"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F6FC1B5.3CE31525@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
> > <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using
the
> > >first nuclear bomb.
> >
> > Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
> > Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
>
> For that matter the fire raids in Tokyo destroyed more property and
> killed more people than the nuclear attacks.
>
> However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> magnitude of what they did.
>
> Ed

How so? I'm curious to hear the argument for it being a mistake. Where
might we be today had those 2 bombs not been dropped?


 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
>
> > >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> > >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> > >magnitude of what they did.
> >
> > They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>
> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
> We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
> the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
> assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
> Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
> Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
> we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
> I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
> of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
> course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
> decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
> started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
> ended it.
>
> Ed

Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
sue for peace many times towards the end. The problem with less than 100%
victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.

I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
to that point.


 
In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:

> I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
> wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
> to that point.

No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
a walk in the park.



 
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:01:56 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <bpqk2t02hk6@enews1.newsguy.com>, Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>> if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>> large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track.
>
>No, they wouldn't. There is too much money in the status-quo and US
>government is about money. I wish the primary goal was telling the oil
>producing countries to stick it up their behind because the US doesn't
>need oil imports any more, but that doesn't make the forces that be money.
>
>Of course, if corporations were long sighted instead of short sighted
>they would make themselves the dominate forces in the new technologies
>having the captial to do the development.
>
>In other words, if stupidity wasn't the most powerful force on the planet
>you'd be right and that's the way it should be done.
>
>> Radical environmentalists
>> have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>> technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>> answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>> space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>
>Yes, no energy generation is clean and pretty enough, also keeping us
>with the status quo.
>
>> Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient,
>
>Wind is efficient. As efficient or more than any other means of turning
>a generator. The question with wind is having it there to turn the
>generator. But with correct deployment of turbines this could be
>overcome.
>
>
Yet the problem remains that wind is a form of energy.
If we take that energy out of the ecosystem, and convert it to heat
(the end result of the whole process), we are making changes to the
system.
yet the ecos say we aren't allowed to change the system.
This works for solar, too; we take sunlight (that heats the desert)
and transport it elecrtically to other places, and we've screwed with
the environment.
Uh-oh, I think I'm going nuts here...

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:55:15 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <ura1svkpd7mrucq1ca84p1b64iet1pisj2@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being used to
>> develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>> these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away.
>
>Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
>to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
>is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
>(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
>that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
>estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
>
>That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
>profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
>1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
>performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.

The problem with electric cars is that the present infrastructure
can't handle it.
Can you imagine commuters in, say, LA coming home & plugging their
cars in to recharge?
Even using load leveling, the generating capacity just isn't there,
and even if it were, can you imaging the jump in electricity prices?
The number of industrial plants that operate now at night to use the
'surplus' electricity wouldn't be able to operate.
Yet, I see no one bringing this up. The cost to switch to electric
cars will be enormous.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:56:11 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Matt Osborn wrote:
>>
>> > >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
>> > >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
>> > >magnitude of what they did.
>> >
>> > They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>>
>> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
>> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
>> We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
>> the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
>> assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
>> Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
>> Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
>> we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
>> I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
>> of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
>> course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
>> decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
>> started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
>> ended it.
>>
>> Ed
>
>Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
>the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
>sue for peace many times towards the end.

There is no evidence to support this.
The state records of Japan show the opposite; the government was very
opposed to surrender.
There were *some* Japanese officials who wanted to end the war (just
like in *any* government of the time [and the present, too]), but
that's not "the Japanese."
>The problem with less than 100%
>victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
>first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
>100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.
>
>I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
>just go home.

The Japanese government wasn't so sure about that.
I'm not guessing here; the documents exist. The Japanese documents.
>It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
>wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
>to that point.
>
Exactly; the Bomb convinced the Japanese government that they could
not win.
Until the Bombs were dropped, the government of Japan had no such
conviction.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 


"David J. Allen" wrote:

> > However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> > mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> > magnitude of what they did.
> >
> > Ed
>
> How so? I'm curious to hear the argument for it being a mistake. Where
> might we be today had those 2 bombs not been dropped?

No way we can know.

Ed
 
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:33:05 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>It is hard to figure out what the wackos want. The only thing I am sure
>that will work is population control and a reduction in the total number
>of humans on the planet.

Have you thought this through? The Chinese use some fairly brutal
methods of birth control and they have had limited success.

Just think of what that world would be like. Who provides, who
divides, who's the king?

Use the resources to expand our civilization into the rest of the
universe. The 16th century Europeans faced a similarly discouraging
trip into a forbidding wilderness, yet it brought the greatest bounty
civilization has ever seen.
 


Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> > just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
> > wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
> > to that point.
>
> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
> a walk in the park.

This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
books. I am not at all sure it is true. Of course there is no way to
what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
demonstration on an uninhabited island. No doubt the destruction at
Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
raids and incendiary raids.

Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?

As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
achieved the same results.

Personally I am glad the war ended when it did. My Father was stationed
on a picket destroyer that would have been involved in the invasion.

Ed
 


Matt Osborn wrote:

> Use the resources to expand our civilization into the rest of the
> universe. The 16th century Europeans faced a similarly discouraging
> trip into a forbidding wilderness, yet it brought the greatest bounty
> civilization has ever seen.

I'm game. Warm up the warp drive.

I suspect the Incas, Myans, Cherokees, etc., might not be as
appreciative of the expansion of Western Civilization as you are. Also,
despite the people who left Europe to come to America, I don't think the
population of Europe decreased as a result.

Ed
 
In article <3F70FF3F.168B95B8@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
>> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
>> a walk in the park.

> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true

See the 'The rising Sun" by John Toland(sp?) he goes over the attempt
to overthrow the emperor and fight on.

>. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island.

How do you do this when you have *TWO* bombs if doesn't work?

> No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids.

Exactly, conventional bombing by hundreds of B29s had the same effect.
The idea was to make it appear as if B29s would be droping atom bombs
by the 100s.

> Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
> Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
> do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?

If any of German Uranium oxide made it through, San francesco would have
been hit by a dirty bomb.

> As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
> Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
> overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
> conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
> there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
> American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
> position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
> This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
> the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
> achieved the same results.

I've been over this subject many times and have read articles saying
the bombs did not have to be dropped. But using the information those
authors use, it still comes out on the side of using the Abomb. Generally
all one needs to do is add up the estimations of japanese dead. Even
low invasion predictions are higher than the high A-bomb estimates.

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LVbwb.289013$Fm2.302454@attbi_s04...
> In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> > just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been
the
> > wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had
done up
> > to that point.
>
> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
> a walk in the park.
>

I agree. I don't think there was any doubt on either side of where they
were headed. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a fight and
the US were not going to settle for anything but total victory. What I
meant to suggest was had there been any flexibility or weakness on the side
of the US, I think the Japanese might have been happy to end the war.
That's speculative, of course. The only way it could have happened might
have been if Japan had been first to develop operational nukes... or there
was some disaster preventing the US from waging war... or the "peace
movement" from the 60's transported back in time and infected the population
with Limp Wrist disease :)


 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F70FF3F.168B95B8@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
> >
> > In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and
everyone
> > > just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been
the
> > > wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had
done up
> > > to that point.
> >
> > No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the
home
> > islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look
like
> > a walk in the park.
>
> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island. No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids

Because of the utter destruction caused by the bombs, one is tempted to
suggest the demonstration on an uninhabited island might achieve the same
result. Perhaps that would have worked had we had more bombs and more
confidence they would work. Nuclear deterrence certainly worked during the
cold war and it still works (except in the world of terrorism). I don't
they had that luxury though. Two bombs and a hope they would work were what
they had. War had to be waged in the most forceful way possible. A waving
fist in the air earns less respect that a bloody nose.


 
In article <b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.com>,
gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>...
>> >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>> worse than
>> >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
case
>> is being
>> >>>> >dramatically overstated.
>
>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>cities as the ocean rises.
>

Interestingly, 2 of the companies that are the biggest producers of fossil
fuels -- BP and Shell -- agree global warming is occurring and that action
needs to be taken on it now, not later.

 
In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.com...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>> > >
>> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>> >
>> > No we don't!
>> >
>> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
>concentration
>> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does
>not prove
>> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>anything. The
>> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking
>at one
>> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
>> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
>don't even
>> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few
>years.
>> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
>infere
>> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The
>errors
>> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they
>are
>> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then
>groomed the
>> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
>treated as a
>> > loon.
>>
>> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
>> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
>> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
>> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
>> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
>> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
>> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> operation?
>> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
>> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>
>I believe they are wrong.

And your data is where?


>They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
>far more likely cause.

No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current warming.


> WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
>temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating (think
>seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force behind
>global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>
>
 
In article <3F70ADE8.6EF6454F@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
>> who screw up, not the technology).
>> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>
>
>It is hard to figure out what the wackos want. The only thing I am sure
>that will work is population control and a reduction in the total number
>of humans on the planet.
>
>I have no respect for most of the high profile environmentalist. They
>preach conservation while flying around in private jets and riding to
>events in limos. It often seems that they feel everyone else needs to
>conserve. I'd love to match up the Sierra Club membership list with the
>vehicle registration lists to see how many Sierra Club members are
>driving SUVs.
>
>Ed
That would be interesting. Like how many Republicans have family members
who've had abortions, or are gay.
 
On Mon, 24 Nov 03 09:23:38 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.com>,
> gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
>news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>...
>>> >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
>>> worse than
>>> >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>case
>>> is being
>>> >>>> >dramatically overstated.
>>
>>I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
>>it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
>>billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
>>conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
>>fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
>>dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
>>cities as the ocean rises.
>>
>
>Interestingly, 2 of the companies that are the biggest producers of fossil
>fuels -- BP and Shell -- agree global warming is occurring and that action
>needs to be taken on it now, not later.

Very few say global warming isn't happening.
Very weak attempt at a strawman there, Lloyd.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
In 1963 the Thames and the Rhine froze over. These were exceptional events.
Did we have a mini Ice Age then?

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FBED5D7.547D1F7@greg.greg...
[......]
[.....]
> > >
> > >"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's
> > temperatures
> > >are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they
producing the
> > most
> > >extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the
environmentalists.
[......]
> > >
> > >They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300,
during
> > which
> > >the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm
up
> > again -
> > >but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
..............



 
Unfortunately my memory is patchy about WHO (not the UN WHO...) made the
claims, but I seem to remember scare stories in my student days (the
seventies) about global cooling, some emanating from quite respectable
sources.

I just had a quick look at the Club of Rome website archive, but it doesn't
seem to have been them.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpldff$njr$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
[..........]
> Lie. No group said that.


 
Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power, but
we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company that
was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because we
don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries (except
maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.

Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among others),
there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK nuclear
reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
components?

I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first opponents of
wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
nuclear power is not, either.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com...
[........]
> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> who screw up, not the technology).
> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
10K
Squonker
S
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
6K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
56K
Alibro
Alibro