Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Headpigeons!Follow

#52 Jan 09 2012 at 5:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Olorinus wrote:
I guess they shouldn't have cars then, since I would hazard a guess that the health costs of cars outweigh the health costs of bird poo by a wide margin. Hard to tell, I had a hard time finding any article that outlined the health costs of pigeons, but when I googled

The health cost of cars came up with:



Um.... But how much money is saved/created because of cars? If everyone biked to work/school/stores/etc, we'd lose millions of hours of productivity every single day. I don't feel like searching for it at the moment, but I seem to recall that they shifted the speed limit up to 65 from 55 simply because forcing people to drive slower actually cost more in travel time lost than it saved in health and environmental costs. I think forcing people to walk/bike instead of drive would have similarly harmful costs which would massive outweigh the costs of driving the cars in the first place.

Cars are a tool. Calculating the cost of the tool without also calculating and comparing the value the tool provides is kinda silly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Jan 09 2012 at 6:25 PM Rating: Default
****
9,526 posts
Well, from my own perspective as someone who walks or bikes to work, I don't see how I am losing anything in terms of productivity. By having an active mode of transportation I don't have to take time out to specifically exercise as much, thus "going to work" becomes "exercising and going to work" - which is actually pretty darn efficient and productive.

That said, I recognize most people are chained to their cars because of poor urban design - which is why I don't judge those who drive (especially people in urban/suburban North America).

I only brought it up tangentially because I knew it would push people's buttons, and a lot of the same arguments (noise, health issues, public costs, nuisance) can be made about both pigeons and cars, even if only in a slightly silly way.

My point is, my default for dealing with people is live and let live. Am I annoyed that my two-lane residential street is a de facto one lane residential street because people leave their cars laying around? Sure I am, but I am not about to post crabby notes on people's windshields about it. Maybe I just empathize with the pigeon man because my views are minority views and I believe that we both deserve to have them, whether they annoy our neighbors or not.
#54 Jan 09 2012 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Well, from my own perspective as someone who walks or bikes to work, I don't see how I am losing anything in terms of productivity.


And someone who never does home repairs might see no loss in productivity by not owning a hammer, or saw, or other tools. That doesn't mean that they don't have value for others though. Perhaps accepting that other people might have different priorities may help you see beyond your own viewpoint.

Quote:
By having an active mode of transportation I don't have to take time out to specifically exercise as much, thus "going to work" becomes "exercising and going to work" - which is actually pretty darn efficient and productive.


Well hell! Why did man bother to invent the wheel then? Think of all the extra exercise he'd get dragging things around. You honestly don't see the flaw in your position?

Quote:
That said, I recognize most people are chained to their cars because of poor urban design...


Some might say that people are chained to urban designs by lack of cars. Tomato, tomahto, right?


Quote:
... which is why I don't judge those who drive (especially people in urban/suburban North America).



Except that's basically what you were doing in your post. You judged that people would be better without cars, so why care about them?

Quote:
I only brought it up tangentially because I knew it would push people's buttons, and a lot of the same arguments (noise, health issues, public costs, nuisance) can be made about both pigeons and cars, even if only in a slightly silly way.


Slightly? Smiley: tongue

Quote:
My point is, my default for dealing with people is live and let live. Am I annoyed that my two-lane residential street is a de facto one lane residential street because people leave their cars laying around? Sure I am, but I am not about to post crabby notes on people's windshields about it.


But if there weren't any cars, wouldn't it be a zero lane street? You're honestly upset because cars parking on the side of the street take up space in the street and think the problem is that cars exist? that seems... bizarre.


Quote:
Maybe I just empathize with the pigeon man because my views are minority views and I believe that we both deserve to have them, whether they annoy our neighbors or not.


Frankly, my position on this isn't really about pigeons or cars (except that you framed it that way). It's about property. If I live in an area and own property in the area, and someone is doing something which is causing damage/harm/whatever to the property which I and my neighbors own, then we have a legitimate complaint against the person doing the action which is causing the harm. If by feeding the pigeons, he's increasing the number flying around that neighborhood, thus increasing the droppings on the cars and the houses, and the kids playsets, and whatever else might be in the area, then he's at least somewhat responsible for that.

The comparison you were attempting to make might make sense if there were one person in the area who owned 500 cars and ran them all day to produce smog and noise, while everyone else wanted to live in a "car free" zone. But that's not the case, right? Most of the people in the area own cars (and presumably other things they don't want pooped on). They all accept whatever harm their cars cause because they collectively all contribute to the presence of the cars (and benefit from them as well). But he's the only person feeding the pigeons, while everyone is suffering from it.


Societies come up with rules to suit the whole group in a pretty consistent manner. The results may not seem "fair" to a single individual, but they're usually the best for the most people within the society. And that's pretty much always going to be the best result you can ask for. This case is just an example of that process in miniature.

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 5:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Jan 09 2012 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Wow, you handed gbaji such an open rhetorical goal that even he couldn't help but score.

#56 Jan 09 2012 at 11:28 PM Rating: Default
****
9,526 posts
Ok I am only going to address the points that aren't batcrap crazy or irrelevant. Also please provide a link to a study showing that restrictions on cars restrict economic activity, as I provided evidence of my claim - that cars have healthcare costs.

gbaji wrote:


Well hell! Why did man bother to invent the wheel then? Think of all the extra exercise he'd get dragging things around. You honestly don't see the flaw in your position?


Flaw in which position, exactly?

Is it, or is it not true, that when I bike to work I am both going to work (1 goal accomplished) and exercising (goal 2 accomplished) at the same time?

I never said we should never use machines (and a bike is a machine, anyway) - simply that I have noted productivity gains in my own life because of using active transportation.(and I was clear this was my own experience, which seems fair given the fact you produced no evidence of your conjecture whatsoever)

Quote:


Some might say that people are chained to urban designs by lack of cars. Tomato, tomahto, right?


Now I said I was only going to deal with the non-lunatic responses, but I couldn't resist here. What's the difference? People can only be "chained to urban designs by lack of cars" if those urban designs are centered around car use.

For instance, suburbs with no amenities "served" by big box stores, make it nearly impossible for people to bike or even bus effectively.

Whereas communities designed in a way that people can get groceries and other goods and services within walking distance or by hopping on a bus with good service don't chain people down to car ownership. If that was a fancy way of saying you agree that a failure in urban design has made it very difficult for many north americans to live without their cars, then thanks, otherwise I am not sure what you're saying here.


Quote:


Except that's basically what you were doing in your post. You judged that people would be better without cars, so why care about them?



Sorry where did I say that? Maybe you can stretch some of my rhetoric to say that but my point was if someone moved into a neighbourhood with a car and the rest of the neighbourhood bullied them because they didn't like cars (because of noise, danger of it hitting their kid, pollution, etc) wouldn't it be wrong?

It would be wrong, just like it was wrong for people to bully the guy who fed birds. The point is just because you have a minority point of view doesn't mean you deserve to be bullied. I can't believe people can't see that as basic.


Quote:

But if there weren't any cars, wouldn't it be a zero lane street? You're honestly upset because cars parking on the side of the street take up space in the street and think the problem is that cars exist? that seems... bizarre.


Where did I say I believe we should get rid of all cars? I didn't. So please don't misconstrue me. I would like it if people parked their cars in driveways, but I don't make a fuss about it. The point is, I find it mildly annoying, but unlike the people who drove the bird man out of the hood, I don't bully people about it.

also even if we didn't have as much or even any personal car ownership we would still have roads (as we did well before cars) for emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, bikes, wheelchairs etc.


Edited, Jan 9th 2012 9:31pm by Olorinus
#57 Jan 09 2012 at 11:33 PM Rating: Default
****
9,526 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Wow, you handed gbaji such an open rhetorical goal that even he couldn't help but score.



Only because I indirectly attacked one of America's sacred cows, car ownership.

People will even agree with gbaji on this issue because most north americans don't have much choice about car ownership.

Therefore, despite all the evidence that our current model of car use is both unsustainable (oil running out/climate change/limited supply of rare earth minerals) and expensive, people continue to line up to defend it, despite the fact that owning a car is no where near as necessary as people make it out to be.

It may be pleasant and convenient to own a car, but we can lead very nice, productive and healthy lives without cars, although not without good urban design.



Edited, Jan 9th 2012 9:38pm by Olorinus
#58 Jan 09 2012 at 11:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Sometimes seaguls take exception to my stunt kites and try and attack them. So far, the stunt kites always win... Once of them is technically a fighter ace now too.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#59 Jan 10 2012 at 12:16 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
Look, it's wonderful that you're privileged enough to live in a city with a useful enough transportation infrastructure, the ability to safely cycle to work without worrying about a de facto speed limit of fifty miles per hour in heavy traffic, and enough cyclists to where people actually expect you. I'm quite fine on my bike in traffic and even commute via public transportation, but that's only because I happen to be going to the one area where there's any real coverage.

My friend who's forced to take the bus due to lack of a drivers' license? Let's just say that she's much closer to her job than I am, but it still took me less time to drive across town from the 'burbs, pick her up, drive around 20 minutes in the opposite direction, grab some breakfast and then drop her off. Not something I did often because it drove me nuts.

Her alternative? A 2+ hour bus ride. One way.

For further delicious irony, my bus ride from the 'burbs takes half of the time and covers at least double the distance.


Edited, Jan 10th 2012 12:21am by Sweetums
#60 Jan 10 2012 at 1:13 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Sometimes seaguls take exception to my stunt kites and try and attack them. So far, the stunt kites always win... Once of them is technically a fighter ace now too.
Taser kites, an idea whose time has come.
#61 Jan 10 2012 at 1:34 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Sometimes seaguls take exception to my stunt kites and try and attack them. So far, the stunt kites always win... Once of them is technically a fighter ace now too.
Taser kites, an idea whose time has come.
When I was a child, I attempted to build a kite with a fish hook that would catch the seagulls because I figured that if catching fish was fun, catching birds would be even better! It never occurred to me that fish hooks hurt birds.

In some ways, I was a really dumb kid.
#62 Jan 10 2012 at 1:43 AM Rating: Decent
Sweetums wrote:
Look, it's wonderful that you're privileged


Oh ****.

We're for it now.
#63 Jan 10 2012 at 1:53 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Sweetums wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Sometimes seaguls take exception to my stunt kites and try and attack them. So far, the stunt kites always win... Once of them is technically a fighter ace now too.
Taser kites, an idea whose time has come.
When I was a child, I attempted to build a kite with a fish hook that would catch the seagulls because I figured that if catching fish was fun, catching birds would be even better! It never occurred to me that fish hooks hurt birds.

In some ways, I was a really dumb kid.
Did you have a recipe planned for the birds you were going to catch? Or was it just random bird murder?
#64 Jan 10 2012 at 2:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Baked headpigeon / seagull with bacon and onions

Ingredients
2 (1 1/4 to 1 3/4 pounds) Cornish game hen
Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper
4 pieces thick-sliced bacon, cut into 1/2-inch pieces
20 to 24 pearl onions
Directions
Preheat oven to 500 degrees F. Wrap a brick in aluminum foil and place into the oven to heat. Do not pick a wet brick, or it will explode and kill you. Or your oven. Maybe both.

After having stunned your pigeon with a kite or caught it on a line, clean it and pluck it and then place the Pigeon breast side down on a cutting board. Using scissors or poultry shears or a broadsword, cut from the neck to the tailbone to remove the backbone. Once you remove the backbone you will be able to see the inside of the bird one would hope. If not, please get your eyes checked. Anyways, Make a small slit in the cartilage at the base of the breastbone to reveal the keel bone. If it isn't dead already, that will pretty much Keel it for sure. Grab the pigeon with both hands on the ribs, and in accordance with the prophacy, open it up like a book, facing down towards the cutting board. Remove the keel bone. Cut small slits in the skin of the bird behind the legs and tuck the drumsticks into them in order to hold them in place. Xylophone mallets may be substituted. Season on both sides with salt and pepper.

Fry the bacon in a 12-inch cast iron skillet over medium heat. Once crisp, remove the bacon from the skillet and reserve. Drain all but 1 tablespoon of fat from the pan. Immediately add the two birds to the pan, skin side down. Add the onions to the pan around the edges. Top the Pigeon with the brick, assuming it didn't explode and kill you, and allow to remain on the heat for 5 minutes. Place the pan into the oven and cook 10 to 15 minutes or until the thigh meat reaches 170 degrees F. Remove from the oven and allow the bird to rest for 5 minutes before serving with the onions and bacon.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#65 Jan 10 2012 at 2:15 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
I... I...

Remind me never to have dinner at your house. And to recommend you to Charles Heston as an undercook for his chemical kitchen.

Edited, Jan 10th 2012 3:16am by Aripyanfar
#66 Jan 10 2012 at 2:26 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Sometimes seaguls take exception to my stunt kites and try and attack them. So far, the stunt kites always win... Once of them is technically a fighter ace now too.
Taser kites, an idea whose time has come.
When I was a child, I attempted to build a kite with a fish hook that would catch the seagulls because I figured that if catching fish was fun, catching birds would be even better! It never occurred to me that fish hooks hurt birds.

In some ways, I was a really dumb kid.
Did you have a recipe planned for the birds you were going to catch? Or was it just random bird murder?
I kind of just wanted to pet the birds.
#67 Jan 10 2012 at 2:38 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I kind of just wanted to pet the birds.
That is quite possibly the response with the most terrifying implications.
#68 Jan 10 2012 at 6:47 AM Rating: Decent
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Sometimes seaguls take exception to my stunt kites and try and attack them. So far, the stunt kites always win... Once of them is technically a fighter ace now too.


Those are pretty big and sturdy kites then, you have to be careful though, seagulls aren't that dumb, they'll figure out that you're the one controlling the kite! Then they'll come after you, now I'm not saying that this will happen, but why take chances with that?

Some are fairly smart, not the smartest bird around but still.
#69 Jan 10 2012 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Hold him and pet him and call him George.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#70 Jan 10 2012 at 2:01 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,526 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Look, it's wonderful that you're privileged enough to live in a city with a useful enough transportation infrastructure, the ability to safely cycle to work without worrying about a de facto speed limit of fifty miles per hour in heavy traffic, and enough cyclists to where people actually expect you. I'm quite fine on my bike in traffic and even commute via public transportation, but that's only because I happen to be going to the one area where there's any real coverage.

My friend who's forced to take the bus due to lack of a drivers' license? Let's just say that she's much closer to her job than I am, but it still took me less time to drive across town from the 'burbs, pick her up, drive around 20 minutes in the opposite direction, grab some breakfast and then drop her off. Not something I did often because it drove me nuts.

Her alternative? A 2+ hour bus ride. One way.

For further delicious irony, my bus ride from the 'burbs takes half of the time and covers at least double the distance.



I totally agree with everything you say here. Totally. I am lucky that I happen to live in a city that is restricted by geography (surrounded by ocean) so it never really became sprawling. I'm lucky that the folks that lived here over the past 50 years really fought to maintain "village" style development so that neighbourhoods have amenities. I don't deny that my experience is (unfortunately) not something everyone can access.

What I have is awesome, and I'd like more people to have the opportunity to live in human-scale communities where biking and walking is an option. That doesn't mean banning cars (plenty of people have cars here) but working on urban design so that cars are an option not a necessity.

Kavekk wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Look, it's wonderful that you're privileged


Oh sh*t.

We're for it now.


Naw, I've tried to be clear from the outset that I understand most people in north america don't have the option of living in a walkable neighbourhood, because either they simply don't exist or are unaffordable (because, frankly, they are nice to live in, so real estate prices/rent is higher)


Edited, Jan 10th 2012 12:04pm by Olorinus
#71 Jan 10 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Flaw in which position, exactly?

Is it, or is it not true, that when I bike to work I am both going to work (1 goal accomplished) and exercising (goal 2 accomplished) at the same time?


Sure. For you. Most people consider it a time saver to not have to bike everywhere though. I'm talking about labor savings here, so the argument that "I get exercise" is sorta moot.

Quote:
I never said we should never use machines (and a bike is a machine, anyway) - simply that I have noted productivity gains in my own life because of using active transportation.(and I was clear this was my own experience, which seems fair given the fact you produced no evidence of your conjecture whatsoever)


You were serious about wanting me to provide evidence that cars are a labor saving device? They're arguably the greatest labor/time saving invention in the history of man (certainly in the top 5). The ability to travel hundreds of miles in hours instead of days is pretty darn spiffy, right? Hell. The ability to travel over the river and through the woods to grandma's house in an hour instead of packing for a journey you might only want to take once in a lifetime is kinda nice too.

Quote:
Quote:
Some might say that people are chained to urban designs by lack of cars. Tomato, tomahto, right?


Now I said I was only going to deal with the non-lunatic responses, but I couldn't resist here. What's the difference? People can only be "chained to urban designs by lack of cars" if those urban designs are centered around car use.

For instance, suburbs with no amenities "served" by big box stores, make it nearly impossible for people to bike or even bus effectively.

Whereas communities designed in a way that people can get groceries and other goods and services within walking distance or by hopping on a bus with good service don't chain people down to car ownership.


I think you're missing my point. If you don't own a car, you are restricted to those things which someone else built near to you. You become dependent on others in a way that someone who can travel freely is not. Prices for goods nearby can rise and you can't do much about it because the cost of traveling to another store is higher. Your village analogy is great, but it also limits you in ways you likely are not even aware of.

What do you do if you want to buy something at a store which isn't nearby? What do you do if you need to transport something larger than what you can carry on your bike? You need someone else to help you, right? Someone with a vehicle, right? You're just as dependent on vehicles, but by not owning a car, you are dependent on someone else who does own one. Whether that's a publicly funded bus, or a friend with a privately owned car doesn't matter. You're still dependent in a way that a car owner is not.

Quote:
If that was a fancy way of saying you agree that a failure in urban design has made it very difficult for many north americans to live without their cars, then thanks, otherwise I am not sure what you're saying here.



Except that you have the causation backwards. Urban design in North America (especially the western parts) was a result of people owning cars, not the other way around. By owning a car, you have the luxury of not having to live in a crowded area with busy and noisy streets. You don't have the problem of living a block from a rowdy bar because it's next to the grocery store you also need to live close to. Car ownership frees you from being forced to live in those enclosed environments.

Because many people in America do own cars, we built communities designed to take advantage of that. The urban designs you call "flawed" are what people would choose to live in if they had the freedom of quick and easy travel made possible by owning a car. Your argument is like the guy who lives in a community without plumbing claiming that those who do are chained to their pipes because they live 10 miles from the sewage facility instead of right next door.


You're the one chained my friend. You just don't realize it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Jan 10 2012 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Your argument is like the guy who lives in a community without plumbing claiming that those who do are chained to their pipes because they live 10 miles from the sewage facility instead of right next door.
And your argument is like the guy who lives five miles away from the nearest convenience store bragging how free he is to someone who can walk a block to get the same amenities. Both your arguments are idiotic because both arguments are about the other being chained to something. Just neither of you realize it.

Thankfully, I've both got a car and can simply walk down the street to get anything I need so, like always, I have the best of everything available to me.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#73 Jan 10 2012 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Your argument is like the guy who lives in a community without plumbing claiming that those who do are chained to their pipes because they live 10 miles from the sewage facility instead of right next door.
And your argument is like the guy who lives five miles away from the nearest convenience store bragging how free he is to someone who can walk a block to get the same amenities.


Sure. But if I can get to the convenience store in my car in the same amount of time it takes him to walk, then the convenience store is equally available to both of us. The difference is that I'm also 5 miles away from the noisy bars, clubs, bums pissing in the alleys, prostitutes walking the street, dealers selling dope, etc. And, if I want to go to another store that's 5 miles farther away, I can without extending significantly greater effort. He can't though.

And I'm not crowded into tight living spaces with all the other people who have to live within a couple blocks of those things because they don't own cars either. People live in suburbs because they can. It's what people choose if they have the luxury of personal transportation. Well, those who haven't been convinced by liberal social planners that accepting a dependent/restricted lifestyle is somehow making them "free".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Jan 10 2012 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Hey, does anyone remember this thread?

Good times, man. Good times.
#75 Jan 10 2012 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
But if I can get to the convenience store in my car in the same amount of time it takes him to walk, then the convenience store is equally available to both of us.
If cars ran on wishes, maybe. So you're both chained to your car and your gas stations.
gbaji wrote:
The difference is that I'm also 5 miles away from the noisy bars, clubs, bums pissing in the alleys, prostitutes walking the street, dealers selling dope, etc. And, if I want to go to another store that's 5 miles farther away, I can without extending significantly greater effort. He can't though.
Oh hey there's that "someone told me cities are like that so it must be true!" argument again. I knew I could get you to make it. Did you know that California has a higher rate of illegal drugs than New York? Or more illegal prostitution? Or more homelessness? Maybe you should do a little research for once instead of trying to demonize those "big bad cities." I think I'll take the noisy bars and clubs and signs of civilization over your prostitution, drugs, and homelessness, and squirrels thanks.

Edited, Jan 10th 2012 5:51pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#76 Jan 10 2012 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm also 5 miles away from the noisy bars, clubs, bums pissing in the alleys, prostitutes walking the street, dealers selling dope, etc.


a) You don't need to be 5 miles away from the a bar to not hear it. I'm two blocks from the nearest pub and I never hear it.

b) What kind of dumpy area do you live in? Just because your community is a wreck doesn't mean everyone lives in a crappy place.

c) A neighbourhood can be walkable without being the heart of downtown. I don't live downtown, I live in a different neighbourhood (which is actually more walkable than downtown in terms of getting necessities).

The community I live in just happens to be really well designed - each neighbourhood has amenities (usually a small to midsized grocery store, a liquor store, several coffee shops and restaurants)

If you think having a core filled with social problems (that you then have to drive to to get all your amenities from) surrounded by surburbia is good design... well, hopefully you're not an urban planner.

Also lolgaxe is pretty much right about having the best of both worlds. I choose not to own a car, but lots of people here choose to have one AND live in a walkable neighbourhood. I don't see how having more options is a bad thing.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 170 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (170)