View Poll Results: Which universe would win?

Voters
670. This poll is closed
  • Star Trek

    227 33.88%
  • Star Wars

    285 42.54%
  • Spaceballs

    51 7.61%
  • Farscape

    14 2.09%
  • Dune

    54 8.06%
  • Stargate

    39 5.82%

Thread: Star Wars vs Star Trek

  1. #21861
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    So how is my list mostly wrong,
    I wasn't talking about your list but yes that was mostly wrong too.
    You were bullshitting.
    Yes you are.

    I'd take Vivftp's calcs over his any day until I saw his calcs. I won't accept anything from you, either, unless there's proof behind it.
    Who is Vivftp?
    I have given my math in the sources 2 pages back for my analysis of the Q Who phaser strike which you ignored.

    Oh, and what is this based?
    Visual canon.
    You bullshitting again?
    Yes you are.

    I don't care what you think, again. All of your arguments are based on your feelings, not actual proof. Data said that it was shattered, and we can see the fucking remains.
    Your use of logic for defining pulverized puts the NASA objective at a disadvantage of necessity. As in, it's not necessary to actually pulverize the 1 mile asteroid to save the Earth. It's an unrealistic objective for primitive Earth abilities of our time and your logic for a kiloton detonation becomes forfeit. Please don't place your temper tantrums in place of logical syllogisms.

    When did I argue this? Really, are all of your posts just giant non-sequiturs?
    A non sequitor: a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.

    So since YOU CALLED THIS A KILOTON Explosion:

    "it would take as little as 5 to 10 kilotons of energy to divert an asteroid."~http://dvice.com/archives/2010/06/asteroid-headed.php

    ~"If it's about 15 days away, it would take a 300-kiloton bomb to obliterate an asteroid about 1000 feet in diameter, with only a small percentage of the debris still reaching the earth, and probably burning up in the planet's atmosphere."~http://dvice.com/archives/2010/06/asteroid-headed.php

    1000ft equals 304.8 meters.
    Proportional Firepower for 700 meter Asteroid is 690 Kilotons at 100,000 miles which is more than half the distance to the moon. however in this Star Trek Episode the Asteroid is seconds from impact and the debris is considered globally dangerous meaning 300 meters or more which would impact several thousand times the Tsar Bomb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object

    This means of course that it was necessary to completely destroy the asteroid. At just seconds meaning a hundred to 200 miles above atmospheric interface they HAVE to have above a MEGATON to neutralize the Asteroid. Thus the remains we see surrounding the Enterprise were not of sufficient size no matter how large they appear on screen. We could conclude that the remains we see are not from the last minute destruction but perhaps a much earlier intercept or the photon blast. Thus this is not a kiloton range explosion.

    Me: Timecrash: Voyager impacts the surface with a KE event of 200 tons, and yet it receives considerably more damage than what you usually see several photon torpedoes or phaser beams do to a ship.

    Saquist: The ship weighs more than 200 tons traveling several times it's own length per second...It's a miracle of engineering the ship was intact at all.

    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about if you actually tried to argue that the KE is the same as the mass. Despite this, you somehow think you have the right to question what Mike Wong says?
    Firstly: If I'm wrong, I don't have a problem with it. I don't know everything and I'm not a physic major. I'm not familar with equating the Kinetic Energy of a moving object in terms of mass but rather in speed.

    What I do know is t that the estimate of the impact is irrelevant because the vessel itself DOES NOT EXPEND ALL IT"S ENERGY INTO THE SURFACE LIKE ANY IMPACT SHOULD. The vessel keeps going with no signs of deceleration. The individual you brought in from the other forum DID NOT object.

    None of this has anything to do with contradictory statements against my showing evidence.
    Red Herring

    Yes I was.
    I don't believe you. You haven't afforded yourself to being trust worthy.
    Return from Grace doesn't support your position, anyway.
    Sure it does. It show the destruction of an Asteroid just as the other examples do.

    No it doesn't. You are just another imbecile who takes the explosion over the duration. You don't understand that a gigaton explosion MUST have a persistent fireball, and just acknowledge the "UBER FIREBALL". The Tsar Bomb could be seen for half a minute from orbit, but I guess it's weaker, right?
    Ad hominem:
    The Uber fire ball is all that matters. It's CGI, not a scientific documentary. Your expectations are illogical and unreasonable. No one is going to properly show what you expect to see, nor are they expected to.

    First, you're a twat. Second, I never claimed it was one kiloton, I claimed it was a kiloton event. Learn to read buddy, given that you're hopeless when doing the math yourself, you'll need someone more capable than you to do the work for you.
    Ad hominem:
    My mistake. I have confirmed your previous statement.

    An artificial CME. No significant difference. It WAS created by the star, therefor it is an ejection, you inbred.
    Ad hominem:
    Baseless speculation
    The difference would be one is Fusion induced.
    Unless fusion occurs on the surface of a sun regularly this statement is fallacious.

    I love how this is coming from you. NONE of your claims have any actual evidence, and instead you claim it MUST have had this or that. Fuck. Off. You moronic little prat.
    Ad hominem:
    Appeal to Emotions
    Tantrums do not, an articulate argument, make.

    Ditto.
    One word retorts, do not, an articulate argument, make.

    The irony is that this is coming from of all people. You don't know even an iota of what you're talking about, and yet you somehow think you can tell me I'm clueless on this subjet?
    Your post was immensely incoherent.
    You didn't articulate your thoughts properly and you didn't address the content of the reply directed toward you. Given the chance to explain yourself further you chose be evasive. Your frustrations is becoming extremely self apparent.

    Not proof, but I'm not surprised that this is coming from you. Let me repeat myself so maybe your thick skull might figure it out.
    In the absence of proof logic is perfectly acceptable and admissible.

    An unshielded effortlessly tanked a large asteroid traveling at a fast velocity.
    We do not know the vessel was unshielded. This is claim that you have not proven.

    First, logic is not proof, second, the logic is on my side. In canon, a vessel's shields can tank a similar vessel's weapons for half an hour, and without its shields, it goes down in seconds. Hopefully this also gets through your thick skull.
    Again. In the absence of Direct Proof, Logic is a proper and admissible.
    Just because canon shows one thing doesn't mean we ignore the events that contradict it. I can't simply assume SD weapons are strong that the asteroid impacts they received. That's bias that I'm not prone to but apparently you are.

    I don't have to. That's a negative claim to your positive. Doubtless you can't debate for shit and make such fallacies, while crying that I'm mean to you. You're full of shit, and so are you "arguments".
    Ad hominem:
    You made the claim that the shields were down. You have to prove it.
    Logic properly assumes the shields are up.
    You have to prove against logic that your claim is valid.
    ..And Ricery...I know have to do this. Don't bust a nut...

    Except we know in canon that the shields could tank orders of magnitudes more firepower than the shields could. Logical deduction is nowhere in your posts and their claims.
    Logical deduction requires to isolate each occurence independent from the others. That's what a proper determination is. You can not assume greater firepower just because you found it in other examples...It's not scientific, it's not a proper scientific baseline and it's not a proper scientific conclusion. It's bias and nothing else. You want me to join you in your bias but I will treat each situation as it's own isolated event.

    The TESB novelization? G-Canon? Fuck off.

    Irrelevant:
    Tantrum dismissed
    A Unintelligent and inarticulate expletives is not a link quote, source or reference.

    You are asking for proof for a negative claim to your positive.
    Did you read what you quoted?
    I'm not seeing any request for proof in that quote.
    You're becoming...erratic.

    Oh, and you're any better? We must, WE MUST ASSUME. Can it, you pillock, as you don't know how debating works. Logic isn't a substitute for a positive claim. You made that claim, you must back it up. If you can't, you haven't proved anything.
    Ad hominem:
    For one I don't use insults as a crutch. I believe in my arrangements and I rely solely uppon them. You rather that speaking intelligently resort to your insults, put up little information and you don't understand what a claim is apparently.

    I've concluded that you're too much of a moron to debate with.
    Ad hominem:

    However, I am allowed to ignore you anyway
    I will accept that as a decline to conduct an combined effort to discover the complete average of Fire power for Star Trek and Star Wars. Considering your beligerence and tantrums I would say this has to because you're afraid of what the results would yield. But you got one thing right...you are allowed to ignore me. And if that's what makes you happy you may withdraw.
    Last edited by Saquist; 12-03-10 at 12:13 AM.

  2. #21862
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittamaru View Post
    No, it isn't a fucking CME... because if it were, it'd be HUGE, as you said.

    So, obviously, it's some technobabble-created discharge... of what, who knows. The point is, the turned the power of a star against a ship. Beyond that, we don't really know WHAT it was.

    Stop trying to be so literal in order to make Trek look bad - it doesn't work and just makes you sound like an idiot.

    At first I thought he was acting like TWScott but he's worse.
    He thinks these tantrums make him look credible.
    No proof
    No evidence
    Poor Logic
    But a heck of a lot raving. I hope he really is done with me because there was more profanity than there was intelligence in that post.

  3. #21863
    @ Ricery

    You assumed the Scimitar's shields were UP even though we know that there have been shield to shield impacts previous...
    That's a LOGICAL CONCLUSION. SYLLOGISM: The ship is in danger there for the Captain raises it's shields.

    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    and since the Scimitar was stated to have its shields at 70% before the ramming scene occurred, it would make more sense if they were up
    You agreed that the shields were up on the Scimitar.
    As did I...

    Suddenly you go reverse on your logic.
    You know it's illogical for Shinzon to lower his shield in battle.
    But you don't make the same conclusion for Star Wars Asteroid Impacts.

    ...You're biased and you using your poor understanding of formal debates to fend me off.
    Stop using your ego to fight and use your head.
    Stop contradicting yourself and be consistent.
    Last edited by Saquist; 12-03-10 at 12:17 AM.

  4. #21864
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittamaru View Post
    No, his GIF does not, but he actually mentions that later - the forward momentum of the ISD is not sufficient to move it that far in just a few frames. Continuing to watch the original scene you can clearly see that the bridge IS, in fact, gone.
    (speaking of distance moved: There's also artistic licence like you've said previously. Seeing a Klingon ship get off of a water surface, or seeing the "O'Neill" (Stargate SG-1) take off, to leave orbit, are obviously done at an accelerated rate. Because, for example, the "O'Neil" would take much much much longer to get off the surface of the Asgard planet than was originally shown.)

  5. #21865
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Shattering is not pulverizing.
    Really? I guess you haven't opened a dictionary. Or right, TW Scott's warped ideas is the alpha and omega for you

  6. #21866
    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse2001 View Post
    Really? I guess you haven't opened a dictionary. Or right, TW Scott's warped ideas is the alpha and omega for you
    shattering present participle of shat·ter (Verb)
    1. Break or cause to break suddenly and violently into pieces.
    pulverizingpresent participle of pul·ver·ize (Verb)
    1. Reduce to fine particles
    Breaking a rock into rocks fractions of its original size =/= reducing rock to millions of grain sized pieces.

  7. #21867
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    @ Ricery

    You assumed the Scimitar's shields were UP even though we know that there have been shield to shield impacts previous...
    That's a LOGICAL CONCLUSION. SYLLOGISM: The ship is in danger there for the Captain raises it's shields.
    No, we hear Data state that the shields are at 70%. That's a fact.

    You agreed that the shields were up on the Scimitar.
    As did I...

    Suddenly you go reverse on your logic.
    You know it's illogical for Shinzon to lower his shield in battle.
    But you don't make the same conclusion for Star Wars Asteroid Impacts.
    1) My claim is going off a canon statement.

    2) Yours an assumption based off nothing. It's even contradicted in the novelization.

    ...You're biased and you using your poor understanding of formal debates to fend me off.
    That would be you. You have no idea what you're talking about, but you keep on talking anyway.

    Stop using your ego to fight and use your head.
    Take your own advice.

    Stop contradicting yourself and be consistent.
    Lol.

  8. #21868
    OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Posts
    5,336
    although i do not believe this subject matter is worthy of any emotional stress..

    ricery

    you keep trying to validate your opinions at the expense of your reasonability..

    give in once in awhile, it would gain you better respect..(the subject matter isn't important enough to be so rigid.)

  9. #21869
    Quote Originally Posted by A Stupid Retard View Post
    Who is Vivftp?
    I have given my math in the sources 2 pages back for my analysis of the Q Who phaser strike which you ignored.
    Non-sequitur, dipshit.

    Visual canon.
    Uh huh, how about you actually show a video?

    Yes I am.
    Yes you are

    Your use of logic for defining pulverized puts the NASA objective at a disadvantage of necessity. As in, it's not necessary to actually pulverize the 1 mile asteroid to save the Earth. It's an unrealistic objective for primitive Earth abilities of our time and your logic for a kiloton detonation becomes forfeit. Please don't place your temper tantrums in place of logical syllogisms.
    I could care less what you think. Mike Wong's calculator is easily more legit than a prat who doesn't understand the formula for kinetic energy.

    A non sequitor: a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.
    Or a logical fallacy where a claim that doesn't follow what was said before is brought up.

    So since YOU CALLED THIS A KILOTON Explosion:
    Basic physics fail. You can't quantify an explosion in space. You can only quantify what it did.

    "it would take as little as 5 to 10 kilotons of energy to divert an asteroid."~http://dvice.com/archives/2010/06/asteroid-headed.php
    Oh what size, composition, momentum, initial velocity, final velocity, and mass?

    ~"If it's about 15 days away, it would take a 300-kiloton bomb to obliterate an asteroid about 1000 feet in diameter, with only a small percentage of the debris still reaching the earth, and probably burning up in the planet's atmosphere."~http://dvice.com/archives/2010/06/asteroid-headed.php
    Ditto what was said before. Define "obliterate", too.

    1000ft equals 304.8 meters.
    Which can be shattered by 28 kilotons if inert.

    This means of course that it was necessary to completely destroy the asteroid. At just seconds meaning a hundred to 200 miles above atmospheric interface they HAVE to have above a MEGATON to neutralize the Asteroid.
    Based off what? You saying so? How about you learn how to debate? Anyway, the Rise asteroid required 25 megatons to shatter, and that was with a 200 Isoton torpedo. How do you explain that?

    Thus the remains we see surrounding the Enterprise were not of sufficient size no matter how large they appear on screen. We could conclude that the remains we see are not from the last minute destruction but perhaps a much earlier intercept or the photon blast. Thus this is not a kiloton range explosion.
    No no, I don't listen to what you say. The dialog AND visuals support it was merely shattered.

    Firstly: If I'm wrong, I don't have a problem with it. I don't know everything and I'm not a physic major.
    And this is basic science and math.

    I'm not familar with equating the Kinetic Energy of a moving object in terms of mass but rather in speed.
    And how is that possible?

    What I do know is t that the estimate of the impact is irrelevant because the vessel itself DOES NOT EXPEND ALL IT"S ENERGY INTO THE SURFACE LIKE ANY IMPACT SHOULD. The vessel keeps going with no signs of deceleration. The individual you brought in from the other forum DID NOT object.
    Which means less energy was exerted into the Voyager. If it didn't decelerate, then it received a small fraction of the total KE of the instance. This means it took several GJ of energy, and yet it was still damaged.

    I don't believe you. You haven't afforded yourself to being trust worthy.
    And I don't listen to anything you say either.

    Sure it does. It show the destruction of an Asteroid just as the other examples do.
    Really, the size doesn't matter? I bet you don't know the difference in firepower in shattering a 1 meter asteroid and a 1 kilometer asteroid.

    Ad hominem:
    The Uber fire ball is all that matters. It's CGI, not a scientific documentary. Your expectations are illogical and unreasonable. No one is going to properly show what you expect to see, nor are they expected to.
    Have you ever heard of "suspension of disbelief"? I'm not surprised you are using this pathetic excuse. Can this be added to the top of each post you make?



    Please just stop posting altogether.

    We do not know the vessel was unshielded. This is claim that you have not proven.
    Yes we do.

    THE Avenger had spotted the Millennium Falcon the moment
    the freighter shot of the enormous asteroid.

    From that moment, the Imperial ship renewed its pursuit of
    the freighter with a blinding barrage of fire. Undaunted by the
    steady rain of asteroids on its massive hull, the Star Destroyer
    relentlessly followed the smaller ship.

    *Snip unimportant paragraph*

    Suddenly a gigantic asteroid appeared in the Millennium Fal-
    con's path, rushing toward the freighter at incredible speed. The
    ship quickly banked out of the way, and the asteroid hurtled past
    it, only to explode harmlessly against the Avenger's hull.

    The Star Wars Trilogy page 268 TESB Section
    Assuming it was only traveling at 1 km (it exploded), and was around 40 meters in diameter (not much larger than the MF), it hit it with 8 kilotons of energy. 8 kilotons harmlessly exploded off an unshielded vessel.

    Again. In the absence of Direct Proof, Logic is a proper and admissible.
    No it isn't. It is canonically confirmed that vessels can survives thousands of times with shields to what they couldn't without shields. The vessel didn't have shields up.

    Just because canon shows one thing doesn't mean we ignore the events that contradict it. I can't simply assume SD weapons are strong that the asteroid impacts they received. That's bias that I'm not prone to but apparently you are.


    Even vaporizing a 20 meter asteroid in the 8th of a second requires 1.9 megatons. How about you learn basic math, and get back to me?

    Ad hominem:
    You made the claim that the shields were down. You have to prove it.
    Shifting burden of proof. You claimed it was an example of shield durability. You prove it had shields up.

    Logic properly assumes the shields are up.
    It assumes the opposite.

    Ignoring you is better because you have already confirmed that you don't want to debate with canon, but with your opinion. Calling you an idiot and walking away is more logical.

  10. #21870
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    No, we hear Data state that the shields are at 70%. That's a fact.
    It doesn't mean he didn't lower the shields.
    Your senseless reasoning has a destroyer running a guantlet of deadly asteroids with no shields which would make a bout as much sense. So don't tell me, "No."


    1) My claim is going off a canon statement.
    Which there is no reference or source for...(No surprise)

    2) Yours an assumption based off nothing. It's even contradicted in the novelization.
    If logic is nothing to you then you can't be expected to hold a logical debate with me. I wouldn't expect you to be logical in your conclusions.


    That would be you. You have no idea what you're talking about, but you keep on talking anyway.
    I hope I'm not annoying you. You seemed to have ignored an entire post.
    Are you tiring. That's another bias. Like I said at the outset...anyone can win a argument just be closing their eyes and ears as you are...but it takes intelligence to debate and articulate.



    Take your own advice.
    I have. I avoided and dodged all your insults and ridicule. In fact I can tell you with confidence that I will never reduce myself to your standards of thinking, speaking and reasoning. I respect myself too much to jump into the mud with you.


    Lol.
    They say laughing helps the pain...

  11. #21871
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Ignoring you is better because you have already confirmed that you don't want to debate with canon, but with your opinion. Calling you an idiot and walking away is more logical.
    Then ignore me.
    You wouldn't know logic if you had created it yourself...

  12. #21872
    Quote Originally Posted by NMSquirrel View Post
    although i do not believe this subject matter is worthy of any emotional stress..
    It really isn't.

    ricery

    you keep trying to validate your opinions at the expense of your reasonability..

    give in once in awhile, it would gain you better respect..(the subject matter isn't important enough to be so rigid.)
    It's his religion.

  13. #21873
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    It doesn't mean he didn't lower the shields.
    Your senseless reasoning has a destroyer running a guantlet of deadly asteroids with no shields which would make a bout as much sense. So don't tell me, "No."
    Except they don't state that the shields down. Next, they ram them a minute later. The ISDs were canonically tanking large asteroid while unshielded.

    Which there is no reference or source for...(No surprise)
    Lol, is that why Data says that the shields were still up and almost full?

    If logic is nothing to you then you can't be expected to hold a logical debate with me. I wouldn't expect you to be logical in your conclusions.
    Logic is not proof. I will take evidence over logic any day.

    but it takes intelligence to debate and articulate.
    Which is something you don't have.

    On a serious note, you ignore entire physics just so you win. You are not a debater. You're a mentally challenged little child who is told that they're special, and you thus you force yourself to believe this and argue for your side even if your "logic" is flawed. I mean, you're arguing for this side, so it clearly must be right, right?

    I have. I avoided and dodged all your insults and ridicule. In fact I can tell you with confidence that I will never reduce myself to your standards of thinking, speaking and reasoning. I respect myself too much to jump into the mud with you.
    I wouldn't expect you to be able to debate at all. All of your arguments are style over substance anyway.

  14. #21874
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    Then ignore me.
    You wouldn't know logic if you had created it yourself...
    Remember kids, you must always ignore physics and instead choose author's intent. Fuck suspension of disbelief too, as it has no room in the debating world. /Saquist, erm /sarcasm

  15. #21875
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Breaking a rock into rocks fractions of its original size =/= reducing rock to millions of grain sized pieces.
    oh right I forgot...you think metal is like glass, no wonder you said --->
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Shattering is not pulverizing.

    And again, you ignore your own stupid mistakes by applying a contextomy fallacy. Proof that you pretend to forget what you said to Saquist.
    Nice try. Believe me, I'll stay true to what I said in that past post.

  16. #21876
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    Christ, Kittamaru, how can take this imbecile's "analysis'" as even remotely viable?
    ....
    Conclusion: Saquist is insane
    ....
    Non-sequitur, dipshit.
    ....
    I could care less what you think. Mike Wong's calculator is easily more legit than a prat who doesn't understand the formula for kinetic energy.
    ....
    Calling you an idiot and walking away is more logical.
    = yet another 7 day ban from sciforums.

    ricrery only got off this lightly due to some previous infraction points expiring. Next ban will be 14 days.

  17. #21877
    Quote Originally Posted by ricrery View Post
    First: Logic is not proof. I will take evidence over logic any day.

    Second: Which is something you don't have.

    Third: I wouldn't expect you to be able to debate at all. All of your arguments are style over substance anyway.
    more persoanl attacks and insults
    the first one: you have never accepted either. Hundreds of pages, here, prove that.
    the second one: you ridicule Saquist, even though it's obviously something YOU never had. But that's nothing new. You've always been in denial; we've provided posts of yours that proves that very FACT.
    the third one: again, more denial. He's done it; you have not.
    Last edited by Apocalypse2001; 12-03-10 at 09:14 PM. Reason: extended sentence

  18. #21878
    OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Posts
    5,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse2001 View Post
    more persoanl attacks and insults
    the first one: you have never accepted either. Hundreds of pages, here, prove that.
    the second one: you ridicule Saquist, even though it's obviously something YOU never had. But that's nothing new. You've always been in denial.
    the third one: again, more denial. He's done it; you have not.
    um..first yur talking to a banned person...

    second quit calling the kettle black..

  19. #21879
    Quote Originally Posted by NMSquirrel View Post
    um..first yur talking to a banned person...

    second quit calling the kettle black..
    1) I posted that before James put a post about the ban.
    2) you're one to talk. The person I've attacked constantly is ricerony. And with you it was briefly when we first talked to each other. If you don't want that to start again. Don't get me started. Or else if you DO start that again, it'll be your own damn fault.
    EDIT: notice how I've never attacked, like ricerony has, Saquist, Kittamaru, IlithiDragon, etc... because I know when to accept a sound argument from people like them instead of making stupid little illogical comments like a 6 year old about, 'having fun' or, 'ruining a thread', or what have you . . .

  20. #21880
    Wow...Banned....


    Correct me if I'm wrong but did Ricery just say, "I will take evidence over logic any day."?

    No wonder I couldn't reason with him.

Similar Threads

  1. By Fettman in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 10-18-11, 02:02 PM
    Replies: 33
  2. By USS Athens in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 03-16-10, 04:47 PM
    Replies: 291
  3. By superstring01 in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 03-11-10, 01:57 PM
    Replies: 60
  4. By Orleander in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 07-11-09, 08:33 PM
    Replies: 27
  5. By Asguard in forum Computer Science & Culture
    Last Post: 09-13-08, 02:15 AM
    Replies: 0

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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