flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Global Warming

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
preceded by:

vid:
On rationality vs. faith: Interesting thing to note is that rational people are usually pretty much united: there is single rational truth vs. thousands "believed" truths.

MichaelH
Problem is, when the "single rational truth" label gets attached to things as ridiculous as the theory of global warming, the actual truth gets thown out the door and faith takes over. Hence I suspect rational people are actually few and far between

vid
Yes, everyone likes to support his cause by placing "rationality" stamp over it. You need to get some practice to filter our what's real and what isn't. Most important is to be prepared to change your opinion if evidence shows your old opinion was wrong, and to do it gladly, because you are bit closer to truth.

As for global warming, got any serious inidications it isn't true? I didn't study it into any depth, but so far i got impression that occurence of global warming is pretty much proved, only questionable thing is whether / to how much extent it is caused by human activity.

MichaelH
Great, then you'll be able to show me this proof.

Remember though, rational thinking proof only. For example, polar bears can swim because they have evolved over time to swim to their prey. I don't want to hear it's a recent event occurring because the ice is melting.


> only questionable thing is whether / to how much extent it is caused by > > human activity.

Here's where I'm am absolutely certain. Humans have not caused anything ..... except for the destruction of wildlife habitats bringing the extinction/near extinction of many species .... but of cause given that loco and I were the only two who said anything about the japanese whaling ships heading to the southern oceans to kill whales, I guess crying about someone insulting their precious religion is more important to people than saving huge whales




Quote:
Great, then you'll be able to show me this proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus

Study these (yeah, it's a wikipedia, if you find some information to be not true, feel free to let us know). Especially first link has few examples of how big companies push dollars into denying even climate change itself, not just it's human source. Are you sure it wasn't their effort that influenced your opinion? Why would they do it, if it wasn't truth?

By the way, we can feel climate change ourselves, without any scientists needed. I remember 2 "hundreed year waters" (exceptional floods) in area where i live. Winters used to be regular before, but now they are becoming more crazy (2 meters of snow, next year no snow, etc). So far, climate change is more-than-plausible for me.

Of course, I am open to facts which deny these claims i presented, or to publications from official organizations which report that there is no serious climate change going it. That would be very strange itself, as "rapid" climate changes were regulary happening all the time in history, why not now?

Quote:
Here's where I'm am absolutely certain. Humans have not caused anything ..... except for the destruction of wildlife habitats bringing the extinction/near extinction of many species .... but of cause given that loco and I were the only two who said anything about the japanese whaling ships heading to the southern oceans to kill whales, I guess crying about someone insulting their precious religion is more important to people than saving huge whales

Species become extinct when they are not able to survive. That's how nature works. Species were extincting long time ago before humans existed, and i don't see how is that tragic. If species wouldn't extinct, there would be no humans today - I'd see that way more tragic Smile
Of course killing animals just for greed is bad and deserves to be condemned, but fighting nature and try to preserve species which cannot survive naturally isn't the most sane thing out there. 99.9% species that existed in history are extinct, what is that compared to human activity?

Also, I would like to see proofs of your "humans have not caused anything to climate" certainity too. I am sure you draw this opinion from facts, not just based on what you'd like to be truth, so present these facts please.


Last edited by vid on 04 Dec 2007, 16:33; edited 4 times in total
Post 30 Nov 2007, 02:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid

vid:
> Especially first link has few examples of how big companies push dollars into denying even climate change itself, not just it's human source.

MichaelH
Come on vid, I asked for proof, not bias opinion.



What else proof you need? There are hundreds of meteorological stations that measure tempereture every day for several 10s of years. They calculate average temperature, and they all concluded that average temperature is raising.

You have pretty high number of such organizations listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

You dare to call them all "biased" without any futher proofs of their bias? Can you show me some unbiased meteorological organizations that didn't measure any recent rapid growth of average temperature?
And can you answer my question from first post, why did big companies invest millions of dollars to deny global warming, if it isn't happening? (Because they care about truth? Laughing)

Respond to these 3 questions please.


Last edited by vid on 04 Dec 2007, 01:14; edited 3 times in total
Post 30 Nov 2007, 11:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
In my opinion, the data overwhelmingly support global warming, they do not however, suggest a definitive culprit for this increased temperature. Very likely, in my opinion, there will be MULTIPLE culprits, including man made contributions to the problem.
I believe this topic of global warming is useful, and worthy of its own thread, though I understand the utility of offering an illustration of the juxtaposition of faith versus empirical evidence. I suppose that the school teacher, now imprisoned for committing the crime of allowing her 7-year old students to choose a name for the class teddy bear, would argue in favor of calm, deliberative assessment of several decades of extant climatological data, so as to remove the "faith" element from the equation. I guess that those who imprisoned this kind-hearted woman, on the contrary, reason that the FACTS are subordinate to the TRUTH, which is located in the xyz religious tract, authored centuries PRIOR to collection of any climatalogical data. What is, in my mind, very important for all FASM forumers, particularly those who possess some religious preference, is to recognize that EVERY religious dogma repudiates ordinary sensory data, trumping that data with "faith". It is precisely that "faith", contrary to reason, contrary to logic, and above all, contrary to sensory input to the brain, which leads, ultimately to conflict, for there is NO POSSIBILITY, NONE, in this current example, for instance, where some INSANE muslims have incarcerated a school teacher unjustly, that I, or any other rational minded person, would EVER accept ANY aspect of the dogma which led to her false imprisonment. Thus, we can readily detect, how conflict arises between two people, or between two communities, or between two nations. This is not a language problem. This is not a cultural distinction. This is not a land grab. This is not theft of the Palestian farmer's water by the European jews. It is RELIGION which is the origin of the problem. FAITH demands repudiation of science. Faith cannot exist in harmony with empiricism. One of the two must be eliminated. In the case of the British school teacher in Somalia, the muslims (= jews, =christians, they are all the same) have shown their zeal for creating a planet of like minded individuals. The Somali muslim's intolerance for science ought to be a warning to those FASM forumers, who imagine that their own religous beliefs are superior to other ideologies. One day, we may see what happens to those religions, when a ruler comes to power with a disdain for religion, comparable to the dislike of rational thought, which religions possess.
Crying or Very sad
Post 30 Nov 2007, 12:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid

MichaelH
Come on vid, you said you have proof but all I've got from you so far are replies of a fanatical cult follower.


I showed you the science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change. So far, YOU failed to demonstrate that even single of these zounds examples linked isn't a science. If you doubt that any of them is science, please give me some data that would confirm it. I gave you links to shitload of data, and you all denied it by saying it is not real science, without any proof to support your stance, even in single case. You didn't provide any data, I did. Why don't you provide any data to support your clause?

And, why did you respond only 1 of my 3 questions? What about other 2? I think intellectual honesty requires you to respond ALL questions, otherwise i suspect there is a reason why you don't want to respond question.


MichaelH
[quote]Show me the science. For instance, what's the atomic weight of C02? Why would I ask you such a question?????? I want only rational thinking replies or a retraction of your statement that you have proof.


Sorry, i don't know for sure what does atomic mass of CO2 has to do with this. I believe it is sumation of atomic mass of of C molecule, plus two times atomic mass of O molecute 1. I hope you will shed some light on what does atomic weight of CO2 has to do with truthfulness of global warming.

Why do you reject data collected by so many organizations as proof? Can you demonstrate what is scientifically wrong with all those hundreds of meteorological stations measuring temperature and calculaing average temperature every year? Can you show me ANY data (like me and Tom showed you) that support your clase that average long-term temperature isn't raising?


Last edited by vid on 04 Dec 2007, 01:11; edited 1 time in total
Post 01 Dec 2007, 02:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
global warming and CO2 mass are linked.
CO2 is heavy.
so it push up the others molecules
and then , these molecules are expanded cause of decreased pressure.
something like 10-6 Pa, but it has an influence

then , the atmosphere grows, and solar rays warms more gas molecules and space.
Post 01 Dec 2007, 03:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
What edfed says is related to density. Now I'm also puzzled about the so called "atomic weight" (also called atomic mass), it is applied to atoms, not to composite substances like CO2 which is composed by one Carbon atom and two Oxygen atoms. Apparently, summing all the atomic masses you can get the molecular mass. Still, even knowing this you can't determinate the density but I don't know what did you have in mind when talking about this subject, but if you were referring to the same thing that edfed said then, molecular mass nor atomic mass has something to do with this.
Post 01 Dec 2007, 04:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Sorry, Loco is correct, I should have said molecular mass.

Well done edfed, CO2 is heavy.

So what ????? Anyone?
Post 01 Dec 2007, 09:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
So what ????? Anyone?

So how about you answering my questions?
Post 01 Dec 2007, 10:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
Earth atmosphere is more transparent for the visible part of Solar light than for the "deep" infrared (i.e. heat).

Solar light comes through Earth atmosphere, is adsorbed by ground, transfered into "deep" infrared and comes back to the atmosphere where is adsorbed by greenhouse gases (CO2, ozone [O3], methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [N2O]). In consequence atmosphere warms up.

More CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere => higher temperature of air.
Post 01 Dec 2007, 12:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
I showed you the science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change. So far, YOU failed to demonstrate that even single of these zounds examples linked isn't a science. If you doubt that any of them is science, please give me some data that would confirm it. I gave you links to shitload of data, and you all denied it by saying it is not real science, without any proof to support your stance, even in single case. You didn't provide any data, I did. Why don't you provide any data to support your clause?
if he has to prove this isn't science, then you also have to prove (for example) there is no boogeyman, and not the other way around Very Happy

but conspiracies exist... my point is, if you haven't analyzed the thing yourself, then believing in some "web" article/news is like believing in the Bible.

this was a neutral post in case someone regards it as a religious or atheist one.

vid wrote:
Why do you reject data collected by so many organizations as proof?
Well "hundreds" of organizations (or more) also agree with the Bible, or did agree in the past at least. Does time matter anyway? I believe, if these organizations (with global warming) are true now, they will also be true later in 1000 years (at least, referring to their time period obviously).

vid wrote:
Can you show me ANY data (like me and Tom showed you) that support your clase that average long-term temperature isn't raising?
If I had enough money (and I mean enough) I could be able to put anything I want in the news. Smile
Post 01 Dec 2007, 13:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Quote:

More CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere => higher temperature of air.



More CO2. But edfed has pointed out that a molecule of CO2 is relatively heavy compared to ...... Yet there is going to be more CO2 in the upper atmosphere???????



vid wrote:

So how about you answering my questions?



Sorry vid, I find answering questions from a fanatical cult follower such as yourself pointless!
Post 01 Dec 2007, 22:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
vid wrote:
I showed you the science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change. So far, YOU failed to demonstrate that even single of these zounds examples linked isn't a science. If you doubt that any of them is science, please give me some data that would confirm it. I gave you links to shitload of data, and you all denied it by saying it is not real science, without any proof to support your stance, even in single case. You didn't provide any data, I did. Why don't you provide any data to support your clause?
if he has to prove this isn't science, then you also have to prove (for example) there is no boogeyman, and not the other way around

I have provided references to proofs. He said those proofs are biased (eg. not true), so the burden lies on him to back this claim with data. Yeah, if I would claim "boogeyman doesn't exist", I'd have to back my claims too, but i never claimed that. Your analogy to boogieman is bad in this case. It would apply if he would present me some data for existence of boogeyman, and I would have to disprove those data.

Quote:
but conspiracies exist... my point is, if you haven't analyzed the thing yourself, then believing in some "web" article/news is like believing in the Bible.

You get nowhere by only trusting what you can test yourself. That would be retarted. Most important advantage of manking is that we can learn from others, not just from our own experiences.

Of course, you need to select sources, to try to prevent getting some non-true information. For that reason, scientific publications are best what we have, because they are written to be testable, and they are tested by peer review. Bible or "news articles" doesn't undergo such testing, thus your analogy to Bible is wrong again.

vid wrote:
Can you show me ANY data (like me and Tom showed you) that support your clase that average long-term temperature isn't raising?
If I had enough money (and I mean enough) I could be able to put anything I want in the news. Smile[/quote]
Sure. It was happening, and is still happening (like in mentioned case where company paid 5 million to find and propagate scientists who would deny global warming). That's why i don't accept news as source. Instead, I prefer scientific data, because of reasons I already mentioned.

MichaelH wrote:
Sorry vid, I find answering questions from a fanatical cult follower such as yourself pointless!

You mean following cult of ratinality, science, data, etc? Yes, I am. I only accept things supported by data that fulfill scientific criteria. Immediately as you provide me that data, and refute opposing data, i will change my opinion and accept global warming.

Maybe you consider debating with cult follower like myself pointless, but maybe it isn't, and you could learn something yourself (I have for myself learnt lot in such debates).

PS: It is wonderful how you considered answering me pointless just in the point where you was supposed to present your data, but not before. Even while you was still answering to me, you only saw point in answering those parts of my post that didn't ask you for providing data/proof. Of course this for sure has nothing to do with lack of data to support your side, does it?


Last edited by vid on 02 Dec 2007, 19:28; edited 1 time in total
Post 01 Dec 2007, 23:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
I forgot this comes up in every argument as well. We now argue who's job it is to present the data and who's job it is to disprove that evidence. I'm glad i'm not doing it anymore. XD Next comes the pointing out of punctuation errors and stuff to disprove the evidence, then arguing about the reputability of the source as once before.

Burden of proof is very serious thing. It can be misused to get away from having to provide evidence for claims (MichaelH case), or even to incorrectly consider something true because other side didn't provide evidence (creationism, spaghetti monster).


Last edited by vid on 02 Dec 2007, 19:34; edited 1 time in total
Post 02 Dec 2007, 02:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
xanatose



Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 57
xanatose
About faith.

People can have any belief they want. But that does not make them truth. Only facts can prove of refute something. And faith by definition is believing in something without facts.

However faith without truth leads to destruction. The People of the 911 had faith that they will go to a heaven directly as martirs. If my memory serves me well, the German Army of WW2 had inscripted in german "The army of God".

Interesting enough faith, is not only about religion. A person can have faith in the State. Faith in their group, church, Faith in Wikipedia, Faith in The Great Pumpkin. Faith in his/her wife/husband Smile

But if faith is not acompanied by truth, it leads to destruction.

And how do you find if your faith is accompanied by truth of not? Who knows. Because once you KNOW that something is fact, it ceases to be faith Smile

About Global Warming.

Some says is the CO2. Others that the sun is hotter (since the poles of Mars are melting and out atmosphere does not reach it).

But who cares, what causes it. Its happening. We will adapt and survive it one way or another. And we are already overpopulated. So a few dissaster will do some good to human kind as a whole in the long run.
Post 02 Dec 2007, 07:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Quote:

but now it's gotten more attention because the world isn't fighting the cold war and we're getting sick of the war in Iraq.


kohlrak, you make me so proud Smile

All that effort I put into teaching you in the past and I thought it was just a waste of time. But no, he understand. I'm just so rapped Smile



That's exactly right kohlrak, the pressure has been released to stop the murder in Iraq, and all it took was to racket up the talk about global warming. The monkeys now see the banana (global warming) and problem in Iraq ..... what problem. You're proud about your country, and rightly so, the US propaganda machine is amazing.


So there you go vid, young kohlrak sees ..... and you "mr self proclaimed rational thinker" can only wave your data (faith) in our face and clearly understand nothing but rage for those who don't clearly see your truth...... shame shame shame!


By the way vid, did you know algae in the vast vast vast oceans (had to be at least 3 vasts cause the ocean is really vast Smile) of our planet use CO2 in photosynthesis and convert it to oxygen ..... what you say, how did the CO2 get in the ocean Wink
Post 02 Dec 2007, 09:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Post 02 Dec 2007, 10:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
The monkeys now see the banana (global warming) and problem in Iraq ..... what problem.


Don't twist my words. I just see that people are sick of arguing over Iraq, i don't care what the stance. It gets boring after about 6 or 7 years. People still don't agree on what the problem is, they're just sick of arguing about it.

Quote:
MichaelH: I actually agree with kohlrak about artificial drawing attention to global warming. But that DOESN'T in any way prove there is no global warming.


When real science, not pseudoscience, proves that the problem with ice melting is man made, then i *MIGHT* belive it. (The might comes from my stance on "science." I'm sure you all know it based on my posts in the past.) Considering they've been saying the exact same thing for longer than i was born, i don't consider what is said now any more reputable. Especially with the word play used on the topic. "Green house gasses" are gases that cause the green house effect, and they do that because they're too dense to go high enough to dicipate and not be a problem. The problem with liberal propoganda today (not enough water to flood the world) and (global warming will flood the world) is that, as you can see, it contradicts itself. Now i'm not saying all liberals are loons, but the secularism never agrees with the humanism. We like to believe that all of our problems are our fault. Some are, some aren't. People, seriously, we really can't do anything about it, and most of it dosnt' even pertain to us. To me, this global warming is just news. They know you'll pay money to hear that it's our fault that penguins are dieing and that poor Santa is going to loose his home this christmas cause it'll be under water. They're playing on the kids now cause they know that'll influence us. Kids want to protect Santa, many people pathetically listen too much to their children. They know this kind of crap sells. All they have to do is make a movie or something and now they're instantly rich for telling us how to save ourselves. Some one who believes he invented the internet just got rich winning the nobel peace prize (not that he wansn't already for being a guy who talks to people and tries to become president of the USA). We give politics and yellow journalism too much credit. Global warming or not, none of us here at fasm will do anything until we're a politition, then we'd have a chance about doing something some where for a few years, and even then you might end up taking money from a lobbyist. Polititions don't listen to people anymore. Who are you to them? VOTES! Half of them are dumber than Bush. Bush talks with a funny accent, but at least he can add 2 numbers together. At least he can tell if he read something or not. If there are idiots in charge in the US, there are idiots in charge everywhere else as well. We don't need to argue over what we wish they would do. They're not going to do what we wish they would do. They're the rich, we're the poor and middle class. It's like the old days, only a different system of it so we think it's gone, but it's not. Nothing you can do, so sit down and deal with it. Start arguing constructively.
Post 02 Dec 2007, 12:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
edfed wrote:
emotions are true, like a hidden undocumented process without any easy control set.

And if two people's emotions contradict, are they still both true? If you answer NO, then you can't say "all emotions are true", and saying just "some emotions are true" is completely worthless and no new information. If you answer YES, then you have ventured outside area of logic, and there word "Truth" doesn't have meaning anymore (of course you can assign different meaning to it, but then it isn't truth anymore).

Quote:
emotions make us human.

How about animal emotions? Never seen sad dog, happy dolphin, nervous chimp, loving cat, etc?

Quote:
why to be raged against anybody for any reason, emotions????
a man who live at minimum 1000 kilometer from you, simply threading on the net. rational thinking is like "time is money" thinking, accepting ONLY a rational way of life make the life empty of many (not all) funny things.

Nonsense, but I admit not an apparent one. Read this: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/lifeofwonder.html. As an extra, you can also read this: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/necessityofatheism.html

kohlrak wrote:
When real science, not pseudoscience, proves that the problem with ice melting is man made, then i *MIGHT* belive it.

I hope you don't think that I was saying global warming is man-made. No, I haven't seen enough proofs for that so far. There are many arguments for, and many against. No scientific consesus. Of course man contributed to global warming, but there is no certainity if the contribution was worthy, or just some 1/1000th of degree per 100 years.

I was just telling that global warming IS HAPPENING, eg. that average temperature is raising last several decades, and that is pretty much confired by all science. Only MichaelH and alikes who don't like it for some reason, and think that truth is in any way influenced by what they like (by their emotions).


Last edited by vid on 02 Dec 2007, 19:26; edited 1 time in total
Post 02 Dec 2007, 15:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
vid wrote:
MHajduk wrote:
Sorry vid, I find answering questions from a fanatical cult follower such as yourself pointless!

You mean following cult of ratinality, ...
vid,
why you still do not distinguish my nick (MHajduk) from nick of MichaelH? We aren't the same person. I live in Poland (just near by you Wink ). MichaelH lives in New Zealand (if I remember correctly). I think that's the big difference. Very Happy

I'm really confused. You're putting the someone's words in my mouth. Twisted Evil

I think that this syndrome is very dangerous. I don't want to be burned on stack for someone's else opinions. Wink

Maybe I should change my nick? Or to abandon this forum?
Post 02 Dec 2007, 19:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
MHajduk: o shit, i am terribly sorry... I really "merged" you two in my mind. Embarassed

You know, human brain doesn't read all stuff, i just saw capitalized M and H and that's it. I am sorry again...
Post 02 Dec 2007, 19:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.