weather while it lasts. Today we had the first rain for umpteen weeks. I cannot wait for Essex to get the same weather the South of France gets.
|
Article in yesterdays paper (broadsheet of course, l think the tabloids are still looking up ulrika's skirt...): World's hottest Jan-Mar period for 1000 years.
I'm not saying cars are to blame. They may be partially but l know one thing for sure... coming up with a conspiracy theory that its all made up to get at motorists and is therefore ALL lies is INCREDIBLY self absorbed.
The planets getting hotter, and its very likely partly due to human activity. I actually agree with 'The' about spending more on protection than prevention but for different reasons. i.e. Its too late dude, party's over!
We will naturally move to renewables in any case because easily obtainable fossil products are running out and nuclear fission is just rubbish. Ever heard of energy dieoff? The idea that 'yeah there's oil in them there hills' but it would take more energy to make the tools/machinery and fuel to get it out than you'd recover from the exploration.
No amount of money can alter this fundament of physics so don't go looking to market forces to resolve that one.
regards,
dan
|
Dan
Yes, there probably will be a move to renewables (and nuclear), but when this happens is open to question.
Certainly oil reserves are finite, but there is still plenty there. It is simply the case that as costs rise, more oil reserves become financially viable to extract.
To some extent that's why oil 'reserves' have remained at 40 yeras. If you owned an oil company and knew of 40 years of reserves, would you spend time and money seeking to make it 50 years? Also, to the reserves are addded sources which become economic as prices rise.
The big change will only come when oil extraction costs exceed the costs of alternatives.
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
Alwyn and Bogush,
Isn?t it refreshing to see some reasoned & balanced argument on this thread? ? particularly from ChrisR, Derek & Dan.
Your biased diatribes on any subject you feel strongly about merely alienate readers of this forum. - the point Marcus was making.
Your ranting(s) achieve as much sympathy for your cause(s) as the anarchists who will attempt to smash up London next Wednesday will achieve for their causes.
C
|
|
|
Today's Telegraph Motoring supplement quotes the government-funded Energy Saving Trust as recommending that hybrid petrol(or diesel)/electric hybrids in the short term will reduce global warming.
They do not make any mention of how the electricity to recharge the electric component of the hybrid is to be produced without burning fossil fuels.
The mentality seems to be on a par with those who believe that meat appears in a supermarket from some divine source and that farms can be turned into theme parks.
|
Brian
Most of the current hybrids actually use the IC engine to recharge the battery, which is equally nonsensical. For info. I'll repeat what I posted on an earlier thread. I'm sure you'll agree.
'I'm intrigued by this Government idea that petrol/electric hybrids are a good way towards CO2 emission reduction. I don't believe the hybrid concept has any major, intrinsic efficiency benefits. Now, I know that with a clever transmission and energy management, the engine can be running at its optimum eficiency, but this is offset by the energy losses in generating the electricity, battery charge/discharge energy losses, and battery self discharge when parked. Regenerative braking does offer an energy benefit though. In addition they suffer a weight penalty due to the motors and batteries, so need extra power to give acceptable accelleration.
The idea came up, I believe, due to potential American legislation on city air quality. Hybrids could operate on battery alone in the city, so meeting zero (tailpipe) emissions there, but having an acceptable range and refueling times/ capability for other use. However, they seem to have moved away from that idea, by using smaller batteries, so with limited battery range, to save weight. Sure, Honda and Toyota have demonstrated clever technolgy, but I think they've answered a question that nobody has asked.
The thing is that the main efficiency gains, small, highly efficient diesel engines, and clever transmissions, and low rolling resistance technologies can all be applied, without the weight penalties of a hybrid. VW have produced the '3 litre/100km car' (94miles/gall), better than the current hybrids, using these techniques.
I can't help wonder, therefore, where hybrids will fit in. It's worrying that we may be forced down a route by (unnecessary) air quality legislation, for the odd occasion we want to drive in a big town'.
Regards
John
|
|
|
Agreed, John, hybrids are a dead end.
Trouble is, it looks like they are to get the official seal of approval.
Full electric (from renewable source power plants) or hydrogen (ditto) is the only way to go, but I don't think the political will is there.
|
|
|
|
Cardy
You have clearly never read any of our posts, never mind followed any of the links provided.
When you get round to it, and have formulated a reasoned response, feel free to come back with a comment on "balance".
|
|
|
Bogush,
Yes Yes - you are a most reasonable man with an open mind and always ready to listen to anyone elses point of view.
How could I, and so many other contributors, get it so wrong before?
C
|
|
|
OK Cardy.
I've read dozens, if not hundreds of arguments for the sun heating the earth, and CO2 not doing so.
I've read hundreds, if not thousands of arguments from the government, greens, ecos, (did you do the mock driving theory papers, and notice how many were based on how to stop the car destroying the planet?) etc, etc.
Now, exactly how many of the links putting forward the anti global warming theory argument have you followed, never mind READ, to obtain your reasonable, open minded, "balanced" view?
In fact, do you even have an inkling of what anyone else's point of view actually is?
|
|
|
Proof dear Bogush, proof. That is what we were talking about.
Rather like Marcus I tend to agree with the thrust of Alwyn?s(and your) arguments about politicians finding it convenient to use global warming as excuse to get at motorists.
However we(and that includes you) just do not know who is right and will not know in our lifetime either. Also possibly, just possibly, others like those above might just have a stronger argument than you. They certainly express their case in a more coherent manner than you.
It is your absolute assertion that only you, and those who share your views, can be correct that infuriates.
Bombarding this forum with incomprehensible posts infuriates even more.
C
|
|
|
Proof dear Bogush, proof. That is what we were talking about.
Rather like Marcus I tend to agree with the thrust of Alwyn?s(and your) arguments about politicians finding it convenient to use global warming as excuse to get at motorists.
However we(and that includes you) just do not know who is right and will not know in our lifetime either. Also possibly, just possibly, others like those above might just have a stronger argument than you. They certainly express their case in a more coherent manner than you.
It is your absolute assertion that only you, and those who share your views, can be correct that infuriates.
Bombarding this forum with incomprehensible posts infuriates even more.
C
|
|
|
Tell me:
What PROOF have the above and possibly, just possibly, others like those above, that they might just have a stronger argument than I?
And HOW do they certainly express their case in a more coherent manner than I?
By coming out with meaningless platitudes such as we don't know?
And we can't tell?
But to be on the safe side we'd better ban cars?
No, we don't know.
And we can't tell.
But on the balance of probabilities even I would accept that the sun, possibly, just possibly, might heat the earth.
And CO2, which FOLLOWS heating, can't cause global warming.
Even I can work out that if most of the land based temperature readings are taken in cities it is going to invalidate them (the local temperature increase caused by felling a tree a hundred yards away is greater than the "measured" global "warming", never mind the effects of acres of black tarmac and millions of central heating systems!).
Even I know about the Maunder Minimum, and the Medieval Optimum, which the global warmers have had to write out of history to make their "theories" work.
So what is the stronger and more coherent argument put forward by the above to explain why the facts have to be ignored to make the theories work?
And if the global warmers are right, and they've now discovered that they need to change their name to the climate changers, but CO2 does still cause warming, then SURELY even they must agree that we should be pumping out MORE CO2, not LESS.
It aint rocket science.
But if the global warmers can't work out that if they believe that CO2 causes heating, and they now believe that we're heading for an ice age, then they should believe in pumping out MORE CO2.
If they don't then what do they know?
And what DO they believe in?!
And if you honestly and truly believe that their case is coherent, than I'm not going to deny that you must find mine incoherent.
PS have you ever followed any of the links I regularly post to the anti global warming arguments (you can even find them on the beeb!).
(And if you have, did you read any of them?).
|
|
|
PPS It is NOT my absolute assertion that only I, and those who share my views, can be correct.
It's just bombarding this forum, the media, parliament, with incomprehensible spin and unscientific propaganda which a child should be able to see through that infuriates.
And no, I don't think I'm particularly well informed or clever, just wise enough to believe eg:
> > The guy who was the founder of the US weather satellite service, head of the most prestigious US scientific body, developer of the equipment that measured the ozone layer, discoverer of the greenhouse effects of methane, etc, etc, campaigns, along with a mere 20,000 other scientists
> > against the global warming hypothesis, and the 2,000 government advisers who back it.
Led by a guy who's only scientific claim to fame is to be an "expert" in rewriting scientific reports to suit his political masters.
|
|
|
|
b-u-g-g-e-r o-f-f BOGBRUSH. Useless Wassock!
|
|
|
Oh MY G-O-D !
Does that mean you think I'm wrong?
Or have you finally read something and realised I was right all along?
No wonder you are so annoyed!;-)
|
|
|
|
no - i just think you make poor use of perfectly good space
|
|
|
