RE: So.. what moron said...

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: So.. what moron said...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: So.. what moron said...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/14/2016 7:10:42 PM

Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Because he's a partisan hack that refuses to even consider the possibility that he's wrong or that there are people that are smarter than him.

the irony of statements like that to me, is, that the average person reading it can see what a fool you are in not only saying it, but even in thinking it.

So I'm a fool for speaking the truth? I've learned and understood the science, not the politics. The right wing is notorious for being anti-science, and if the liberals began doing the same then I would be against them too. In fact there are liberal groups that mislead science for political purposes; vegans, anti-vaxers, anti-GMO people, etc. I completely disagree with misleading people with false science, just as Phydeaux is doing himself.

I wouldn't say you were a fool but I would say you are just as much as a partisan hack as he is and it's funny as hell to watch you piss and moan about it.

So I'm a partisan hack because I accept established, well accepted scientific principles of the climate? If that makes me a partisan hack, then so be it, I'd rather that then stick my head in the dirt and pretend these frequent floods, droughts, forest fires, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and more aren't happening.

(in reply to thishereboi)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/14/2016 7:13:54 PM

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

So consistent climate change is just the earth going through its normal fluctuations. How many records have broken? Warmest winters, biggest hurricane, some of the worst blizzards. It's not so much the temperature that is directly harmful. It's the drop in marine life due to rising co2, it's the storms, it's poisoning people and the environment. Climate change is occurring, attributing how much to people is the true question. But people knew climate change was occurring, and because it was happening slow enough you couldn't see it very easily within a decade, republicans just didn't care because it would interfere with big business. How can you defend companies like DuPont?

Tell you what - since you're telling me how many records have been broken - why don't you do your own homework - and quote a source that says how many record highs compared to record lows - and then we'll talk about it then.

I do not cite things like hurricane Patricia because it is public knowledge. I use easily verifiable information when at all possible because it is truth that can be tried and tested. Extremes are generally damaging, ecologically, economically or politically

Basically it comes down to no, veganism wont solve all health issues just like every adult owning a gun wouldn't end terrorism

No statistical correlation between "extreme weather" and climate change. Easily verifiable. You should test your predjudices more often.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1536-4
more than 100 studies linked here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

As for extremes being generally harmful: The declaration of independence was extreme. Emancipating slaves - was extreme.
Sending a man to the moon - was extreme. Sonata in bflat major - is extreme.

quote:

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/14/2016 7:19:58 PM >

(in reply to DominantWrestler)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/14/2016 7:34:48 PM

DominantWrestler

Posts: 338
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

So consistent climate change is just the earth going through its normal fluctuations. How many records have broken? Warmest winters, biggest hurricane, some of the worst blizzards. It's not so much the temperature that is directly harmful. It's the drop in marine life due to rising co2, it's the storms, it's poisoning people and the environment. Climate change is occurring, attributing how much to people is the true question. But people knew climate change was occurring, and because it was happening slow enough you couldn't see it very easily within a decade, republicans just didn't care because it would interfere with big business. How can you defend companies like DuPont?

Tell you what - since you're telling me how many records have been broken - why don't you do your own homework - and quote a source that says how many record highs compared to record lows - and then we'll talk about it then.

I do not cite things like hurricane Patricia because it is public knowledge. I use easily verifiable information when at all possible because it is truth that can be tried and tested. Extremes are generally damaging, ecologically, economically or politically

Basically it comes down to no, veganism wont solve all health issues just like every adult owning a gun wouldn't end terrorism

No statistical correlation between "extreme weather" and climate change. Easily verifiable. You should test your predjudices more often.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1536-4
more than 100 studies linked here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

As for extremes being generally harmful: The declaration of independence was extreme. Emancipating slaves - was extreme.
Sending a man to the moon - was extreme. Sonata in bflat major - is extreme.
quote:

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater

Intellectual endeavor: What fuels hurricanes? Heat, atmospheric humidity and greatly differing pressure zone (which in case you didn't know causes high wind speed). Basically, free energy. You are simplistic Fido

(in reply to Phydeaux)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/14/2016 8:38:48 PM

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

I've lived through 5 hurricanes, including Andrew and Katrina.

You?

Where did I say anything simplistic about hurricanes? Did you even look at the hurricane distribution graph link I posted?

Hurricanes are also affected by shear speeds of countervailing current and wind, and by ionization levels. By hundreds of other things.
Hurricanes start from tropical storms, which start from tropical systems; which start from thunderstorms; which start from cloud cover. Which Svenmark showed was highly correlated to gamma rays.

Cern also supported the fact that cosmic rays would form aerosols which are the nuclei for cloud formation. The biggest story not given adequate shrift in the IPCC AGW theories, is they don't explain the decrease in cloud clover. Svenmark does.

Random lnk to lazy to find another place to stick: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2011090900

A study by Thomas R. Knutson, a research meteorologist at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, found no increase in hurricane activity over the past 100 years. The study, titled "\"Global Warming and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results," was written in 2008 and updated on November 28, 2012. It sought to answer the question "Has Global Warming Affected Atlantic Hurricane Activity?"

To his credit, Knutson, a fervent supporter of anthropogenic global warming theory, reported honestly on what he found: "the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling

evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming induced long-term increase."

Richard A. Muller, a University of California at Berkeley physicist who studies climate change, argues that no definitive link exists between extreme weather and global warming. “Many people think mistakenly that global warming [means] an increase in storms, but it doesn't,” he says. “Global warming might result in an increase in storms. However, there are theories that say global warming might result in a decrease in storms.”

Heavy Rainfall Rising Across U.S.
Indeed, Muller challenges the assumption that a rise in extreme weather is occurring at all. “It's like a ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ question,” he says. “It implicitly assumes there has been an increase in extreme events, and there's no evidence that's true.”

Muller says that neither hurricanes nor tornadoes have been increasing. “You look at the number of hurricanes that have hit the United States,” he says, “and there's been a gradual decline over the last 100 years.”

Here is a link talking about low and high ionization affecting earth weather

http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/can-the-solar-wind-trigger-thunderstorms-140514.htm

And more: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/88063.pdf

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/14/2016 9:14:08 PM >

(in reply to DominantWrestler)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/15/2016 8:47:03 AM

DominantWrestler

Posts: 338
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline

And? You're first article states, and I quote "a scientific consensus is emerging that global warming is the culprit" in regards to what is causing flooding, drought, tornados and blizzard. I knew about the potential for cosmic radiation as activation energy when I was 8. If I remember correctly, it's one of the phenomonon responsible for ozone. As for your last source, I second guess any study performed by those financially invested in the outcome

(in reply to Phydeaux)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/15/2016 10:02:45 AM

Posts: 10540
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

So consistent climate change is just the earth going through its normal fluctuations. How many records have broken? Warmest winters, biggest hurricane, some of the worst blizzards. It's not so much the temperature that is directly harmful. It's the drop in marine life due to rising co2, it's the storms, it's poisoning people and the environment. Climate change is occurring, attributing how much to people is the true question. But people knew climate change was occurring, and because it was happening slow enough you couldn't see it very easily within a decade, republicans just didn't care because it would interfere with big business. How can you defend companies like DuPont?

Well one example would be Phoenix. 25 years 1990-2015 over 300 new record high's, over 200 new record high lows, ZERO new record lows. The Weather Channel, can't remember the exact nos. (I watch it almost every morning)

That's a trend in my mind and I think at least most others. Scientists say pick a decade, it will happen. 2020, 2030, 2040.
When in any given year between May/June and Aug./Sept. when the temp. will not go below 90 deg. F. I call that Phoenix warming.

Phoenix is almost there now. When Boston was getting record snow winter 2014, S. Calif. set 6 new record highs that were around 100 years old. I call that So. Cal. warming. Paris (103) and London both over 100, a record even for a single day.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 1/15/2016 10:03:04 AM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to DominantWrestler)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/15/2016 10:42:10 AM

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

And? You're first article states, and I quote "a scientific consensus is emerging that global warming is the culprit" in regards to what is causing flooding, drought, tornados and blizzard. I knew about the potential for cosmic radiation as activation energy when I was 8. If I remember correctly, it's one of the phenomonon responsible for ozone. As for your last source, I second guess any study performed by those financially invested in the outcome

There are multiple kinds of radiation.

The reason that svenmark is groundbreaking is that he showed that NON-ionizing radiation directly ties with cloud formation. I really do wish you would read his papers. Fucking brilliant science.

As for ionizing radiation - look lightning strikes are essentially mother natures way of equalizing electrical charges. So it shouldn't surprise you or anyone - that with the weakening of the solar magnetosphere due to the maunder minimum - more ionizing radiation was hitting the earth.

It isn't the thermal (heating) affects that are interesting, which is what most people looked at - its the ionizing effects.

Yea, I know they had a bias toward AGW - its just the mechanisms of ion transport were VERY cool, which is why I included it. The second scientist also believes in AGW - but had to conclude that there was no evidence to tie AGW to severe storms.

(in reply to DominantWrestler)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/15/2016 10:45:00 AM

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

Mr. Rodgers

I know it is tempting to say that because phoenix is having record highs today, global warming must be happening.
I read an article that said in every given year more than 9000 record highs - and record lows are happening.

what happens on one particular spot has no statistical bearing on climate. This is why the global temperature record - as evinced by satellite data .. are so important.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/15/2016 11:46:54 AM

DominantWrestler

Posts: 338
Joined: 7/4/2010
Status: offline

Who was it that showed the graph demonstrating that the north is the primary area where global warming is occurring, because that was quite interesting. Dumping that energy into melting poles would mean the cold water would distribute its temperature change more in the north, which is occurring. I'm tired from work and will read the article tomorrow

(in reply to Phydeaux)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/15/2016 3:57:04 PM

Aylee

Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

we have either a well read winner - or someone that can actually use google.

Congratulations, you are obviously not a liberal.

They are not mutually exclusive, ya know.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/16/2016 10:59:50 AM

intendedoneonly

Posts: 27
Joined: 1/15/2016
Status: offline

Jesus H Christ two pansy boys ranting about the weather.

(in reply to Aylee)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/17/2016 3:21:56 PM

Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Because he's a partisan hack that refuses to even consider the possibility that he's wrong or that there are people that are smarter than him.

the irony of statements like that to me, is, that the average person reading it can see what a fool you are in not only saying it, but even in thinking it.

So I'm a fool for speaking the truth? I've learned and understood the science, not the politics. The right wing is notorious for being anti-science, and if the liberals began doing the same then I would be against them too. In fact there are liberal groups that mislead science for political purposes; vegans, anti-vaxers, anti-GMO people, etc. I completely disagree with misleading people with false science, just as Phydeaux is doing himself.

I wouldn't say you were a fool but I would say you are just as much as a partisan hack as he is and it's funny as hell to watch you piss and moan about it.

So I'm a partisan hack because I accept established, well accepted scientific principles of the climate? If that makes me a partisan hack, then so be it, I'd rather that then stick my head in the dirt and pretend these frequent floods, droughts, forest fires, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and more aren't happening.

Is that what I said? Next time try responding to the words I write and not the voices in your head. That way you won't look like you are just parroting the talking points other people have fed you.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert

This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi

(in reply to Tkman117)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/17/2016 3:46:49 PM

Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Because he's a partisan hack that refuses to even consider the possibility that he's wrong or that there are people that are smarter than him.

the irony of statements like that to me, is, that the average person reading it can see what a fool you are in not only saying it, but even in thinking it.

So I'm a fool for speaking the truth? I've learned and understood the science, not the politics. The right wing is notorious for being anti-science, and if the liberals began doing the same then I would be against them too. In fact there are liberal groups that mislead science for political purposes; vegans, anti-vaxers, anti-GMO people, etc. I completely disagree with misleading people with false science, just as Phydeaux is doing himself.

I wouldn't say you were a fool but I would say you are just as much as a partisan hack as he is and it's funny as hell to watch you piss and moan about it.

So I'm a partisan hack because I accept established, well accepted scientific principles of the climate? If that makes me a partisan hack, then so be it, I'd rather that then stick my head in the dirt and pretend these frequent floods, droughts, forest fires, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and more aren't happening.

Is that what I said? Next time try responding to the words I write and not the voices in your head. That way you won't look like you are just parroting the talking points other people have fed you.

Oh I read the words, you said I was just as much as a partisan hack as he is, and I addressed that part. Are you okay? Maybe you should get your head out of your ass and come up for a breath, your comprehension skills seem to be suffering a bit.

(in reply to thishereboi)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/18/2016 2:42:56 AM

Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Because he's a partisan hack that refuses to even consider the possibility that he's wrong or that there are people that are smarter than him.

the irony of statements like that to me, is, that the average person reading it can see what a fool you are in not only saying it, but even in thinking it.

So I'm a fool for speaking the truth? I've learned and understood the science, not the politics. The right wing is notorious for being anti-science, and if the liberals began doing the same then I would be against them too. In fact there are liberal groups that mislead science for political purposes; vegans, anti-vaxers, anti-GMO people, etc. I completely disagree with misleading people with false science, just as Phydeaux is doing himself.

I wouldn't say you were a fool but I would say you are just as much as a partisan hack as he is and it's funny as hell to watch you piss and moan about it.

So I'm a partisan hack because I accept established, well accepted scientific principles of the climate? If that makes me a partisan hack, then so be it, I'd rather that then stick my head in the dirt and pretend these frequent floods, droughts, forest fires, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and more aren't happening.

Is that what I said? Next time try responding to the words I write and not the voices in your head. That way you won't look like you are just parroting the talking points other people have fed you.

Oh I read the words, you said I was just as much as a partisan hack as he is, and I addressed that part. Are you okay? Maybe you should get your head out of your ass and come up for a breath, your comprehension skills seem to be suffering a bit.

And you are. But I never gave any reasons. Those came straight from your own head. So what part didn't I comprehend? Or are you just so flustered you can't come up with an insult that actually fits the conversation?

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert

This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi

(in reply to Tkman117)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/19/2016 3:44:44 PM

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

For the record Tklman - still any answer for why temperatures were warmer in previous interglacial warming periods than now - you know before humans were around to screw things up?

If you look at the history of interglacial warming periods - the temperatures we have now are cooler than other periods. But all in like clockwork, we get a warm spell every 75K years or so; it lasts 10K years or so - and then temperatures plunge 12-15 degrees.

So ignoring the evidence of radiation induced cloud cover actually being the cause of "warming"; ignoring the evidence that there isn't any warming for the last 21 years (while co2 continues to climb); how do you explain that temperatures follow the same profile as the last warming period, and the one before that, and the one before that ..

It must have been you think the martians colonized the planet and polluted it with that evil co2... yanno, since we weren't around to do it.

(in reply to thishereboi)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/20/2016 6:20:33 AM

Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline

Jesus Phydeaux, you really don't get it do you?

First) In the past the sun was stronger than it is now, meaning less greenhouse gases were needed to maintain a warm planet. The planet has always had a "thermostat" of sorts that maintained temperatures within a range (the greenhouse gasses, normally CO2), and there is plenty of evidence that CO2 concentrations were much lower in the past than now but yet there were still higher temperatures because of a warmer sun. Stars cool down over time, you can look at stars in space at different points in their stellar evolution to determine that.

We have our way of life on this planet pretty set in stone, and just because the dinosaurs could live through the interglacial periods with high temperatures doesn't mean we can. They were lizards after all.

Second) you're talking about warming and cooling cycles that last tens of thousands of years, where it takes well over a thousand years to see 1 degree Celsius change in temperature. We're seeing temperature changes in a fraction of that time, which has NEVER happened before. We have already increased to 1 degree Celsius higher than pre-industrial times in the 1700s, that is only 300 years, and with the rate of change in temperature we're seeing, we will likely hit 2 degrees Celsius within the century. 2 degrees of temperature change in less than 400 years, which should have naturally happened over several thousand or more. Something is wrong and if you refuse to see it, even today, then you're simply a lost cause

Also you must be an idiot if you don't understand that clouds both trap radiation as well as reflect it. They don't balance out, but their forcing is closer to 0 than most greenhouse influencing chemicals.

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 1/20/2016 6:47:47 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/20/2016 1:38:50 PM

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

You just don't get it - do you moron.

1. here's another study saying 1/2 of all global warming is due to INCREASES in solar irradiance: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95GL03093/full

2. The bondaries between ice ages and wrming periods are, in fact NOT characterized by slow temperature changes "where is takes over a thousand years to see 1 degree Celsius change".
For example: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html.

Let me quote you again - since you ignored it the last time I gave you the exact same information: The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10° C (18° F) in a decade (Figure 6; Cuffey and Clow, 1997).

3. In FACT the temperature transitions between ice ages and warming periods are almost always abrupt. Pretty Picture to follow.

4. And, in fact, we have often seen temperature changes much greater than the temperature changes (not) seen over the last 50 years. Again, in the transition from they younger drayas, the tempereature change was 18 degrees over 50 years.
So are you willing to concede - not only wrong, but drastically wrong, and DON'T KNOW DICK about climate science?

5. As for clouds being closer to zero than most greenhouse gases - again, you can't possibly know that - since not even nasa knows the net effect of CO2 in the troposhperic column. Which data I also sent to you.

Pay attention to the pretty pictures.

They show - not 1, not 2, not 3 - but no less than 4 massive changes of around 18 degrees, and a lot of changes around 8 degrees. And those huge temperature changes occurred over roughly 3000 years.

For example:
25 degree change 11000 years ago
18 degrees 13000 years ago
18 degrees 14500 years ago
20 degrees 15000 years ago

(in reply to Tkman117)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/20/2016 1:40:19 PM

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

Pretty picture #1.

Link if img doesn't work for you: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.climateshifts.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Greenlandtemp.png&imgrefurl=https://quaternaryscience.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/the-younger-dryas/&h=279&w=500&tbnid=uyZF7BY2LOLFHM:&docid=T4n2RQldCPu5aM&ei=6vefVqz2MsbYe43_qZgK&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwisk6zlprnKAhVG7B4KHY1_CqMQMwgzKAIwAg

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/20/2016 1:43:40 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/20/2016 1:44:11 PM

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

pretty picture #2

For some reason, uploads don't seem to work for me.

Link: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/images/younger_dryas_gisp2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml&h=383&w=469&tbnid=6-W1iWwsLlkdGM:&docid=N4Slnc14TlwQPM&ei=6vefVqz2MsbYe43_qZgK&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwisk6zlprnKAhVG7B4KHY1_CqMQMwg1KAQwBA

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/20/2016 1:46:39 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)

RE: So.. what moron said... - 1/20/2016 1:46:26 PM

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

Pretty picture #2

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: So.. what moron said...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.492