 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / July 2004OFF TOPIC POSTS (WHAT A SHAME)
WHAT IS A REAL SHAME IS ALL THE OFF TOPIC POSTS ON THIS MODELS NEWS GROUP. LETS GET ON WITH IT GUYS!!!! Jan Kolasa > WHAT IS A REAL SHAME IS ALL THE OFF TOPIC POSTS ON THIS MODELS NEWS > GROUP. LETS GET ON WITH IT GUYS!!!! > Jan Kolasa AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, LETS YELL AT EACH OTHER TOO! LET'S COMBINE THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS AND POST BOTH AN OFF TOPIC MESSAGE AND YELL ABOUT IT TOO!! MJC > > WHAT IS A REAL SHAME IS ALL THE OFF TOPIC POSTS ON THIS MODELS NEWS > > GROUP. LETS GET ON WITH IT GUYS!!!! > > Jan Kolasa > > AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, LETS YELL AT EACH OTHER TOO! On 7/5/2004 12:07 PM Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not so great) words of knowledge: It is not polite to shout. > WHAT IS A REAL SHAME IS ALL THE OFF TOPIC POSTS ON THIS MODELS NEWS > GROUP. LETS GET ON WITH IT GUYS!!!! > Jan Kolasa LIKE THIS ONE??? -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > WHAT IS A REAL SHAME IS ALL THE OFF TOPIC POSTS ON THIS MODELS NEWS > GROUP. LETS GET ON WITH IT GUYS!!!! > Jan Kolasa George Bush met The Queen, and he turns round and says: "As I'm the President, I'm thinking of changing how my country is referred to, and I'm thinking that it should be a Kingdom" The Queen replies "I'm sorry Mr Bush, but to be a Kingdom, you have to have a King in charge - and you're not a King." George Bush thought a while and then said: "How about a Principality then?", To which the Queen replied "Again, to be a Principality you have to be a Prince - and you're not a Prince ". Bush thought long and hard and came up with "How about an Empire then?" The Queen, getting a little annoyed by now, replies " Look Bush, to be an Empire you must have an Emperor in charge - and you are not an Emperor." Before George Bush could utter another word, The Queen said: "I think you're doing quite nicely as a Country". The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> posted message ID<ccduan$nsn$2$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk>on Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:17:17 +0100 >George Bush met The Queen, and he turns round and says: "As I'm the >President, I'm thinking of changing how my country is referred to, and I'm [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Before George Bush could utter another word, The Queen said: "I think >you're doing quite nicely as a Country". How nice of you to find time in your busy appeasement schedule to post this little fantasy of yours. I seriously doubt that President Bush would ever ask your horse-faced queen anything, ever. 404 Funny not found. Well said. > The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> posted message > ID<ccduan$nsn$2$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk>on Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:17:17 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > 404 Funny not found. Where is the King of England? You need that to have a United Kingdom, after all! Actually, where is the British royalty? Aren't all the current ones of German descent? -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > Well said. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > 404 Funny not found. > Where is the King of England? You need that to have a United Kingdom, after > all! Since they only have a queen does that mean they are really the United Queendom? Hmmm, now that I think about it, that explains quite a few things about them :-) C G <piper_chuck@yahoo.com> posted message ID<HsFGc.130348$tH1.4756523@twister.southeast.rr.com>on Tue, 06 Jul 2004 22:11:51 GMT >> Where is the King of England? You need that to have a United Kingdom, after >> all! >Since they only have a queen does that mean they are really the United >Queendom? Hmmm, now that I think about it, that explains quite a few >things about them :-) Well...it certainly explains Nevilles' flower-print dress. >> Where is the King of England? You need that to have a United Kingdom, after >> all! > Since they only have a queen does that mean they are really the United > Queendom? Hmmm, now that I think about it, that explains quite a few > things about them :-) Tsk,tsk, you are only tetchy 'cause you only got a grinning chimp. Reg > Where is the King of England? You need that to have a United Kingdom, after > all! > > Actually, where is the British royalty? Aren't all the current ones of > German descent? And judging by the tabloids, it would seem the heritage of at least one is in doubt! >>Where is the King of England? You need that to have a United Kingdom, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And judging by the tabloids, it would seem the heritage of at least one is > in doubt! Quite. :-) > "Paul McIntosh" <paul@mcintoshcentral.com> wrote in message > > And judging by the tabloids, it would seem the heritage of at least one is > in doubt! Only morons read the tabloids ! In the UK they are only produced to aid recycling and/or wrapping fish and chips..... no one READS them. Reg The biggest selling "news" paper in the UK is a tabloid. Actualy, nearly all of them are tabloids. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > > "Paul McIntosh" <paul@mcintoshcentral.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Reg > The biggest selling "news" paper in the UK is a tabloid. Actualy, nearly > all of them are tabloids. Indeed. And only suitable for fish and chip wrapping, or emergency arse wipes. > -- > Paul McIntosh [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> Reg > > The biggest selling "news" paper in the UK is a tabloid. Actualy, nearly > > all of them are tabloids. > > Indeed. And only suitable for fish and chip wrapping, or emergency arse > wipes. Hey D.H. I don't understand your attitude about your own papers that YOU QUOTE. Can you explain how you quote the fish and chip wrappers? > > -- > > Paul McIntosh [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> > >> Reg >>>The biggest selling "news" paper in the UK is a tabloid. Actualy, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I don't understand your attitude about your own papers that YOU QUOTE. Can > you explain how you quote the fish and chip wrappers? You soak em in dope thinners first >>>-- >>>Paul McIntosh [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>>> >>>>Reg > >>>The biggest selling "news" paper in the UK is a tabloid. Actualy, > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > You soak em in dope thinners first ROFLOL! Well at least I have a better idea why you always seem inebriated! The things people will do to get their stuff! > >>>-- > >>>Paul McIntosh [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >>>> > >>>>Reg > The biggest selling "news" paper in the UK is a tabloid. Actualy, nearly > all of them are tabloids. True... but its original purpose was to bulk out landfill sites. Its current purpose is to aid recycling efforts. No one who buys that paper can possibly have the ability to read, some may look at the pictures however. Reg > Paul McIntosh > http://www.rc-bearings.com [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Reg Well, Page 3 is interesting.... -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > > The biggest selling "news" paper in the UK is a tabloid. Actualy, nearly > > all of them are tabloids. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >> > >> Reg So does that mean that Britain is a Queendom? There isnt a King in charge...  SignatureDan AMA605992 KE6ERB http://www.fubar1.net "I've heard the screams of the vegetables..." Take out the "trash" to reply > The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> posted message > ID<ccduan$nsn$2$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk>on Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:17:17 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > 404 Funny not found. Don't ask D.H., he is too drunk to have the right answer. > So does that mean that Britain is a Queendom? There isnt a King in charge... > > The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> posted message [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > 404 Funny not found. > So does that mean that Britain is a Queendom? There isnt a King in charge... That would explain a lot of their bars! :) Another ignorant post from a know-nothing. -- Paul McIntosh http://www.rc-bearings.com > > So does that mean that Britain is a Queendom? There isnt a King in > charge... > > That would explain a lot of their bars! :) > Another ignorant post from a know-nothing. I know you're an idiot! I know you claim to ignore me and yet.........you don't! So does this mean you're a man of your word? > So does that mean that Britain is a Queendom? There isnt a King in charge... Almost certainly. Actually the Queen isn't in charge either. Any mre than Bush is in charge of anything except his glof club. And that is open to debate anyway. > The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> posted message > ID<ccduan$nsn$2$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk>on Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:17:17 > +0100 >>George Bush met The Queen, and he turns round and says: "As I'm the > How nice of you to find time in your busy appeasement schedule to post > this little fantasy of yours. I seriously doubt that President Bush > would ever ask your horse-faced queen anything, ever. Correct, because he would be gawping around at the ceiling having forgoten the words he had been made to carefully rehearse. That guys minders must sure have a tough time !!! Reg reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message ID<2l5qkeF95kdfU2@uni-berlin.de>on 8 Jul 2004 20:54:39 GMT >> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> posted message >> ID<ccduan$nsn$2$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk>on Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:17:17 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Reg Reg, You've been away, and so you need time to catch up. The Cliff's Notes version is that the LIEberals are pretty much in full retreat, having been undone by their habitual inability to discuss issues. I suggest you join them. > reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message > ID<2l5qkeF95kdfU2@uni-berlin.de>on 8 Jul 2004 20:54:39 GMT > Reg, > > You've been away, and so you need time to catch up. The Cliff's Notes > version is that the LIEberals are pretty much in full retreat, having > been undone by their habitual inability to discuss issues. I suggest > you join them. Your worthless suggestion is duly ignored. I await your return to reality. Reg reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message ID<2l8cmuFa2docU1@uni-berlin.de>on 9 Jul 2004 20:15:26 GMT >> reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message >> ID<2l5qkeF95kdfU2@uni-berlin.de>on 8 Jul 2004 20:54:39 GMT [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Reg How ironic that you mention 'reality' while ignoring the reality that Paul is reduced to quibbling over the definitions of words that he misuses, Neville will not discuss issues with me, and resorts to posting what passes for 'humor' in the cross-dressing poofter community, jeblowjob hasn't been heard from in nearly two weeks, and quitguy, the asstralian, has just posted his surrender. The evidence suggests that my version of 'reality' is closer to the truth than yours is. Quite frankly, my hope is that you might bring something new (from the LIEberal POV, at least) to the discussion. I suggest you start with provable facts. >>Your worthless suggestion is duly ignored. I await your return to >>reality. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > LIEberal POV, at least) to the discussion. I suggest you start with > provable facts. Why should I start with provable facts. There are numerous sources out there, some of which are oficial government sources. Why would I want to type out lengthy reports when they are already there. If you can't find them, read them or understand them or even accept that they are the truth then why should I drag you from your delusions ? Hasn't there just been an official report from the CIA that de-briefing of the relatives of Iraqi scientists showed that Saddam destroyed his WMD some years ago ? Could it be that, like another loon on here, you only read the type of material that reckons the Iraqi's have buried their aircraft in the sand... with the intent of digging them up and using them again ? When Blair has to admit that they are never going to find WMD, and he was convinced that Iraq was awash with them (or was he ??? ) then the bulk of the U.K population who were against the war in the first place are convinced that their initial suspicions were definitely correct. I can't be bothered arguing with all the jingoistic Yanks that strutt their stuff while keping their heads firmly stuck in a warm,dark,damp orifice.... what I will do however is make a little prediction... Within the next 2-3 years Shrub and Blair will wish they had never even thought of going into Iraq. Shrub and co. are already realising that it will not be possible to repeat this performance (hell, its gone badly enough already.. notice there are no more stupid threats against Iran or Syria ?) Iran will become much more dominant in the region. The Saudi Royal Family will be deposed. USA and UK will have lost all influence in the region and the price of oil will rocket. You and others can argue and name call until the lights go out. Me ? I will just watch events unfurl. Think I am wrong ? There are a hell of a lot of very intelligent people who are forecasting exactly the same things. Do I argue with you or listen to them ? No brainer really ! Will I prove it ? No, you can up the quality of your reading material and research.... go look its there. Reg reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message ID<2lb181Faa38tU1@uni-berlin.de>on 10 Jul 2004 20:18:10 GMT >>>Your worthless suggestion is duly ignored. I await your return to >>>reality. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> How ironic that you mention 'reality' while ignoring the reality that >> Paul is reduced to quibbling over the definitions of words Why did you snip this? >> Quite frankly, my hope is that you might bring something new (from the >> LIEberal POV, at least) to the discussion. I suggest you start with >> provable facts. > >Why should I start with provable facts. It would be a novel approach for a LIEberal. >There are numerous sources out >there, some of which are oficial government sources. Why would I want to >type out lengthy reports when they are already there. I dunno. To support absurd LIEberal claims, perhaps? >If you can't find them, read them or understand them or even accept that >they are the truth then why should I drag you from your delusions ? Why should I accept provably false LIEberal claims as 'truth'? >Hasn't there just been an official report from the CIA that de-briefing >of the relatives of Iraqi scientists showed that Saddam destroyed his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >material that reckons the Iraqi's have buried their aircraft in the >sand... with the intent of digging them up and using them again ? Why do you suppose they buried them? >When Blair has to admit that they are never going to find WMD, and he >was convinced that Iraq was awash with them (or was he ??? ) then the >bulk of the U.K population who were against the war in the first place >are convinced that their initial suspicions were definitely correct. > >I can't be bothered arguing with all the jingoistic Yanks that strutt But you *can* be bothered to post a 45-line whine about how unfair it is to ask you for proof. >their stuff while keping their heads firmly stuck in a warm,dark,damp >orifice.... what I will do however is make a little prediction... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Royal Family will be deposed. USA and UK will have lost all influence in >the region and the price of oil will rocket. How completely and typically LIEberal of you. Spouting a whole paragraph of un-provable hysterics as though it actually *means* something. >You and others can argue and name call until the lights go out. >Me ? I will just watch events unfurl. > >Think I am wrong ? There are a hell of a lot of very intelligent >people who are forecasting exactly the same things. If a million LIEberals forecast a foolish thing, it is *still* a foolish thing. >Do I argue with you or listen to them ? No brainer really ! > >Will I prove it ? No, you can up the quality of your reading material >and research.... go look its there. Do your own homework. And thank you for posting your distress. > Reg > reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message > ID<2lb181Faa38tU1@uni-berlin.de>on 10 Jul 2004 20:18:10 GMT [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why did you snip this? 'cos it was where i decided to start snipping... no more no less. Doubt your intelligence amounts to much so context would be unimportant anyway. >>> Quite frankly, my hope is that you might bring something new (from the >>> LIEberal POV, at least) to the discussion. I suggest you start with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It would be a novel approach for a LIEberal. But there again you would be too thick too understand them. >>There are numerous sources out >>there, some of which are oficial government sources. Why would I want to >>type out lengthy reports when they are already there. > > I dunno. To support absurd LIEberal claims, perhaps? Well one bit is right..... I dunno, and it sure shows. >>If you can't find them, read them or understand them or even accept that >>they are the truth then why should I drag you from your delusions ? > > Why should I accept provably false LIEberal claims as 'truth'? Because they get closer to it than the rubbish you spout. >>Hasn't there just been an official report from the CIA that de-briefing >>of the relatives of Iraqi scientists showed that Saddam destroyed his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why do you suppose they buried them? I don't suppose they buried them... I leave such suppositions to the loons like you that believe such crap... >>When Blair has to admit that they are never going to find WMD, and he >>was convinced that Iraq was awash with them (or was he ??? ) then the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But you *can* be bothered to post a 45-line whine about how unfair it > is to ask you for proof. O.K so I was bored and you seemed stupid enough to play with. >>their stuff while keping their heads firmly stuck in a warm,dark,damp >>orifice.... what I will do however is make a little prediction... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > paragraph of un-provable hysterics as though it actually *means* > something. Oh dear , you are a prat. It is actually a little prediction (go look up prediction in that big thick book or try using google... you do know about google ??? ) >>You and others can argue and name call until the lights go out. >>Me ? I will just watch events unfurl. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If a million LIEberals forecast a foolish thing, it is *still* a > foolish thing. As if you could tell foolish !!! >>Do I argue with you or listen to them ? No brainer really ! >> >>Will I prove it ? No, you can up the quality of your reading material >>and research.... go look its there. > > Do your own homework. And thank you for posting your distress. Done my homework long ago, your sloth in that direction shure shows through though. Come back when you finish high school and we will then see if we can elicit some sort of sensible comunication from you. I am not going to hold out much hope about that though. Reg reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message ID<2ldg5mFaqlpjU1@uni-berlin.de>on 11 Jul 2004 18:45:12 GMT >> reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message >> ID<2lb181Faa38tU1@uni-berlin.de>on 10 Jul 2004 20:18:10 GMT [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Doubt your intelligence amounts to much so context would be unimportant >anyway. Typical LIEberal...resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of addressing issues. Meanwhile, I'll restore your cowardly snip of information that you failed (or was that 'feared'?) to address. ]How ironic that you mention 'reality' while ignoring the reality that ]Paul is reduced to quibbling over the definitions of words that he ]misuses, Neville will not discuss issues with me, and resorts to ]posting what passes for 'humor' in the cross-dressing poofter ]community, jeblowjob hasn't been heard from in nearly two weeks, and ]quitguy, the asstralian, has just posted his surrender. ] ]The evidence suggests that my version of 'reality' is closer to the ]truth than yours is. >>>> Quite frankly, my hope is that you might bring something new (from the >>>> LIEberal POV, at least) to the discussion. I suggest you start with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >But there again you would be too thick too understand them. Silly poof, I'm conservative. I can understand truth and facts. It is the LIEberal support base that is too stump-stupid to comprehend, and must be lied to. I also note that you have no issue with the fact that 'provable facts would be a novel approach for a LIEberal'. >>>There are numerous sources out >>>there, some of which are oficial government sources. Why would I want to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Well one bit is right..... I dunno, and it sure shows. While it is obvious that you don't know, I am somewhat surprised to see you admit it. >>>If you can't find them, read them or understand them or even accept that >>>they are the truth then why should I drag you from your delusions ? >> >> Why should I accept provably false LIEberal claims as 'truth'? > >Because they get closer to it than the rubbish you spout. Provably false LIEberal hysterics are no closer to the truth than you are to coherency. If I am 'spouting rubbish', then it should be easy for you to point it out. Or, is this just another baseless LIEberal claim? >>>Hasn't there just been an official report from the CIA that de-briefing >>>of the relatives of Iraqi scientists showed that Saddam destroyed his [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I don't suppose they buried them... I leave such suppositions to the >loons like you that believe such crap... Are you claiming that the photos of buried MiG fighters do not exist? >>>When Blair has to admit that they are never going to find WMD, and he >>>was convinced that Iraq was awash with them (or was he ??? ) then the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >O.K so I was bored Yet here you are. >and you seemed stupid enough to play with. Obviously you would require a stupid playmate, as anyone with brains would see through your LIEberal claptrap. >>>their stuff while keping their heads firmly stuck in a warm,dark,damp >>>orifice.... what I will do however is make a little prediction... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >prediction in that big thick book or try using google... you do know about >google ??? ) Typical LIEberal...resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of addressing issues. >>>You and others can argue and name call until the lights go out. >>>Me ? I will just watch events unfurl. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >As if you could tell foolish !!! I've tried telling foolish, but you won't listen. >>>Do I argue with you or listen to them ? No brainer really ! >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Done my homework long ago, your sloth in that direction shure shows >through though. Why should I exert myself to find evidence that favors your absurd claims when you are too lazy to so yourself? >Come back when you finish high school and we will then see if we can >elicit some sort of sensible comunication from you. I am not going to >hold out much hope about that though. Ready when you are, poof. > reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message > ID<2ldg5mFaqlpjU1@uni-berlin.de>on 11 Jul 2004 18:45:12 GMT Whole load of stupidity from T.K (who believes he is a conservative) snipped. Two suggestions.... Get someone to help you read through the report just issued by the US Senate Select Commitee. (probably a total waste of time actually because you will dismiss it as it is contrary to your totally stupid view of world affairs) Do *not* take the medication that has undoubtedly been prescribed for you. If it kicks in and works then I don't think you could handle the return to reality. Now because you are painfully thick and seem to have difficulty with reading and comprehension I will try and explain simply.... That was the end of the suggestions. end ----------------------------- end Now this is (try to grasp the point) not one of the two suggestions... we have moved on now. The reason people have dropped out of the thread is *not* because they are liberals (note the spelling and try copying it a few times to see if you can get it right, your use of capitals in the wrong place also demonstrates a very poor learning ability),nor are they poofters or whatever else your cretinous brain dredges up to label them, it is indeed because they have gone off to have a sensible conversation with *sane* people. Whence I now go myself. Turn the lights off on your way out. Reg reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message ID<2lg0mnFcetnmU1@uni-berlin.de>on 12 Jul 2004 17:39:36 GMT >> reg <tux_powered@yahoo.com> posted message >> ID<2ldg5mFaqlpjU1@uni-berlin.de>on 11 Jul 2004 18:45:12 GMT > >Whole load of stupidity from T.K (who believes he is a conservative) >cravenly and cowardly snipped because I dare not adress the issues raised within. Your choice, of course. But you look cowardly and foolish. >Two suggestions.... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > end ----------------------------- end Silly poof, trying, at this late date, to paint me as dim or slow (when I've thoroughly whupped your LIEberal brethren, and cowed you into snipping posts) will do you no good. The other LIEberals have retreated, and the neutral observers can see that I am in clear command of the issues and my facts. >Now this is (try to grasp the point) not one of the two suggestions... >we have moved on now. You misspelled 'retreated in fear while wetting ourselves' down both legs'. >The reason people have dropped out of the thread is *not* because they >are liberals (note the spelling and try copying it a few times to see >if you can get it right, your use of capitals in the wrong place also >demonstrates a very poor learning ability) LIEberal is spelled as it is as an accurate description of the main debate tactic you lying shitheads employ. If you wish me to change my spelling of LIEberal, then stop lying. >,nor are they poofters or >whatever else your cretinous brain dredges up to label them, Methinks thou doth protest too much, poof. >it is indeed >because they have gone off to have a sensible conversation with *sane* people. What newsgroup would that be in? It's obviously not here. >Whence I now go myself. > > Turn the lights off on your way out. > > Reg Famous last words. Hopefully, you can keep your promise to stfu better than quitguy did. Gee, We suddenly went from 'off topic' to 'off colour.' Must be a brit thing. > George Bush met The Queen, and he turns round and says: "As I'm the > President, I'm thinking of changing how my country is referred to, and I'm [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Before George Bush could utter another word, The Queen said: "I think > you're doing quite nicely as a Country". OMG i was walking down the street and i saw this really cool car so asked the owner about it and he was selling it so i bought it! -- Keith4322 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.