Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 583 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 30  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 24847
Location: this stark raving, sick, sad little world
Gender: Male
institution of a US-wide (or maybe worldwide) recycle program. i've noticed that many places that i've lived in haven't even had a recycle program going. where i live currently, they sent every resident of the town a large garbage bin for recycle which was purchased with tax payer money. a perfectly legitimate expense. this could help to stop from having to cut down trees, etc.

more countries can start to ban regular light bulbs and go for the energy efficient and environmentally safe ones. it might seem like a small thing but if everyone in the world changed to energy efficient light bulbs it would do a LOT of good.

_________________
never mind, death professor.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 24847
Location: this stark raving, sick, sad little world
Gender: Male
corduroy_blazer wrote:
god'll take care of the earth and his children, i'm not worried.
are you serious?

_________________
never mind, death professor.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:24 pm 
Offline
Faithless
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 2623
Jim wrote:
institution of a US-wide (or maybe worldwide) recycle program. i've noticed that many places that i've lived in haven't even had a recycle program going. where i live currently, they sent every resident of the town a large garbage bin for recycle which was purchased with tax payer money. a perfectly legitimate expense. this could help to stop from having to cut down trees, etc.

more countries can start to ban regular light bulbs and go for the energy efficient and environmentally safe ones. it might seem like a small thing but if everyone in the world changed to energy efficient light bulbs it would do a LOT of good.


Don't you think we should be shooting a little higher than recycling and changing light bulbs? I'm all for it, but by no means does it make a profound impact. We need more intensive strategies than that.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 24847
Location: this stark raving, sick, sad little world
Gender: Male
corduroy11 wrote:
Jim wrote:
institution of a US-wide (or maybe worldwide) recycle program. i've noticed that many places that i've lived in haven't even had a recycle program going. where i live currently, they sent every resident of the town a large garbage bin for recycle which was purchased with tax payer money. a perfectly legitimate expense. this could help to stop from having to cut down trees, etc.

more countries can start to ban regular light bulbs and go for the energy efficient and environmentally safe ones. it might seem like a small thing but if everyone in the world changed to energy efficient light bulbs it would do a LOT of good.


Don't you think we should be shooting a little higher than recycling and changing light bulbs? I'm all for it, but by no means does it make a profound impact. We need more intensive strategies than that.
oh no, i completely agree that we should be shooting higher. i was merely trying to point out little things that could even be done right NOW.

_________________
never mind, death professor.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:30 pm 
Offline
Faithless
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 2623
Jim wrote:
corduroy11 wrote:
Jim wrote:
institution of a US-wide (or maybe worldwide) recycle program. i've noticed that many places that i've lived in haven't even had a recycle program going. where i live currently, they sent every resident of the town a large garbage bin for recycle which was purchased with tax payer money. a perfectly legitimate expense. this could help to stop from having to cut down trees, etc.

more countries can start to ban regular light bulbs and go for the energy efficient and environmentally safe ones. it might seem like a small thing but if everyone in the world changed to energy efficient light bulbs it would do a LOT of good.


Don't you think we should be shooting a little higher than recycling and changing light bulbs? I'm all for it, but by no means does it make a profound impact. We need more intensive strategies than that.
oh no, i completely agree that we should be shooting higher. i was merely trying to point out little things that could even be done right NOW.


Ok. There's a lot of things that could be done right NOW. The way I see it, to the average person, mitigating climate change has been all talk and no action. That pisses me off.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 24847
Location: this stark raving, sick, sad little world
Gender: Male
corduroy11 wrote:
Jim wrote:
corduroy11 wrote:
Jim wrote:
institution of a US-wide (or maybe worldwide) recycle program. i've noticed that many places that i've lived in haven't even had a recycle program going. where i live currently, they sent every resident of the town a large garbage bin for recycle which was purchased with tax payer money. a perfectly legitimate expense. this could help to stop from having to cut down trees, etc.

more countries can start to ban regular light bulbs and go for the energy efficient and environmentally safe ones. it might seem like a small thing but if everyone in the world changed to energy efficient light bulbs it would do a LOT of good.


Don't you think we should be shooting a little higher than recycling and changing light bulbs? I'm all for it, but by no means does it make a profound impact. We need more intensive strategies than that.
oh no, i completely agree that we should be shooting higher. i was merely trying to point out little things that could even be done right NOW.


Ok. There's a lot of things that could be done right NOW. The way I see it, to the average person, mitigating climate change has been all talk and no action. That pisses me off.
agree. and i'm trying to do as much as i can and am trying to encourage people to do the same.

_________________
never mind, death professor.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Jim wrote:
institution of a US-wide (or maybe worldwide) recycle program. i've noticed that many places that i've lived in haven't even had a recycle program going. where i live currently, they sent every resident of the town a large garbage bin for recycle which was purchased with tax payer money. a perfectly legitimate expense. this could help to stop from having to cut down trees, etc.

it's a given in australia, and has been for many years, to have recycling bins in every home. i was shocked when i first heard that some places in the us still don't do this.

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Bangkok hosts key climate summit

Climate change experts are meeting in Bangkok for a major conference to discuss ways to combat global warming.

It is the third such summit this year held by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Those attending hope to finalise a report on how the world can mitigate rising levels of greenhouse gases.


A draft version of the report, seen by the BBC, says it is possible to make a real difference, but countries need to implement policies immediately.


Environmentalists argue that while it will need investment to put these policies into practice, the eventual consequences of doing nothing far outweigh the cost of tackling global climate change now.

'Compelling reasons' for change

At least 400 scientists and experts from about 120 countries are attending the third session of the IPCC, the UN's leading body on global warming.

Two reports issued earlier this year by the same UN panel warned that the earth was already warming considerably, and that mankind was almost certainly to blame.

They predicted severe consequences including droughts, floods, storms, heat waves and rising seas.

This third report, which is due to be released on Friday, will lay out ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while taking into account impacts on the economy.

"We look forward to very fruitful days ahead of us, so at the end of the week we can declare we are part of the solution, not part of the problem," Ogunlade Davidson, co-chair of the meeting, told reporters.

"The science certainly provides a lot of compelling reasons for action," Rajendrat Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, told the Associated Press.

Exactly what action to take, and how much it will cost, is likely to be the main topic of debate during the closed-door meeting.

One of the key issues is the so-called carbon price - a way of making consumers and businesses pay for the pollution they create.

The draft refers to stabilising emissions between 450 and 550 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anything less is unrealistic, economists believe.

But correspondents say that both America and China are alarmed by any discussions of a safe limit because it increases pressure to curb their pollution levels.

The draft suggests solutions to mitigate climate change, such as capturing and burying emissions from coal-fired power plants, shifting to renewable forms of energy and more use of nuclear power.

Making buildings more energy-efficient, especially in the developing world, could also lead to significant cuts in global warming, the draft report concludes, as would changes in agricultural practices and reduced deforestation.

Influential report

The findings of the report will be used by governments and international organisations to map out their own plans for climate change mitigation.

"The IPCC plays an incredibly important role in the political negotiations so people can point and say 'Look, this is what is going to happen in 50 years, these are the options available for us to take actions'," said UN Environment Programme spokesman Michael Williams.

The report's conclusions will play a key role in negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, which will take place in December on the Indonesian island of Bali.

It will also influence world leaders when they meet face-to-face over climate change at the summit of the group of eight most industrialised nations (G8) in June.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/s ... 606465.stm

Published: 2007/04/30 08:27:35 GMT

© BBC MMVII
______________________

Here's a good quote from Tim Flannery about the IPCC.

"If the IPCC says something, you had better believe it- and then allow for the likelihood that things are far worse than it says they are."

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Indian Project Shows Solar Power Affordable, U.N. Says

April 30, 2007 — By Alister Doyle, Reuters

OSLO -- A solar power project in India supplying electricity to 100,000 people will be widened to other developing nations after showing that clean energy can be cheaper than fossil fuels, a U.N. report said on Sunday.

The $1.5 million U.N.-backed project would be extended to China, Indonesia, Mexico and Algeria and several other nations to help people in rural areas break dependence on kerosene lamps or unreliable grid-supplied electricity.

"We are addressing the notion that renewable energy is irrelevant to poor countries and the poorer communities," Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Programme), told Reuters.

Renewable energies such as water, wind or solar power avoid health damage from fumes released by kerosene lamps widely used in developing nations and emit none of the greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels that are widely blamed for global warming.

Under the project, the number of Solar Home Systems financed in the pilot area of Karnataka state, southern India, has risen to 18,000 -- providing power for an estimated 100,000 people -- from 1,400 in four years.

The systems provide a few hours of daily power for lightbulbs in homes or shops or to run a radio, a fan or a television. Electric light lets people read more easily than by a dim kerosene lamp.

The lighting "has been credited with better grades for schoolchildren, better productivity for cottage-based industries such as needlework artisans, and even better sales at fruit stands, where produce is no longer spoiled by fumes from kerosene lamps," a U.N. statement said.

POVERTY

The project may also help to lift rural families from poverty, a goal for 2015 set by world governments in 2000. Energy use is surging in developing nations, which are burning ever more fossil fuels in tandem with rising economic growth.

The United Nations wants to widen the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which binds 35 rich nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases until 2012, to more countries. It wants developing nations like India to brake their soaring emissions.

Indian banks have also helped families to fund purchases of the solar systems, costing $300 to $500 in a region where annual family incomes are just $1,200.

"It does sound a lot but the irony is that people are paying more for the kerosene, and that's why the banks are taking it up," Steiner said.


Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank were initial backers and the Bank of Maharashtra and Sewa Bank joined the scheme in 2007. The U.N. subsidy, phased out over time, helped cut initial interest rate payments.

"The India programme's success has already inspired a sister effort in Tunisia," a U.N. statement said. "Similar programmes are upcoming for China, Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Ghana, Morocco and Algeria."

Source: Reuters

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12675

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:34 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
I'm going to throw another monkey-wrench question into this whole argument, whether you like it or not: do the people even want anything done about global warming?

I gotta be honest with you, my life has been hardly impacted at all by rising temperatures. The worst thing that comes immediately to my mind was getting my iPod fried at the Gorge, and that's an awful trivial thing. I know plenty of people who would feel likewise. I'll just pull one at random (sorry Peeps, you just first came to mind).

Keep in mind that for an American, I live a live that only New Yorkers may be able to compete with me in reduction of environmental impact.

A lot of the net internal migration here in the US is going to warmer climates in the South and the West--presumably for that very reason. Just look at all the elderly moving to places like Florida and Arizona. People may simply say that they enjoy the results of warmer weather more than curse it.

Now, that's not to say that a) other people feel otherwise, or b) things could get worse in the future. Then again, projections can go all over the place. Just think if the projections in that LED article I posted a while back are accurate!


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Green Habit wrote:
I'm going to throw another monkey-wrench question into this whole argument, whether you like it or not: do the people even want anything done about global warming?

I gotta be honest with you, my life has been hardly impacted at all by rising temperatures. The worst thing that comes immediately to my mind was getting my iPod fried at the Gorge, and that's an awful trivial thing. I know plenty of people who would feel likewise. I'll just pull one at random (sorry Peeps, you just first came to mind).

Keep in mind that for an American, I live a live that only New Yorkers may be able to compete with me in reduction of environmental impact.

A lot of the net internal migration here in the US is going to warmer climates in the South and the West--presumably for that very reason. Just look at all the elderly moving to places like Florida and Arizona. People may simply say that they enjoy the results of warmer weather more than curse it.

Now, that's not to say that a) other people feel otherwise, or b) things could get worse in the future. Then again, projections can go all over the place. Just think if the projections in that LED article I posted a while back are accurate!

you life may have been hardly impacted up to this point- but what about the future?

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:03 am 
Offline
Faithless
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 2623
Green Habit wrote:
I'm going to throw another monkey-wrench question into this whole argument, whether you like it or not: do the people even want anything done about global warming?

I gotta be honest with you, my life has been hardly impacted at all by rising temperatures. The worst thing that comes immediately to my mind was getting my iPod fried at the Gorge, and that's an awful trivial thing. I know plenty of people who would feel likewise. I'll just pull one at random (sorry Peeps, you just first came to mind).

Keep in mind that for an American, I live a live that only New Yorkers may be able to compete with me in reduction of environmental impact.

A lot of the net internal migration here in the US is going to warmer climates in the South and the West--presumably for that very reason. Just look at all the elderly moving to places like Florida and Arizona. People may simply say that they enjoy the results of warmer weather more than curse it.

Now, that's not to say that a) other people feel otherwise, or b) things could get worse in the future. Then again, projections can go all over the place. Just think if the projections in that LED article I posted a while back are accurate!
\

You seem to think that global warming is only going to impact ambient air temperature.

Guess what... it will impact global agriculture, biodiversity, water resources, human settlement... which will in turn cause more conflict and needless suffering. Global warming is NOT "well it's 2 degrees warmer out today than usual.. sweet!"


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
vacatetheword wrote:
you life may have been hardly impacted up to this point- but what about the future?


What about it? Like I said, it's tough to predict the future. Things might be better or worse than whatever projections are thrown out.

Before you play the precautionary principle card, you have to consider to what extent people are willing to sacrifice to precaution.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:09 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
corduroy11 wrote:
You seem to think that global warming is only going to impact ambient air temperature.

Guess what... it will impact global agriculture, biodiversity, water resources, human settlement... which will in turn cause more conflict and needless suffering. Global warming is NOT "well it's 2 degrees warmer out today than usual.. sweet!"


Oh, I'm including that in there as well. No problems with water--still plenty of it over here to waste on stupidly huge lawns and golf courses. Food is plentiful and at a reasonable price. There's shitloads of land to still endlessly sprawl to in these parts.

BTW, I'm trying to put myself in the feet of people's thoughts in general, not express my own. Like I said, I live a pretty dang green live relative to the rest of this country.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:12 am 
Offline
Faithless
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 2623
Green Habit wrote:
corduroy11 wrote:
You seem to think that global warming is only going to impact ambient air temperature.

Guess what... it will impact global agriculture, biodiversity, water resources, human settlement... which will in turn cause more conflict and needless suffering. Global warming is NOT "well it's 2 degrees warmer out today than usual.. sweet!"


Oh, I'm including that in there as well. No problems with water--still plenty of it over here to waste on stupidly huge lawns and golf courses. Food is plentiful and at a reasonable price. There's shitloads of land to still endlessly sprawl to in these parts.

BTW, I'm trying to put myself in the feet of people's thoughts in general, not express my own. Like I said, I live a pretty dang green live relative to the rest of this country.


OK, but what about the billions of people who do NOT live in the relatively fortunate nations of US, Canada, western europe, etc.? and that's not to say that people in these countries won't be greatly affected by the suffering in other nations. Heck, Canada will probably be the most populous country in the world in 100 years because so much more of the land is becoming habitable and there will be a huge influx of "climate change refugees". It will be a huge immigration issue in the future.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
corduroy11 wrote:
OK, but what about the billions of people who do NOT live in the relatively fortunate nations of US, Canada, western europe, etc.?


No doubt. But the cold hard truth is that the grand majority of the people don't care much about the areas outside their sphere of influence. If they did, you'd see far more people devoting their time and money to causes like the Peace Corps.

I'm not saying whether that notion is right or wrong--merely that it's present.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:25 am 
Offline
Faithless
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 2623
Green Habit wrote:
corduroy11 wrote:
OK, but what about the billions of people who do NOT live in the relatively fortunate nations of US, Canada, western europe, etc.?


No doubt. But the cold hard truth is that the grand majority of the people don't care much about the areas outside their sphere of influence. If they did, you'd see far more people devoting their time and money to causes like the Peace Corps.

I'm not saying whether that notion is right or wrong--merely that it's present.


YEs, I agree. But to say that people are apathetic about these issues is not to say that they "enjoy" climate change because the weather is warmer.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
corduroy11 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
corduroy11 wrote:
OK, but what about the billions of people who do NOT live in the relatively fortunate nations of US, Canada, western europe, etc.?


No doubt. But the cold hard truth is that the grand majority of the people don't care much about the areas outside their sphere of influence. If they did, you'd see far more people devoting their time and money to causes like the Peace Corps.

I'm not saying whether that notion is right or wrong--merely that it's present.


YEs, I agree. But to say that people are apathetic about these issues is not to say that they "enjoy" climate change because the weather is warmer.


Agreed. Some may like the benefits of it more than the detriments, some may not, and some may simply not give a shit as long as it continues to not negatively impact their way of life.

Which we can now bridge to the entire point of this thread in the first place. I think you have to start with the actions that call for the least amount of sacrifice if you hope to get any action done right away. Something like swapping in CFLs sounds good to me because the convenience of light is still provided, and it won't require a massive exchange of monetary funds (though some might not like the glare of them, while others can't tell the difference ;)) Doubling or tripling people's power or gas/petrol bills or forcing thing into mass transit when the infrastructure is not properly in place isn't going to go over as well.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:46 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Green Habit wrote:
Doubling or tripling people's power or gas/petrol bills or forcing thing into mass transit when the infrastructure is not properly in place isn't going to go over as well.

whether it would really translate to a doubling or tripling aside, the costs of NOT doing this are going to be far higher, that's the reality we have to face up to. everyone keeps looking at this from a cost benefit perspective, but they're putting way too much focus on short term cost and not enough on the globally significant long term benefits.

the long term costs are truly staggering. i don't see how any argument can be made that it's not worth acting now, and acting in a serious manner. especially if you live in the USA, which will be one of the worst hit countries climatically.

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
vacatetheword wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Doubling or tripling people's power or gas/petrol bills or forcing thing into mass transit when the infrastructure is not properly in place isn't going to go over as well.

whether it would really translate to a doubling or tripling aside, the costs of NOT doing this are going to be far higher, that's the reality we have to face up to. everyone keeps looking at this from a cost benefit perspective, but they're putting way too much focus on short term cost and not enough on the globally significant long term benefits.

the long term costs are truly staggering. i don't see how any argument can be made that it's not worth acting now, and acting in a serious manner. especially if you live in the USA, which will be one of the worst hit countries climatically.


We've argued this point before, I believe. ;)

Again, we're dealing with projections here. There will always be aspects impossible to totally nail down, like how effective resource-sipping technology will be, or what the population trends will look like.

More on spot, the concept of "cost" is a subjective one. Life is full of tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs are judged differently by all. Some may believe that the cost of giving up certain freedoms is too much in exchange for mitigating certain externalities--they would prefer to deal with them instead.

Furthermore, if you ask for too much from those you're trying to convince, it you risk the danger of causing them to be more skeptical of your cause in the first place.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 583 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 30  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:16 am