Bitcoin Forum
May 27, 2024, 03:04:24 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO  (Read 1416 times)
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
April 28, 2016, 12:49:59 AM
 #21

without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.

Read what Armstrong wrote as quoted in my prior post. It is the ash, not the CO2 that matters.

The ash and particulate from volcanoes creates a 2-3 year cooling effect which can be world wide.  however, this is not a permanant change.

Armstrong's supercomputer and $billion of historical data has correlated that in fact it is a more permanent change or inflection juncture (perhaps not climate but societal). Science (data) trumps guesswork.

It must kick off a cascade of effects.

Follow-up by Armstrong with charts:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/we-are-headed-into-a-new-ice-age-but-when/


Correlate with the scientists' recent discovery of a backtested predictive computer model for the sun's emission Maunder Minimum which predicts Mini Ice Age starting again 2030ish:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmstrongeconomics.com+maunder+minimum

I am not obliged to faithfully believe Armstrong's "Supercomputer."  Just show persuasive arguments backed with facts.

THanks.
TECSHARE (OP)
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
April 28, 2016, 07:08:48 AM
 #22

Seems like you're not. This why you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a clue about.
"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. " http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes

It means it would take 1000 years of eruption to compensate one year of human made CO2.

But please, continue to show us how educated you are.

So you you are telling me that they are accurately gauging every volcano on Earth including on land and under the ocean when they are only actually studying a handful of volcanoes? One of the rules in science is you need to have an appropriate sample size in order to get any kind of reasonable estimate, and they have neither. Try again comrade.

They have the exact number and size of volcanoes on earth. Then they studied a volcano. Then they just made an estimation of the CO2 emited by the whole volcanoes. What's so hard to understand?
Of course they're not precise! They can't be! But you're arguing they're wrong by a 10 000 order? ^^

Oh and btw I'm not your comrade, you surely don't deserve my friendship Wink

No, they don't know the exact number of volcanoes on Earth, that is an asinine statement. They also don't even know the exact emissions from the very small handful of volcanoes they actually do test. They take small samples and estimate. When making estimations based on a very small data set within a very small number of actual volcanoes, the estimates will be nowhere near accurate. You even said yourself they can't be precise yet you are pretending the estimates are magically accurate some how in the same breath. P.S. I was not offering you my friendship, I was just addressing you as the communist you are.
mOgliE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251



View Profile
April 28, 2016, 08:22:42 AM
 #23

Seems like you're not. This why you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a clue about.
"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. " http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes

It means it would take 1000 years of eruption to compensate one year of human made CO2.

But please, continue to show us how educated you are.

So you you are telling me that they are accurately gauging every volcano on Earth including on land and under the ocean when they are only actually studying a handful of volcanoes? One of the rules in science is you need to have an appropriate sample size in order to get any kind of reasonable estimate, and they have neither. Try again comrade.

They have the exact number and size of volcanoes on earth. Then they studied a volcano. Then they just made an estimation of the CO2 emited by the whole volcanoes. What's so hard to understand?
Of course they're not precise! They can't be! But you're arguing they're wrong by a 10 000 order? ^^

Oh and btw I'm not your comrade, you surely don't deserve my friendship Wink

No, they don't know the exact number of volcanoes on Earth, that is an asinine statement.
Sorry they know the exact number of eruptive volcanoes of the past 70 years, but as an eruptive volcano releases more than 500 times the amount of CO2 the not eruptive one release, unless there is more than 5000 times more unerupting volcanoes than eruptive ones it's enough to make an excellent estimation.
Quote
They also don't even know the exact emissions from the very small handful of volcanoes they actually do test. They take small samples and estimate. When making estimations based on a very small data set within a very small number of actual volcanoes, the estimates will be nowhere near accurate.
Where do you take that from? They simply estimate the amount of CO2 released on average by active volcanoes everyday since 2011! How is that not precise? And I answered you above concerning the number of volcanoes.
Quote
You even said yourself they can't be precise yet you are pretending the estimates are magically accurate some how in the same breath.
Nothing is precise in science. Everything has some kind of innacuracy that's the very point of Quantum Physics.
Difference is you're actually claiming they're not wrong, but wrong by an order of magnitude of more than 10 000. That's how wrong they should be in order to make your claim true (claim that you absolutely didn't prove btw).
Quote
P.S. I was not offering you my friendship, I was just addressing you as the communist you are.
I'm no more communist that you're "educated". It's not because your limited brain can only separate the world into two parts, the red evil communists and the blue good capitalists that the world is actually divided that way Roll Eyes

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 262


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 09:15:34 AM
 #24


without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.

Read what Armstrong wrote as quoted in my prior post. It is the ash, not the CO2 that matters.

The ash and particulate from volcanoes creates a 2-3 year cooling effect which can be world wide.  however, this is not a permanant change.

Armstrong's supercomputer and $billion of historical data has correlated that in fact it is a more permanent change or inflection juncture (perhaps not climate but societal). Science (data) trumps guesswork.

It must kick off a cascade of effects.

Follow-up by Armstrong with charts:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/we-are-headed-into-a-new-ice-age-but-when/


Correlate with the scientists' recent discovery of a backtested predictive computer model for the sun's emission Maunder Minimum which predicts Mini Ice Age starting again 2030ish:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmstrongeconomics.com+maunder+minimum

I am not obliged to faithfully believe Armstrong's "Supercomputer."  Just show persuasive arguments backed with facts.

THanks.

No one demanded you to do so. You retain your free will and can lose or gain from your decisions. You are welcome to compile the data yourself and build your own model. In the meantime, I make judgements based on discernment.

I believe if you challenge MA in email, he will provide the raw data to you and some direction on his methodology.

I believe the charts he showed are displaying generally available data.

As for the backtested predictability of the correlation of societal change, I think you need $billion to compile the data Armstrong claims to have compiled and multi-dimensionally cross-correlated.

The cited backtested model for the Maunder Minimum 2030 prediction has 95+% backtested accuracy and is an open sourced scientific discovery. It doesn't come from Armstrong's database and computer.

Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
April 28, 2016, 12:33:32 PM
 #25


I am not obliged to faithfully believe Armstrong's "Supercomputer."  Just show persuasive arguments backed with facts.

THanks.

No one demanded you to do so. You retain your free will and can lose or gain from your decisions. You are welcome to compile the data yourself and build your own model. In the meantime, I make judgements based on discernment.

I believe if you challenge MA in email, he will provide the raw data to you and some direction on his methodology.

I believe the charts he showed are displaying generally available data.

As for the backtested predictability of the correlation of societal change, I think you need $billion to compile the data Armstrong claims to have compiled and multi-dimensionally cross-correlated.

The cited backtested model for the Maunder Minimum 2030 prediction has 95+% backtested accuracy and is an open sourced scientific discovery. It doesn't come from Armstrong's database and computer.

While there is a body of scientific literature discussing the probability of a coming mini ice age, this is credited as existing by Armstrong, and is not predicted by him or his computers.

As for the rest of your comments, it's up to him (or you) to back the claims made with proof.  Not my job.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 262


View Profile
April 28, 2016, 10:54:19 PM
 #26

While there is a body of scientific literature discussing the probability of a coming mini ice age, this is credited as existing by Armstrong, and is not predicted by him or his computers.

Yep that is my point.

As for the rest of your comments, it's up to him (or you) to back the claims made with proof.  Not my job.

Incorrect. A man without discernment is lost. You'll never have absolute proof for every decision and judgement you need to make in life. The scientific method is not absolute proof.

Your taxonomy is too strict and out of touch with reality.

TECSHARE (OP)
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
April 28, 2016, 11:01:54 PM
 #27


Quote
No, they don't know the exact number of volcanoes on Earth, that is an asinine statement.
Sorry they know the exact number of eruptive volcanoes of the past 70 years, but as an eruptive volcano releases more than 500 times the amount of CO2 the not eruptive one release, unless there is more than 5000 times more unerupting volcanoes than eruptive ones it's enough to make an excellent estimation.
Quote
They also don't even know the exact emissions from the very small handful of volcanoes they actually do test. They take small samples and estimate. When making estimations based on a very small data set within a very small number of actual volcanoes, the estimates will be nowhere near accurate.
Where do you take that from? They simply estimate the amount of CO2 released on average by active volcanoes everyday since 2011! How is that not precise? And I answered you above concerning the number of volcanoes.
Quote
You even said yourself they can't be precise yet you are pretending the estimates are magically accurate some how in the same breath.
Nothing is precise in science. Everything has some kind of innacuracy that's the very point of Quantum Physics.
Difference is you're actually claiming they're not wrong, but wrong by an order of magnitude of more than 10 000. That's how wrong they should be in order to make your claim true (claim that you absolutely didn't prove btw).
Quote
P.S. I was not offering you my friendship, I was just addressing you as the communist you are.
I'm no more communist that you're "educated". It's not because your limited brain can only separate the world into two parts, the red evil communists and the blue good capitalists that the world is actually divided that way Roll Eyes

So you are telling me they track every erupting volcano on earth, even those deep under the ocean? Sure that sounds realistic  Roll Eyes

The amount of greenhouse gasses released from volcanoes varies greatly depending on the surrounding geology, therefore wide scale estimates based on a small number of inaccurate samples is not anything near precise. If you spent more than 5 minutes reading about the subject you would know this. I wouldn't call that anything at all near an "excellent estimation".

estimate = not precise, because it is an ESTIMATE ie a GUESS, a guess that is wide open to manipulation and bias BTW because there is NO PROOF, just a tiny sample. I got that from science. You should try it.

Plenty of things are accurate in science, its called EMPIRICAL DATA, of which the global warming alarmist crowd consistently lacks. You sure do have plenty of theories though wide open to being molded by your biases that you can pretend are scientific.  Speaking of proof, why don't you source your claim that "they know the exact number of eruptive volcanoes of the past 70 years".

I am not sure which document I am supposed to use to source the fact that we DON'T know about and track all erupting volcanoes. Maybe I should look it up in the "Things We Don't Know Encyclopedia". Instead of demanding I prove a negative, why don't you try proving any of your claims about data you claim exists. Any evidence I present to you about the data not existing will simply be ignored because there is no way to prove with 100% certainty to you that it does NOT exist, short of you learning how science and empirical data works in reality. Again if you spent more than 5 minutes reading about the subject you would know that knowing every fucking erupting volcano on earth is impossible with current technology and resources. BTW I call you a communist because you espouse communist values regardless of how conscious you are of it or not. Based on your previous posts I would guess you aren't conscious of much.
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
April 29, 2016, 12:45:19 AM
 #28


Quote
No, they don't know the exact number of volcanoes on Earth, that is an asinine statement.
Sorry they know the exact number of eruptive volcanoes of the past 70 years, but as an eruptive volcano releases more than 500 times the amount of CO2 the not eruptive one release, unless there is more than 5000 times more unerupting volcanoes than eruptive ones it's enough to make an excellent estimation.
Quote
They also don't even know the exact emissions from the very small handful of volcanoes they actually do test. They take small samples and estimate. When making estimations based on a very small data set within a very small number of actual volcanoes, the estimates will be nowhere near accurate.
Where do you take that from? They simply estimate the amount of CO2 released on average by active volcanoes everyday since 2011! How is that not precise? And I answered you above concerning the number of volcanoes.
Quote
You even said yourself they can't be precise yet you are pretending the estimates are magically accurate some how in the same breath.
Nothing is precise in science. Everything has some kind of innacuracy that's the very point of Quantum Physics.
Difference is you're actually claiming they're not wrong, but wrong by an order of magnitude of more than 10 000. That's how wrong they should be in order to make your claim true (claim that you absolutely didn't prove btw).
Quote
P.S. I was not offering you my friendship, I was just addressing you as the communist you are.
I'm no more communist that you're "educated". It's not because your limited brain can only separate the world into two parts, the red evil communists and the blue good capitalists that the world is actually divided that way Roll Eyes

So you are telling me they track every erupting volcano on earth, even those deep under the ocean? Sure that sounds realistic  Roll Eyes

The amount of greenhouse gasses released from volcanoes varies greatly depending on the surrounding geology, therefore wide scale estimates based on a small number of inaccurate samples is not anything near precise. If you spent more than 5 minutes reading about the subject you would know this. I wouldn't call that anything at all near an "excellent estimation".

estimate = not precise, because it is an ESTIMATE ie a GUESS, a guess that is wide open to manipulation and bias BTW because there is NO PROOF, just a tiny sample. I got that from science. You should try it.

Plenty of things are accurate in science, its called EMPIRICAL DATA, of which the global warming alarmist crowd consistently lacks. You sure do have plenty of theories though wide open to being molded by your biases that you can pretend are scientific.  Speaking of proof, why don't you source your claim that "they know the exact number of eruptive volcanoes of the past 70 years".

I am not sure which document I am supposed to use to source the fact that we DON'T know about and track all erupting volcanoes. Maybe I should look it up in the "Things We Don't Know Encyclopedia". Instead of demanding I prove a negative, why don't you try proving any of your claims about data you claim exists. Any evidence I present to you about the data not existing will simply be ignored because there is no way to prove with 100% certainty to you that it does NOT exist, short of you learning how science and empirical data works in reality. Again if you spent more than 5 minutes reading about the subject you would know that knowing every fucking erupting volcano on earth is impossible with current technology and resources. BTW I call you a communist because you espouse communist values regardless of how conscious you are of it or not. Based on your previous posts I would guess you aren't conscious of much.
bolded above is why I objected.  We are still learning about these, many were discovered since the year 2000.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 262


View Profile
May 01, 2016, 10:54:32 PM
Last edit: May 01, 2016, 11:56:52 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #29

As for the rest of your comments, it's up to him (or you) to back the claims made with proof.  Not my job.

Incorrect. A man without discernment is lost. You'll never have absolute proof for every decision and judgement you need to make in life. The scientific method is not absolute proof.

Your taxonomy is too strict and out of touch with reality.

Some data for your discernment:

So this means we might not get a crash in Bitcoin and gold at this time if they are still anti-correlated to the US dollar and US stocks. We might be looking at "happy speculating days are here again" for another 1.5 years!! OMG!!  Shocked

Hilarious, so no gold under $850 or Bitcoin under $150 this year. When predictions don't come true, you just make a new one Cheesy Fed ain't raising no rates, they are searching for every possible excuse not to raise them and they are succeeding every Fed meeting, the one they did in December was a game of chicken, they learned they are the chicken. Hyperinflation baby. Bitcoin I am not sure, it's crippled by chinese miners, it can go belly up any minute.


lol, moving targets. He is trying to be prophet, yet he knows shit what will happen. I remember last year how he preached about BTC and Gold hitting the bottom. Since then BTC up 100%, Gold up +20%.

His problem is that he is trying to explain and predict what is going to happen with freebies that MA puts out here and there. Well, even MA was wrong this time, even though he won't admit it.

I did not have a copy of the gold report from last year, but someone I communicate with did. He told me the benchmarks indicated that gold would "most likely" still make lower lows (e.g. < $1050, with the first target for a bottom of $850), and that the first possible timeframe for the low was end of Q1 2016 (contrary to what I was thinking was just after 2015.75). Upon learning that, I stopped thinking Bitcoin would move lower than the mid $200s before then.

The benchmarks stated that the USA dollar and and USA stocks had to start moving in unison as another criteria and if this wasn't the case, then the benchmark low would be pushed out in time until they do.

Thus none of his predictions have failed. Those who expect him to say "this will happen on this date" are building a strawman illogic, because MA never predicts such. His method is to provide a "if this, then that" analysis of the computer model's outputs. As I explained my post yesterday upthread, since the Euro has made MONTHLY BULLISH reversals, this indicates a move back into the Euro by the speculation markes with a potential top 117 to 125+. Thus this indicates that the USA dollar will not just break out to the upside yet (i.e. that the world's capital is not yet fleeing to seek safe haven in the USA dollar which will come eventually). And the USA stock market has been up recently, so still out-of-sync with the USA dollar. So the interpretation of this appears to be that prediction markets are expect a "No" result for the upcoming BREXIT vote this June 23, 2016. Thus USA dollar down, and if USA stocks also follow the USA dollar down, then this would be the FALSE MOVE (moving in unison) that would load the SLINGSHOT move to the upside for the newly aligned safe haven assets of the dollar, USA stocks, gold, Bitcoin, collectibles, tangibles (e.g. land), etc.. Thus the earliest date (which is also confirmed by the computer model) is the May/June followed by August, etc..

What appears to be the most likely outcome is that the EU will experience a resurgence of hot money inflows due to the "Remain" result for the BREXIT referendum. This will be a deadcat bounce extremis while the fundamentals will grow worse (fiscal, debt, migrant crises). If the USA dollar and USA stocks both decline at the same time due to this shift of the movement of hot money to the EU, Euro, UK pound, Europe stocks, then it means the world will become less risk adverse for that brief period, which will send gold down also since gold is a hedge against government failure. Whether Bitcoin also follows down is not stated by MA's model, because he isn't tracking it. But the USA dollar and USA stocks coming into alignment, would mean all safe haven assets go down. The likely event triggering such for Bitcoin is the exhale for the priced in expectation of price rise on the July halving, and also the realization that Blockstream's SegWit scaling solution is inadequate without more "soft version forks' later, but the realization that inserting this "soft fork versioning" in Bitcoin's protocol along with Blockstream cooperating with China's 65+% share (to increase on the halving as marginal miners fall away) of mining control means that Bitcoin is no longer a decentralized currency and thus Bitcoin has failed. But later the markets will rebound when they realize "nevermind" just use Bitcoin any way (and besides Bitcoin's true main market and use case is not for ideological perfect decentralized currency but rather as the unit-of-account for decentralized crypto-gambling).

Edit: this video explanation from MA, seems to indicate the FALSE MOVE described above, is expected to continue until 2017.95! Again this is really wow! So USD, USA stocks, gold, and Bitcoin could decline from this June or August until the end of 2017! Wow! The years 2018 and 2019 are going to hell on earth. We will see massive economic collapse, as well a global pandemic might resurface during this period (according to MA's cyclic models of pandemics).

MA's model provides key dates and it provides indications such as "Panic Cycle", "Directional Change", etc. on each asset analyzed. His model also provides "if this, then that" benchmarks on price reversals in both directions.

From this, the speculator can watch the market and try to interpret how the real world is matching the model and then infer decisions with a much better than 50% probability.

Something important does always happen on the ECM turn dates. For example:

1. On March 13/14 2016, the deadcat bounce of Baltic Sea index (measure of the world's trade activity) rolled over and started to decline again.

2. On 2015.75, was precisely the event that began WW3 and the stage of the conflict that sent the migrants invading Europe:

Putin invaded Syria precisely on September 30, 2015, which was to the day of 2015.75. That warned that whatever takes place right on the day becomes the main focus. Putin then withdrew precisely on pi day. So what is taking place from the Middle East will break the back of Europe economically as governments seek to raise taxes to pay for the pretend “refugees” as well as extremists who have infiltrated Europe and destabilized its borders and security. This is unwinding the entire freedom of movement within Europe which was the cornerstone of the EU concept. With borders resurfacing, Brussels begins its decline.

Even 9/11 took place right on our pi target from the peak in the ECM. This is starting to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a cycle to this type of activity that is following the 8.6 frequency. The Madrid attack on the train was March 11, 2004, or 2004.19. If we project target dates from the USA 9/11 incident, we arrive at 2004.16, which was March 1 or 10 days earlier before the attack. We have been running various terrorist attacks through our models. The list is indeed long (see Wikipedia). Nonetheless, it appears that certain groups do fall into unique cycle frequencies. This appears to enable one to determine which group was behind what.

2002.780 Indonesia Bali Oct 12, 2002
2002.810 Moscow October 23, 2002
2003.372 Morocco, Casablanca May 16, 2003
2003.361 Riyadh Saudi Arabia May 12, 2003
2003.887 Turkey, Istanbul November 20, 2003
2004.191 Madrid March 11, 2004
2004.668 Beslan, Russia September 1 – 3, 2004


Let’s face the facts. The Economic Confidence Model works with such precision it is often mind-numbing. This is monitoring human activity as a coherent, collective economic entity of “civilization” that materializes by people coming together. I suppose it makes sense that we are influenced collectively to respond with a cyclical rhythm. It appears the same is reflected in terrorist activity.

3. From my March, 2009 essay:

I don't know if anyone else has commented already, that Martin Armstrong's "It Is Just Time" prediction made back in October 2008, for a major turn event on March 19, nailed the exact day (after) the Fed announced to start buying government bonds directly.

He had also predicted ahead of time the turn that coincided with the peak in the precious metals prices last March 2008.

Google "Martin Armstrong", for the remarkable story about how accurate his computer model predictions have been, and him being in the maximum security prison without a trial, together with the Shoe Bomber and the Unibomber, alledgedly because of his unwillingness to share his model with the CIA.

TECSHARE (OP)
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
May 01, 2016, 11:54:06 PM
 #30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2y4nxpng2A

While I don't agree with everything this guys says I do agree with the general premise about global warming efforts acting as a front for socialism.

WTF, climate change and communism??? 

What the lady the video is talking about is a systemic change in the way we protect our environment. 
Nothing to do with your socialism/communism paranoia.

If you think the environment does not need protection, you are a moron.

If you knew anything about communism, you would not be using it in this context.
Communist regimes were (and still are) the worse polluters of all time.



Where did I say the environment doesn't need protection? I never said that. Leaky and melting down nuclear reactors and other issues that get no attention are just more of a threat to the environment than supposed human caused climate change, which is only not proven, it is not proven to be as disastrous as the alarmists claim. As far as the communism/climate change connection, climate change alarmists are inherently collectivists, making it not only a convenient alliance for them, but making them useful idiots for those pushing communist ideologies such as the removal of private property rights (a core communist principal) to "protect the environment". I know plenty about communism buddy, I am willing to bet far more than you. How many hours have you spent reading about the history of the ideology? I have easily spent hundreds of hours doing so. What about you?
Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
May 02, 2016, 02:33:35 AM
 #31

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2y4nxpng2A

While I don't agree with everything this guys says I do agree with the general premise about global warming efforts acting as a front for socialism.

WTF, climate change and communism??? 

What the lady the video is talking about is a systemic change in the way we protect our environment. 
Nothing to do with your socialism/communism paranoia.

If you think the environment does not need protection, you are a moron.

If you knew anything about communism, you would not be using it in this context.
Communist regimes were (and still are) the worse polluters of all time.

Ideologically, climate change fanatics are somewhere between totalitarian nazis and socialist/communists.

There is a close relationship, but they are not equal.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!