A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Is it me?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 7th 17, 08:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default Is it me?

On 07/12/2017 20:47, Java Jive wrote:
On 07/12/2017 20:27, Bill Wright wrote:

It's a bit like the greenies then.


Sadly, I see the irrational, fact-ignoring, anti-green KKK club are
still around.


Hang on. So you're saying that to be sceptical of environmental
extremism is racist...?

Now the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures
has broken down


It hasn't.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

"Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have
occurred since 2001"


There's been no warming since 1996. But even if we believe the NASA
figures, how do they prove the correlation? What about natural warming?
Even if CO2 is causing the (now stalled) warming what about all the
natural causes of CO2 increase? Only 3.75% of atmospheric CO2 is
man-made. The vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from
land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing.


they are wriggling around trying to bend the facts to fit the hypothesis.


No they aren't, because global warming continues, the same as way as you
continue to be full of bigoted ****.


I think that you have a very low standard of debate.


I really must find out how to set up plonk filters in Thunderbird!


Yes, it might be better for you.

Bill

Ads
  #12  
Old December 7th 17, 09:08 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,774
Default Is it me?

On 07/12/2017 21:17, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2017 20:47, Java Jive wrote:
On 07/12/2017 20:27, Bill Wright wrote:

It's a bit like the greenies then.


Sadly, I see the irrational, fact-ignoring, anti-green KKK club are
still around.


Hang on. So you're saying that to be sceptical of environmental
extremism is racist...?


You're not sceptical, you're bigoted, just like a racist.

Now the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures
has broken down


It hasn't.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

"Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have
occurred since 2001"


There's been no warming since 1996.


Like I said, bigoted - you're shown the facts, and immediately you
deny them.

But even if we believe the NASA
figures, how do they prove the correlation? What about natural warming?


Previously answered umpteen times both here, in uk.d-i-y, and in the
wider world. No-one here owes you any further explanation. No-one here
wants your bigotry. I plonked you in my previous newsreader because of
your self-opiniated habit of treating every newsgroup like your personal
toilet to receive every piece of **** that comes into your head. If
you're determined to ignore the facts, then you'd best take the old
advice: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you
are a fool, than open it and remove all shadow of doubt!".

Even if CO2 is causing the (now stalled)


Everyone else can play the same game of endless repetition.

IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!

The difference is that I can justify mine, your claims have no
scientific basis whatsoever.

Do you get it now!?

warming what about all the
natural causes of CO2 increase? Only 3.75% of atmospheric CO2 is
man-made. The vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from


.... man-made ...

land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing.


.... which are caused by increasing temperatures, so arise from the
temperature increases that we've already played a part in causing. So
you've just contradicted yourself twice. Why am I not surprised?

I think that you have a very low standard of debate.


You scraped the bottom of the sewer by using negative, bigoted terms
like 'greenies'. You don't deserve the dignity of a debate, rational
debate with a bigot is a complete waste of time. You're determined to
believe ****, and to believe that endlessly repeating it will make
others believe it too. If you must post **** here, expect to get it
back with interest.

  #13  
Old December 8th 17, 02:22 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default Is it me?

On 07/12/2017 22:08, Java Jive wrote:

Sadly, I see the irrational, fact-ignoring, anti-green KKK club are
still around.


Hang on. So you're saying that to be sceptical of environmental
extremism is racist...?


You're not sceptical, you're bigoted, just like a racist.


Likening someone who has seen through the global warming swindle to a
racist is symptomatic of a certain mindset. I'll leave you to look
inwards and figure out what that mindset might be.

It's a meaningless thing to say anyway because there's no accepted
definition of 'racism'. It means what the speaker wants it to mean.

I suppose a bigot would have reached his conclusions by ignoring the
evidence. You are in no position to say I'm a bigot because you have no
idea how much reading I've done on the subject.


Now the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures
has broken down

It hasn't.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

"Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have
occurred since 2001"


There's been no warming since 1996.


Like I said, bigoted¬* -¬* you're shown the facts, and immediately you
deny them.


I've seen endless global temperature records. They all (yes, all) show a
divergence between the predictions and the reality. In every case the
predictions exaggerate the warming compared to the real-life record.
Many of the predictions are wildly wrong. This shows that the hypothesis
has failed the definitive experimental test. That means that the
hypothesis, not the record, is fundamentally wrong. It should be
discarded, but too much money, too many careers, are at stake. So
attempts are made now to fiddle the real-life record to make it fit the
hypothesis. Science has been discredited disgracefully.


But even if we believe the NASA figures, how do they prove the
correlation? What about natural warming?


Previously answered umpteen times both here, in uk.d-i-y, and in the
wider world.¬* No-one here owes you any further explanation.¬* No-one here
wants your bigotry.¬* I plonked you in my previous newsreader because of
your self-opiniated habit of treating every newsgroup like your personal
toilet to receive every piece of **** that comes into your head.¬* If
you're determined to ignore the facts, then you'd best take the old
advice:¬* "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you
are a fool, than open it and remove all shadow of doubt!".


So basically, having lost the argument, you've written a long paragraph
of abuse. Feel better?


Even if CO2 is causing the (now stalled)


Everyone else can play the same game of endless repetition.

IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!


I was watching my daughter's friend trying to deal with her
three-year-old this morning. The child wasn't getting her own way so she
jumped up and down and screamed,
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
We adults didn't think she had a very good argument.



The difference is that I can justify mine, your claims have no
scientific basis whatsoever.


I've told you I reached my conclusions by reading up on the subject.

Do you get it now!?

warming what about all the natural causes of CO2 increase? Only 3.75%
of atmospheric CO2 is man-made. The vast remainder of the 400 ppm
atmospheric CO2 is from


... man-made ...

land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing.


... which are caused by increasing temperatures, so arise from¬* the
temperature increases that we've already played a part in causing.


So human intervention has been the cause of all the CO2 produced by all
the plants and trees in the world, and of all the oceanic outgassing,
and of all the volcanoes. Have humans been responsible for all the
methane produced by all the world's wild animals and insects?

If not, has human intervention been responsible for some of it? How much
do you reckon?

¬* So
you've just contradicted yourself twice.¬* Why am I not surprised?


I can't explain what mental process cause you to not be surprised by a
figment of your own imagination.


I think that you have a very low standard of debate.


You scraped the bottom of the sewer by using negative, bigoted terms
like 'greenies'.¬* You don't deserve the dignity of a debate, rational
debate with a bigot is a complete waste of time.


Yes I agree.

You're determined to
believe ****, and to believe that endlessly repeating it will make
others believe it too.¬* If you must post **** here, expect to get it
back with interest.


I didn't realise that you regard your own responses as excremental. That
must be very discouraging for you.

Keep your pecker up.

Bill

  #14  
Old December 8th 17, 02:05 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Phi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default Is it me?


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 07/12/2017 22:08, Java Jive wrote:

Sadly, I see the irrational, fact-ignoring, anti-green KKK club are
still around.

Hang on. So you're saying that to be sceptical of environmental
extremism is racist...?


You're not sceptical, you're bigoted, just like a racist.


Likening someone who has seen through the global warming swindle to a
racist is symptomatic of a certain mindset. I'll leave you to look inwards
and figure out what that mindset might be.

It's a meaningless thing to say anyway because there's no accepted
definition of 'racism'. It means what the speaker wants it to mean.

I suppose a bigot would have reached his conclusions by ignoring the
evidence. You are in no position to say I'm a bigot because you have no
idea how much reading I've done on the subject.


Now the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures
has broken down

It hasn't.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

"Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have
occurred since 2001"

There's been no warming since 1996.


Like I said, bigoted - you're shown the facts, and immediately you deny
them.


I've seen endless global temperature records. They all (yes, all) show a
divergence between the predictions and the reality. In every case the
predictions exaggerate the warming compared to the real-life record. Many
of the predictions are wildly wrong. This shows that the hypothesis has
failed the definitive experimental test. That means that the hypothesis,
not the record, is fundamentally wrong. It should be discarded, but too
much money, too many careers, are at stake. So attempts are made now to
fiddle the real-life record to make it fit the hypothesis. Science has
been discredited disgracefully.


But even if we believe the NASA figures, how do they prove the
correlation? What about natural warming?


Previously answered umpteen times both here, in uk.d-i-y, and in the
wider world. No-one here owes you any further explanation. No-one here
wants your bigotry. I plonked you in my previous newsreader because of
your self-opiniated habit of treating every newsgroup like your personal
toilet to receive every piece of **** that comes into your head. If
you're determined to ignore the facts, then you'd best take the old
advice: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you
are a fool, than open it and remove all shadow of doubt!".


So basically, having lost the argument, you've written a long paragraph of
abuse. Feel better?


Even if CO2 is causing the (now stalled)


Everyone else can play the same game of endless repetition.

IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!


I was watching my daughter's friend trying to deal with her three-year-old
this morning. The child wasn't getting her own way so she jumped up and
down and screamed,
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
We adults didn't think she had a very good argument.



The difference is that I can justify mine, your claims have no scientific
basis whatsoever.


I've told you I reached my conclusions by reading up on the subject.

Do you get it now!?

warming what about all the natural causes of CO2 increase? Only 3.75% of
atmospheric CO2 is man-made. The vast remainder of the 400 ppm
atmospheric CO2 is from


... man-made ...

land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing.


... which are caused by increasing temperatures, so arise from the
temperature increases that we've already played a part in causing.


So human intervention has been the cause of all the CO2 produced by all
the plants and trees in the world, and of all the oceanic outgassing, and
of all the volcanoes. Have humans been responsible for all the methane
produced by all the world's wild animals and insects?

If not, has human intervention been responsible for some of it? How much
do you reckon?

So
you've just contradicted yourself twice. Why am I not surprised?


I can't explain what mental process cause you to not be surprised by a
figment of your own imagination.


I think that you have a very low standard of debate.


You scraped the bottom of the sewer by using negative, bigoted terms like
'greenies'. You don't deserve the dignity of a debate, rational debate
with a bigot is a complete waste of time.


Yes I agree.

You're determined to believe ****, and to believe that endlessly
repeating it will make others believe it too. If you must post **** here,
expect to get it back with interest.


I didn't realise that you regard your own responses as excremental. That
must be very discouraging for you.

Keep your pecker up.

Bill



Nasa has it's CO2 model, which is incorrect, but methane is the culprit with
21 times the influence of CO2 and a residency of 5 to 10 times.

  #15  
Old December 8th 17, 06:39 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
critcher[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Is it me?

On 07/12/2017 21:17, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2017 20:47, Java Jive wrote:
On 07/12/2017 20:27, Bill Wright wrote:

It's a bit like the greenies then.


Sadly, I see the irrational, fact-ignoring, anti-green KKK club are
still around.


Hang on. So you're saying that to be sceptical of environmental
extremism is racist...?

Now the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures
has broken down


It hasn't.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

"Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have
occurred since 2001"


There's been no warming since 1996. But even if we believe the NASA
figures, how do they prove the correlation? What about natural warming?
Even if CO2 is causing the (now stalled) warming what about all the
natural causes of CO2 increase? Only 3.75% of atmospheric CO2 is
man-made. The vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from
land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing.


they are wriggling around trying to bend the facts to fit the
hypothesis.


No they aren't, because global warming continues, the same as way as
you continue to be full of bigoted ****.


I think that you have a very low standard of debate.


I really must find out how to set up plonk filters in Thunderbird!


Yes, it might be better for you.

Bill

I think we all know that the earth is warming up, there is probably an
amount of normal cycle of events, but our activity as a species is bound
to have a small effect on climate change.
  #16  
Old December 8th 17, 06:41 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
critcher[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Is it me?

On 08/12/2017 03:22, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2017 22:08, Java Jive wrote:

Sadly, I see the irrational, fact-ignoring, anti-green KKK club are
still around.

Hang on. So you're saying that to be sceptical of environmental
extremism is racist...?


You're not sceptical, you're bigoted, just like a racist.


Likening someone who has seen through the global warming swindle to a
racist is symptomatic of a certain mindset. I'll leave you to look
inwards and figure out what that mindset might be.

It's a meaningless thing to say anyway because there's no accepted
definition of 'racism'. It means what the speaker wants it to mean.

I suppose a bigot would have reached his conclusions by ignoring the
evidence. You are in no position to say I'm a bigot because you have no
idea how much reading I've done on the subject.


Now the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures
has broken down

It hasn't.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

"Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have
occurred since 2001"

There's been no warming since 1996.


Like I said, bigoted¬* -¬* you're shown the facts, and immediately you
deny them.


I've seen endless global temperature records. They all (yes, all) show a
divergence between the predictions and the reality. In every case the
predictions exaggerate the warming compared to the real-life record.
Many of the predictions are wildly wrong. This shows that the hypothesis
has failed the definitive experimental test. That means that the
hypothesis, not the record, is fundamentally wrong. It should be
discarded, but too much money, too many careers, are at stake. So
attempts are made now to fiddle the real-life record to make it fit the
hypothesis. Science has been discredited disgracefully.


But even if we believe the NASA figures, how do they prove the
correlation? What about natural warming?


Previously answered umpteen times both here, in uk.d-i-y, and in the
wider world.¬* No-one here owes you any further explanation.¬* No-one
here wants your bigotry.¬* I plonked you in my previous newsreader
because of your self-opiniated habit of treating every newsgroup like
your personal toilet to receive every piece of **** that comes into
your head.¬* If you're determined to ignore the facts, then you'd best
take the old advice:¬* "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let
everyone think you are a fool, than open it and remove all shadow of
doubt!".


So basically, having lost the argument, you've written a long paragraph
of abuse. Feel better?


Even if CO2 is causing the (now stalled)


Everyone else can play the same game of endless repetition.

IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!


I was watching my daughter's friend trying to deal with her
three-year-old this morning. The child wasn't getting her own way so she
jumped up and down and screamed,
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
We adults didn't think she had a very good argument.



The difference is that I can justify mine, your claims have no
scientific basis whatsoever.


I've told you I reached my conclusions by reading up on the subject.

Do you get it now!?

warming what about all the natural causes of CO2 increase? Only 3.75%
of atmospheric CO2 is man-made. The vast remainder of the 400 ppm
atmospheric CO2 is from


... man-made ...

land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing.


... which are caused by increasing temperatures, so arise from¬* the
temperature increases that we've already played a part in causing.


So human intervention has been the cause of all the CO2 produced by all
the plants and trees in the world, and of all the oceanic outgassing,
and of all the volcanoes. Have humans been responsible for all the
methane produced by all the world's wild animals and insects?

If not, has human intervention been responsible for some of it? How much
do you reckon?

¬* So
you've just contradicted yourself twice.¬* Why am I not surprised?


I can't explain what mental process cause you to not be surprised by a
figment of your own imagination.


I think that you have a very low standard of debate.


You scraped the bottom of the sewer by using negative, bigoted terms
like 'greenies'.¬* You don't deserve the dignity of a debate, rational
debate with a bigot is a complete waste of time.


Yes I agree.

You're determined to believe ****, and to believe that endlessly
repeating it will make others believe it too.¬* If you must post ****
here, expect to get it back with interest.


I didn't realise that you regard your own responses as excremental. That
must be very discouraging for you.

Keep your pecker up.

Bill

God it's hard work keeping up with your morning posts Bill.
  #17  
Old December 8th 17, 07:04 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default Is it me?

On 08/12/2017 19:41, critcher wrote:

God it's hard work keeping up with your morning posts Bill.


I know! I'm a bit of a cult in the mornings!

Bill
  #18  
Old December 8th 17, 07:36 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default Is it me?

On 08/12/2017 20:04, Bill Wright wrote:
On 08/12/2017 19:41, critcher wrote:

God it's hard work keeping up with your morning posts Bill.


I know! I'm a bit of a cult in the mornings!

Bill


I know I am because Hil shouts, "Get up you lazy old cult!"

Bill
  #19  
Old December 9th 17, 11:14 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Dean Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Is it me?

On 08/12/2017 15:05, Phi wrote:

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 07/12/2017 22:08, Java Jive wrote:

Sadly, I see the irrational, fact-ignoring, anti-green KKK club are
still around.

Hang on. So you're saying that to be sceptical of environmental
extremism is racist...?

You're not sceptical, you're bigoted, just like a racist.


Likening someone who has seen through the global warming swindle to a
racist is symptomatic of a certain mindset. I'll leave you to look
inwards and figure out what that mindset might be.

It's a meaningless thing to say anyway because there's no accepted
definition of 'racism'. It means what the speaker wants it to mean.

I suppose a bigot would have reached his conclusions by ignoring the
evidence. You are in no position to say I'm a bigot because you have
no idea how much reading I've done on the subject.


Now the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global
temperatures has broken down

It hasn't.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

"Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have
occurred since 2001"

There's been no warming since 1996.

Like I said, bigoted - you're shown the facts, and immediately you
deny them.


I've seen endless global temperature records. They all (yes, all) show
a divergence between the predictions and the reality. In every case
the predictions exaggerate the warming compared to the real-life
record. Many of the predictions are wildly wrong. This shows that the
hypothesis has failed the definitive experimental test. That means
that the hypothesis, not the record, is fundamentally wrong. It should
be discarded, but too much money, too many careers, are at stake. So
attempts are made now to fiddle the real-life record to make it fit
the hypothesis. Science has been discredited disgracefully.


But even if we believe the NASA figures, how do they prove the
correlation? What about natural warming?

Previously answered umpteen times both here, in uk.d-i-y, and in the
wider world. No-one here owes you any further explanation. No-one
here wants your bigotry. I plonked you in my previous newsreader
because of your self-opiniated habit of treating every newsgroup like
your personal toilet to receive every piece of **** that comes into
your head. If you're determined to ignore the facts, then you'd best
take the old advice: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let
everyone think you are a fool, than open it and remove all shadow of
doubt!".


So basically, having lost the argument, you've written a long
paragraph of abuse. Feel better?


Even if CO2 is causing the (now stalled)

Everyone else can play the same game of endless repetition.

IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!
IT'S NOT STALLED!


I was watching my daughter's friend trying to deal with her
three-year-old this morning. The child wasn't getting her own way so
she jumped up and down and screamed,
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
IT'S NOT FAIR!
We adults didn't think she had a very good argument.



The difference is that I can justify mine, your claims have no
scientific basis whatsoever.


I've told you I reached my conclusions by reading up on the subject.

Do you get it now!?

warming what about all the natural causes of CO2 increase? Only
3.75% of atmospheric CO2 is man-made. The vast remainder of the 400
ppm atmospheric CO2 is from

... man-made ...

land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing.

... which are caused by increasing temperatures, so arise from the
temperature increases that we've already played a part in causing.


So human intervention has been the cause of all the CO2 produced by
all the plants and trees in the world, and of all the oceanic
outgassing, and of all the volcanoes. Have humans been responsible for
all the methane produced by all the world's wild animals and insects?

If not, has human intervention been responsible for some of it? How
much do you reckon?

¬* So
you've just contradicted yourself twice. Why am I not surprised?


I can't explain what mental process cause you to not be surprised by a
figment of your own imagination.


I think that you have a very low standard of debate.

You scraped the bottom of the sewer by using negative, bigoted terms
like 'greenies'. You don't deserve the dignity of a debate, rational
debate with a bigot is a complete waste of time.


Yes I agree.

You're determined to believe ****, and to believe that endlessly
repeating it will make others believe it too. If you must post ****
here, expect to get it back with interest.


I didn't realise that you regard your own responses as excremental.
That must be very discouraging for you.

Keep your pecker up.

Bill



Nasa has it's CO2 model, which is incorrect, but methane is the culprit
with 21 times the influence of CO2 and a residency of 5 to 10 times.

Is this back to farting cows?
D.J.
  #20  
Old December 10th 17, 08:42 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Vir Campestris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 439
Default Is it me?

I was watching last week's country file earlier. They were saying how
Hooper Swans are likely to be badly affected by global warming. Just for
example, this year we had a late spring and only about 4% of the swans
are cygnets, when it has been up to 25% in a good year.

Then I though it through. A late spring is NOT a sign of global
warming... rather the reverse.

(My view? It's a damn dangerous experiment we're carrying out on our
atmosphere...)

Andy
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.