_ _ _ _
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 164

Thread: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

  1. #41
    DaddyCajun's Avatar
    DaddyCajun is offline Dig deep UL will Prosper! Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Da Cro
    Posts
    5,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbine View Post
    A cube of ice just told me that 33 degrees was intensely hot.
    Was the 33 degrees Celcius or Faringheight and was it nature or MAN that amassed that 33 degrees?🌞☃

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Louisiana A
    Posts
    21,033
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by DaddyCajun View Post
    Was the 33 degrees Celcius or Faringheight and was it nature or MAN that amassed that 33 degrees?🌞☃
    The ice cube told me that 33 degrees Celsius does not exist.


  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomer View Post
    ---Are any of the scientific field aware of grants that are given to certain pro or anti Global warming profs to carry out experiments? Just seems that their findings could be slightly subjective in favor of the side giving the bucks!!
    Well sure that's a possibility. Check out this guy, Wei-Hock Soon. But the research study and its findings are meaningless until peer-reviewed. A ethical scientist is solely concerned with the results and controls for any bias.

  4. #44
    CajunEXPRESS's Avatar
    CajunEXPRESS is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    14,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    If you believe those crazy scientists, the main anthropomorphic cause of the current global warming is increased greenhouse gasses (CO2, N2O, CH4, etc).

    The ice ages(we are in one now) are caused by one of many natural cycles on the Earth and also from periodic cycles of of solar intensity.
    So man's activities are saving the current life forms on Mother Earth. Six hundred foot ice sheets across N America can't be good for hairless humans.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunEXPRESS View Post
    So man's activities are saving the current life forms on Mother Earth. Six hundred foot ice sheets across N America can't be good for hairless humans.
    I'm not sure what that means but I bet you are blaming Bob Marlin for something.

  6. #46
    Just1More's Avatar
    Just1More is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Posts
    16,138
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    If you believe those crazy scientists, the main anthropomorphic cause of the current global warming is increased greenhouse gasses (CO2, N2O, CH4, etc).

    The ice ages(we are in one now) are caused by one of many natural cycles on the Earth and also from periodic cycles of of solar intensity.
    You seem like an informed individual. My grievance with climate change theory is the over politicization has been embraced by the scientific community... and that should never have been allowed. First, there were no "climatologists" until these theories began surfacing. And the scientific community that's required to evaluate manmade (or other) influences on climate, require a massive multitude of disconnected expertise. What the political community has latched onto is the tendency of unscientifically minded masses to summarily accept "the scientists said so" reports.

    First, I have a great deal of problems finding sufficient scientific information that I, as an engineer, can read and substantiate any of the theories. I recognize, unlike the average person, the disparate world of scientific input that can possibly culminate in the theory that a) the climate change we are experiencing is solely influenced by greenhouse gases, b) that the full effect over time is understood, c) that the effect is not perhaps a positive effect - balancing out a catastrophic "ice age" developing, d) that mother nature has the means to offset the growing greenhouse gases, or e) man has the time and potential to control or reverse the effects.

    A find it highly disturbing that massive numbers of incredibly ignorant people take jabs at informed people asking questions about the validity of the science examined to date... and the subsequent theories.

    I also find it very disturbing that a scientist using risk analysis (risk = probability x consequence) concluded that the U.S. elimination of fossil fuels (taking the lead globally) had ZERO risk... even if the probability that the greenhouse gas conclusion is incorrect. He is so wrong, he should never be allowed to speak to any audience ever again in his life.

    The idea that other nations (desperately attempting to surpass the U.S. in global economics and military dominance) are going to cooperate with reductions in fossil fuel usage in unison with the U.S., as we cripple our economy (and that most assuredly will occur) as we "investigate" alternative fuels (which BTW are a complete joke if we are focused on renewables - I, as an engineer can explain that in vivid detail some other time). If renewable fuels are so attractive as alternate fuel sources, the Japanese alone would have invested their entire economy on solar, wind or hydro... in order to not be a captive economy that depends on the world for fossil fuels. The amount of revenue available to any and all that discover the magic solar cell, battery technology, etc... is sufficient to have launched those productions for many many many years.

    Just the fact that it takes every player in the scientific community to play a role in evaluating the global climate impact of greenhouse gases... as the political idiots push the ignorant public into "the scientists all said so" agenda. These "scientists" are people I've read up on. None of them individually have the scientific credentials to make any postulations regarding the questions I gave above. They have to link up in a mile long human chain and work together. And they are very unimpressive at drawing any useful conclusions to-date. But that isn't stopping many of them.

    You even addressed something that the general public fails to comprehend in science. Science isn't the U.S. legal system. They do not say "greenhouse gases are innocent until proven guilty". They do quite the opposite as you know. They say "greenhouse gases are guilty until proven innocent". That is how science operates... quite acceptable. There's a plant x until someone says there isn't. Very little direct evidence has to prove plant x. But it exists in science until proven not to.

    Those who didn't make it this far, I'll give you a quick fart joke soon enough. But for those that did, use your brain and help stop the madness.

  7. #47
    CajunRed's Avatar
    CajunRed is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,301

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Just1More View Post
    You seem like an informed individual. My grievance with climate change theory is the over politicization has been embraced by the scientific community... and that should never have been allowed. First, there were no "climatologists" until these theories began surfacing. And the scientific community that's required to evaluate manmade (or other) influences on climate, require a massive multitude of disconnected expertise. What the political community has latched onto is the tendency of unscientifically minded masses to summarily accept "the scientists said so" reports.

    First, I have a great deal of problems finding sufficient scientific information that I, as an engineer, can read and substantiate any of the theories. I recognize, unlike the average person, the disparate world of scientific input that can possibly culminate in the theory that a) the climate change we are experiencing is solely influenced by greenhouse gases, b) that the full effect over time is understood, c) that the effect is not perhaps a positive effect - balancing out a catastrophic "ice age" developing, d) that mother nature has the means to offset the growing greenhouse gases, or e) man has the time and potential to control or reverse the effects.

    A find it highly disturbing that massive numbers of incredibly ignorant people take jabs at informed people asking questions about the validity of the science examined to date... and the subsequent theories.

    I also find it very disturbing that a scientist using risk analysis (risk = probability x consequence) concluded that the U.S. elimination of fossil fuels (taking the lead globally) had ZERO risk... even if the probability that the greenhouse gas conclusion is incorrect. He is so wrong, he should never be allowed to speak to any audience ever again in his life.

    The idea that other nations (desperately attempting to surpass the U.S. in global economics and military dominance) are going to cooperate with reductions in fossil fuel usage in unison with the U.S., as we cripple our economy (and that most assuredly will occur) as we "investigate" alternative fuels (which BTW are a complete joke if we are focused on renewables - I, as an engineer can explain that in vivid detail some other time). If renewable fuels are so attractive as alternate fuel sources, the Japanese alone would have invested their entire economy on solar, wind or hydro... in order to not be a captive economy that depends on the world for fossil fuels. The amount of revenue available to any and all that discover the magic solar cell, battery technology, etc... is sufficient to have launched those productions for many many many years.

    Just the fact that it takes every player in the scientific community to play a role in evaluating the global climate impact of greenhouse gases... as the political idiots push the ignorant public into "the scientists all said so" agenda. These "scientists" are people I've read up on. None of them individually have the scientific credentials to make any postulations regarding the questions I gave above. They have to link up in a mile long human chain and work together. And they are very unimpressive at drawing any useful conclusions to-date. But that isn't stopping many of them.

    You even addressed something that the general public fails to comprehend in science. Science isn't the U.S. legal system. They do not say "greenhouse gases are innocent until proven guilty". They do quite the opposite as you know. They say "greenhouse gases are guilty until proven innocent". That is how science operates... quite acceptable. There's a plant x until someone says there isn't. Very little direct evidence has to prove plant x. But it exists in science until proven not to.

    Those who didn't make it this far, I'll give you a quick fart joke soon enough. But for those that did, use your brain and help stop the madness.

    I had just sat down to type this out...then I looked up and...there it was.

  8. #48
    CajunRed's Avatar
    CajunRed is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,301

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    A fact is an observation. A law is a description. A theory is an explanation.
    The scientific method is a process to test a hypothesis.
    There is no proof in science.
    You seem to imply here that no one is stating that man made global warming is a fact. On the contrary. Run a search on the topic and see how many results show up stating all such science as "fact".

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,061

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    The crap being spewed by the liberal media about climate change is pure BS. Anyone that believes a word of it needs to pull his head out of his LSU.


  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Right on time with the "liberal media" comment. Surprised it took that long.

    Of course "climatologists" existed before the idea of anthropomorphic climate change surfaced. "Climate scientists" or atmospheric scientists include the obvious like meteorologists and oceanographers, but also geologists, physicists, biologists, and pretty much every other -ist there is.
    I stated earlier that Earth systems are so complex, dynamic and independent that there is rarely a simple THIS causes THAT relationship. If were that simple, hurricane prediction could be done by your 5 year old. The fields of study that link climate science is NOT disparate but rather they fold in rather nicely, something many engineers can appreciate.
    If you find a scientist that agrees with your a or b, run. Thats just incorrect. C is a maybe and probably the biggest unknown. D is true and thats the worry. The idea that the Earth will "balance things out" is ludicrous and that way of thinking is disastrous. If there is an equilibrium it will not be reached nor maintained in multiple human lifespans. The Earth will (and is) balance the excess heat in the atmosphere by the melting of ice packs and glaciers, increasing temps in the lower atmosphere and ocean and increasing acidification of the oceans. Humans are fragile. Our range of habitable conditions are small and the changes in climate that are being documented worldwide will confine our species ever more until the population is unsustainable.
    I also find it disturbing when ignorant people take jabs at qualified people when what those qualified people are saying threatens their worldview or comes from someone who identifies with one political party or another.
    I agree that all science (climate, stem cell, mental health, etc) has become politicized but it cuts both ways.
    Your comment on Japan is a bit misleading. A large percentage of their energy comes from hydroelectric and nuclear. Two sources that produce little greenhouse gasses. Other countries, Scandinavian, in particular, are moving to majority renewable. 100% renewable is impossible right now, but we should be moving towards that. Not just for the sake of the planet but for our own national security.
    In regards to how science works, it is the opposite of what you state. Things can be hypothesized and speculated on but data is king. Even then it takes multiple trials and independent correlation to publish. If you have seen or heard ANY scientist positing that Planet 10 unequivocally exists, you should remove them from your reading list.
    I hope that the current research is flawed, inflated, just plain wrong but I really dont think it is. I lean more towards the middle of most things and do on climate science as well. I think we are adding to global warming but I'm not convinced it will be the end of the human race as some think.
    For those who want to throw around your "liberal media" jabs, please see J1M's post above on how to have a rational, well-thought out discussion.
    Thank you sir.


  11. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunRed View Post
    You seem to imply here that no one is stating that man made global warming is a fact. On the contrary. Run a search on the topic and see how many results show up stating all such science as "fact".
    I think you mean it is a conclusion. And yes, it is the conclusion of many that man made global warming is consistent with observations.

  12. #52
    CajunRed's Avatar
    CajunRed is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    I think you mean it is a conclusion. And yes, it is the conclusion of many that man made global warming is consistent with observations.
    But they state it as "fact" and use that word to state the case that the theorizing is over...that facts are now set...and all must agree.

    Edit... and why should we move away from fossil fuels? I don't agree with that. Do we not have over 100 years of known reserves at current usage rates? I don't want a solar car.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    I'm not sure who "they" are.
    Facts include 2015 was warmest ever recorded. By a lot. Like 1.5 degrees C. Also over the past 20 years or so we have recorded 15 of the hottest years ever. Another fact is that Arctic sea ice levels are at historical minimums for the second straight year. Another fact is that new record lows for sea ice have happened consecutively over the past decade. Permafrost is melting at record rates in the Arctic. Sea levels have risen over 3 mm every year for the past 30 years. Atmospheric CO2 levels have steadily risen and correlate very well with these events.
    Those are facts. The conclusion is that human activity is playing some role in these events.
    Also thank you Red for the civil and thoughtful discussion


  14. #54
    Just1More's Avatar
    Just1More is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Posts
    16,138
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    My comment regarding Japan didn't pertain to power generation. I'm referring to motor fuels used for transportation. Japan has done much to offset their lack of fossil energy. But you realize that there are greater opponents of nuclear in some quarters than fossil energy - as for the welfare of our planet. But my point is that if solar technology and battery technology, requiring material science advancements, were on the brink of discovery... if only the Solyndras were splashed with more government money... Japan (and others) would have sprung that discovery into their own independence long before now. The U.S. would have done so as well... and it would not require government "research and manufacturing" assistance.

    You are far too quick to answer the questions I've asked unscientifically. And you cannot say what Earth and our atmosphere... or man in the future... can and cannot do. On much smaller scales, the Alaskan coast line could never survive the Valdez, the gulf coast would take decades to recover from the BP disaster, and so on and so on. "Scientists" told us so. Anyone that disputed them was a nimrod. The gulf coast ecosystem models were highly scientific from marine biologists. They were so wrong it wasn't even close. If the politics aligns with them, the mass public will march with them. And most times, it's inconsequential... government and big industry money gets tossed around... and the issue goes away. Getting climate change correct is not inconsequential in either direction. But do you know how many research "ists" are big fans of fossil fuel to begin with? Very, very few. They could care less if fossil fuels go away or not. They think there's a "Facebook for fuel" right around the corner... just as soon as the next Zuckerberg of green energy comes along. It's stupidity. There are consequences for not being exact.

    My point is that science puts out what they think as if it is fact. Saying that facts and data are king is real easy. No politician is using facts. They are using the hypothetical outcomes. These are not risk free decisions. They empower horrible politics. They need to act more responsibly... and absolutely prove the science. Tree rings, ice core samples, and cool thermal imagery of the upper atmosphere are really really cool stuff... but I listened to a paleontologist take scat from a neanderthal cave and try to tell the world what neanderthals language skills were. Who is qualified to argue with him? He's right unless someone else knows better.

    And no... the politics do not cut both ways in climate science. The politicians have emboldened the "ists" and they are loving it. And a geologist and a biologist are as disparate as a dry cleaner and a balloon artist. They're equally amazed at each other's contributions to "climate science"... but it does not mesh into a complete analysis. One of the most truthful "ists" said that what they know currently with global climate science cause and effect is equivalent to finding a lug nut and then telling you how an automobile is made. If others are so certain of their conclusions... I find it very interesting that enormous funding is being requested to further study it. I have no problem with studying the wizz out of climate science... but it's very hypocritical to be so conclusive... not have a single solution other than the mass stoppage of carbon emissions... and yet continue to develop expensive equipment, assemble the world's massive scientific cache and continue "studying it". I absolutely demand they study it... but they need to STFU until they prove it conclusively. To hear them say "reducing carbon emissions... even if it isn't exactly as we theorize... has no consequences... and it will clean up our atmosphere... this much carbon cannot be good... and it is time to stop the global crude oil energy issues." That's just not scientific or correct.

    And further... would you not expect the questions to be coming from people employed by the fossil fuel industry? Why are we demonized? The decisions massively affect our lives. I'm not capable of stopping the mass flow of ignorance. But what is wrong with the questioning? If you see who answers the questions... it's not a scientist... it's a politician, a music mogul, an actor, a TV host or a media star... all of which couldn't explain anything about the "ists"... except "they're really smart people".


  15. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Use of renewables is increasing globally so I'm unclear on your point. Will they take a while to become feasible? Of course, just any new tech.
    I also dont get you point about the Valdez. You can still find crude in areas around PWS and the genes of the affected wildlife still carry indicators of exposure to oil.
    I realize BP says the Gulf is back to normal and if you believe that, I've got some tar balls to sell you, because we are still finding tar balls and every so often see some oil sheen in the marsh. You cant dump 3 million barrels of oil and not expect consequences. That's like saying go ahead smoke and eat cracklins 24/7 and when you stop your body will be fine.
    Science welcomes questions. Thats what science is. And geology and biology are not separated by the chasm you seem to suggest. Many geophysical process interact will biologic ones and vice versa. One thing that natural processes is not is isolated. Everything is interconnected.
    Can I ask you a few questions?
    1.Do you think the Earth's climate is warming, cooling, or stable?
    2. Do you think human activities are causing any degree of change, if it is changing?
    3. When you mentioned something about the science of greenhouse gasses, are you saying that CO2, water vapor, methane, etc do not trap solar energy?
    4. What is your take on the news articles claiming that Exxon hid data about climate change for years?
    5. Why did oil and gas companies invest in renewables and then back off?
    I may have others but I'm moving on for now.
    Thanks for the discourse.


  16. #56
    VObserver's Avatar
    VObserver is online now Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Abbeville, LA
    Posts
    5,819

    Ragin' Cajuns Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragin4U View Post
    Use of renewables is increasing globally so I'm unclear on your point. Will they take a while to become feasible? Of course, just any new tech.
    I also dont get you point about the Valdez. You can still find crude in areas around PWS and the genes of the affected wildlife still carry indicators of exposure to oil.
    I realize BP says the Gulf is back to normal and if you believe that, I've got some tar balls to sell you, because we are still finding tar balls and every so often see some oil sheen in the marsh. You cant dump 3 million barrels of oil and not expect consequences. That's like saying go ahead smoke and eat cracklins 24/7 and when you stop your body will be fine.
    Science welcomes questions. Thats what science is. And geology and biology are not separated by the chasm you seem to suggest. Many geophysical process interact will biologic ones and vice versa. One thing that natural processes is not is isolated. Everything is interconnected.
    Can I ask you a few questions?
    1.Do you think the Earth's climate is warming, cooling, or stable?
    2. Do you think human activities are causing any degree of change, if it is changing?
    3. When you mentioned something about the science of greenhouse gasses, are you saying that CO2, water vapor, methane, etc do not trap solar energy?
    4. What is your take on the news articles claiming that Exxon hid data about climate change for years?
    5. Why did oil and gas companies invest in renewables and then back off?
    I may have others but I'm moving on for now.
    Thanks for the discourse.
    1. It is warming. Climate is never stable.
    2. Possibly some minor influence, but the warming is largely part of the normal and repeated cycle of global climate change.
    3. If they did not trap solar energy, there would be no life on earth.
    4. I have seen no such articles, and if I had seen them, I would discount them as opinion pieces until proven otherwise. Very little of what is called news is news. Much of it on both sides is editorial opinion.
    5. Simple. They invested in renewables until they determined that most were economically not viable at this time. The renewables that are economically viable are still being backed by big energy. Somebody needs to tell T Boone that he's is not in the oil business any more.

    On your first statement... of course the use of renewables is rising. It is being massively subsidized by government. And let us not be disingenuous; you don't mean "renewables", you mean "politically acceptable renewables". Wood, grasses and cow chips are renewable fuels, but the Al Gores aren't pushing wood stoves or cow chip fueled power plants.

  17. #57
    CajunRed's Avatar
    CajunRed is offline Ragin Cajuns of Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns Greatest Fan Ever
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,301

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    So...since we have between 100 and 200 years of known oil reserves left, my vote is to get that down to 50...THEN go all out for battery cars and solar houses.


  18. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by VObserver View Post
    1. It is warming. Climate is never stable.
    2. Possibly some minor influence, but the warming is largely part of the normal and repeated cycle of global climate change.
    3. If they did not trap solar energy, there would be no life on earth.
    4. I have seen no such articles, and if I had seen them, I would discount them as opinion pieces until proven otherwise. Very little of what is called news is news. Much of it on both sides is editorial opinion.
    5. Simple. They invested in renewables until they determined that most were economically not viable at this time. The renewables that are economically viable are still being backed by big energy. Somebody needs to tell T Boone that he's is not in the oil business any more.

    On your first statement... of course the use of renewables is rising. It is being massively subsidized by government. And let us not be disingenuous; you don't mean "renewables", you mean "politically acceptable renewables". Wood, grasses and cow chips are renewable fuels, but the Al Gores aren't pushing wood stoves or cow chip fueled power plants.
    1. Agreed
    2. Even if data shows that the climate is warming faster and more dramatically than average which coincides with increased levels of atmospheric CO2? Why do you think its part of the normal cycle?
    3. Absolutely. Doesnt it follow that increased levels trap more heat?
    4. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-40-years-ago/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/16/exxon-climate-change/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/exxon...ange-research/
    5. Agreed.It just seems odd that they would pump billions of dollars into solar, wind, etc and then figure out they wouldnt make moey.

    And your last statement is disingenuous. Cow chips and wood arent used because they are not feasible not because people are trying to protect cow crap. Maybe governments are subsidizing renewables to keep ahead of the curb. From an economic standpoint it makes sense to diversify. Have you taken a look around Lafayette and Houston lately? Remember the '80s?

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,106
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    On one side you have the overboard environmentalists and on the other side the, pollute all you want crowd. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle.


  20. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,533

    Default Re: New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by alum81 View Post
    On one side you have the overboard environmentalists and on the other side the, pollute all you want crowd. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle.
    Agreed. As a society we seemed to have moved towards an "all or nothing", "us against them", way of thinking. Our mutual interests are usually aligned but human nature tends to intervene. See Tragedy of the Commons

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •