|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
 Posted - 06/26/2006 : 16:43:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Trying to use simple mathematical models doesn't always work.
And the standard solar model is so complex that you don't understand its results or how to apply it.quote:
How does age factor into this?
Age is a constraining factor for our main-sequence solar model, so why should it not be for any model attempting to describe brown dwarf stars? You've been given the references detailing the formation of the standard solar model, did you not examine them?quote:
I simply noted that sometimes simple concepts can be misapplied to the real world.
Yes, like your attempts to criticize the model for a main-sequence G-type star using examples where the models for brown dwarf stars or planets have offered incorrect results. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 01:03:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And the standard solar model is so complex that you don't understand its results or how to apply it.
Not just me Dave. You can't and you personally won't apply it to RD images or Doppler images. You can't explain what heats the corona. I could barely even get you to agree that the coronal loops were hotter than the darker areas of the corona even though they're far more brightly lit in high energy wavelengths than anything else in the solar atmosphere. I'm not even sure we did agree to that aspect frankly even though the brightly lit coronal loops stick out like a sore thumb against the relatively cool backgound of the sun. You math formulas related to temperature and density don't come anywhere near explaining the heat source of the corona, but you're still sure they work for whatever reason.
quote:
Age is a constraining factor for our main-sequence solar model, so why should it not be for any model attempting to describe brown dwarf stars? You've been given the references detailing the formation of the standard solar model, did you not examine them?
How does this logic apply to brown dwarfs? There isn't even a consensus that Brown Dwarfs have necessarily ever experienced large scale (if any) hydrogen fusion. If they never got big enough to experience fusion, what does age have to do with anything?
quote:
Yes, like your attempts to criticize the model for a main-sequence G-type star using examples where the models for brown dwarf stars or planets have offered incorrect results.
When do you intend to explain how the density of the photosphere was actually "measured" Dave? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 07:04:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Not just me Dave. You can't and you personally won't apply it to RD images or Doppler images.
Why should I try to do the equivalent of driving a screw with a stapler, Michael? The standard solar models explain the gross characteristics of the Sun at this moment in time, not the details. Everybody understands this but you, it seems.quote:
You can't explain what heats the corona.
Neither can you, since the hypothesis you presented - simple resistance heating - fails as I demonstrated.quote:
I could barely even get you to agree that the coronal loops were hotter than the darker areas of the corona even though they're far more brightly lit in high energy wavelengths than anything else in the solar atmosphere. I'm not even sure we did agree to that aspect frankly even though the brightly lit coronal loops stick out like a sore thumb against the relatively cool backgound of the sun.
Yes, you're unsure, and so mischaracterizing what was discussed.quote:
You math formulas related to temperature and density don't come anywhere near explaining the heat source of the corona, but you're still sure they work for whatever reason.
They work for what they're intended to do, which is not to explain the heat of the corona. Why is it that you insist that a model must explain everything? Yours doesn't explain how the Sun is powered, instead leaving that as an open question, so it's rather difficult to see how you can justify your criticisms of the standard models on the same sort of point.
Just to be crystal-clear, you are criticizing the standard model for not being able to definitively answer all questions about the Sun. Your own alleged "model" fails to answer all questions about the Sun. Therefore, your "model" is at least as deficient as the standard solar models.quote:
How does this logic apply to brown dwarfs? There isn't even a consensus that Brown Dwarfs have necessarily ever experienced large scale (if any) hydrogen fusion. If they never got big enough to experience fusion, what does age have to do with anything?
Apparently, you now don't think that brown drawf stars change over time? What does hydrogen fusion have to do with it, Michael? Nothing at all, you're just in denial that any model for main-sequence stars will necessarily be different from a model used to describe brown drawves.quote:
When do you intend to explain how the density of the photosphere was actually "measured" Dave?
I never claimed that I could, Michael. When are you going to ask Kosovichev how he measured the density of the Sun from the photosphere down to the core? He's one of the many solar scientists who claim to have actually done so. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 12:59:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why should I try to do the equivalent of driving a screw with a stapler, Michael?
I asked you to explain a simple solar image using gas model theory. Rather than do that, you handed me a convoluted anology that has no application in our discussion?
quote:
The standard solar models explain the gross characteristics of the Sun at this moment in time, not the details.
Meaning it's totally useless when it comes to actually explaining any "real life" satellite observations.
quote:
Everybody understands this but you, it seems.
Oh, I "understand" this quite well Dave. Not one single individual in cyberspace has ever stepped up to the plate to explain even the very first image on my website using the gas model theory. I understand this all too well. I understand it personally too, because I could never make heads of tails of these images using gas model theory. However, once I grasped the fact that I was looking at an electrically active surface, suddenly everything started to make sense, and I could explain pretty much every image I'd seen for the last 15 years. I know from personal experience how useless the gas model theory is when it comes to explaining satellite observations.
quote:
Neither can you, since the hypothesis you presented - simple resistance heating - fails as I demonstrated.
Oh boloney. You pulled the resistance and current flow numbers out of thin air.
quote:
Yes, you're unsure, and so mischaracterizing what was discussed.
So spit it out Dave. Are the loops hotter than the corona, or is the coronal hotter than the loops?
quote:
They work for what they're intended to do, which is not to explain the heat of the corona.
You mean the moment we even "attempt" to use this nifty little modeling technique to take us beyond the surface of the photopshere, it utterly falls apart. Still however, you seem to think that these math forumulas are still accurate and relevant as it relates to describing the conditions *under* the photosphere? Why?
quote:
Why is it that you insist that a model must explain everything?
Holy cow Dave! You expect me to explain every little detail of my model!
quote:
Yours doesn't explain how the Sun is powered, instead leaving that as an open question, so it's rather difficult to see how you can justify your criticisms of the standard models on the same sort of point.
A Birkeland model includes several energy alternatives and leaves room for a lot more than a single energy source Dave. It would be nice if it was as neat and "tidy", and as "simplified" as gas model theory, but then I don't have the problem of explaining why my proposed single energy source which should theoretically only release one kind of neutrino is actually spewing three different kinds of them. Somehow however you have faith in the "single power source" proposed by gas model theory. Go figure.
quote:
Just to be crystal-clear, you are criticizing the standard model for not being able to definitively answer all questions about the Sun.
No, I'm criticizing it for not being able to definitively answer *any* important questions related to solar satellite images. It can't explain the heat source of the corona. It can't explain why the coronal loops light up. It can't explain or predict a CME. It can't explain the 11 year solar cycle. It can hardly explain anything, or predict anything. Everthing seems pieced together in hodge podge fashion, particularly as it relates to interpreting solar satellite images.
quote:
Your own alleged "model" fails to answer all questions about the Sun. Therefore, your "model" is at least as deficient as the standard solar models.
Fine, but then it's equally worthy of consideration. We should not be stuffing a single miopic viewpoint down every student's throat.
quote:
Apparently, you now don't think that brown drawf stars change over time?
No. I asked you to explain what age has to do with it, and what age difference there would need to be to explain these temperature anomolies.
quote:
What does hydrogen fusion have to do with it, Michael? Nothing at all, you're just in denial that any model for main-sequence stars will necessarily be different from a model used to describe brown drawves.
I'm not in denial of this Dave. I'm simply noting that all these fancy smancy "theories" haven't jived all that well with "observation". If anything a star is more complex and more difficult to model accurately than a brown dwarf.
quote:
I never claimed that I could, Michael. When are you going to ask Kosovichev how he measured the density of the Sun from the photosphere down to the core? He's one of the many solar scientists who claim to have actually done so.
I read the same papers as you did Dave. I didn't get any sense of him claiming that he had "measured" the density in absolute terms, nor has he expressed the belief that he has directly measured the absolute density of the photosphere in absolute terms in any of many emails we've exchanged over the past year.
*You personally* made this claim about Kosovichev (and others) determining the density of the sun in absolute terms, not Kosovichev. You however have never bothered to |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/27/2006 13:00:03 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 22:11:50 [Permalink]
|
Lockheed Martin Develops New Imaging Technology For Space Telescopes 999
You have to admire and respect the engineering that goes into this kind of a imaging system. These are truly "breakthrough" teachnologies that will allow us to look at the sun in real time on multiple wavelengths. This kind of technology just makes my mouth water. I can't wait for these sorts of imaging technologies to come online inside the next generation of solar satellites. Way cool!
[Link edited by DR. Mabuse for layout purposes] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/28/2006 14:38:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 09:58:10 [Permalink]
|
Okay, Michael:The reference solar model chosen for this inversion is described in [12]. This model used the OPAL equation of state and opacities [64,65]. Nuclear reaction parameters were obtained from [6]. Helium and heavy-element settling was included, using the Michaud and Proffitt coefficients [62]. The present value of the ratio of the heavy element abundance to the hydrogen abundance on the solar surface is 0.0245, while the age of the present Sun was assumed to be 4.6 Gyr.
- Inversion methods in helioseismology and solar tomography We go look up reference 12, and find:J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, W. Däppen, S.V. Ajukov, E.R. Anderson, H.M. Antia, S. Basu, V.A. Baturin, G. Berthomieu, B. Chaboyer, S. M. Chitre, A.N. Cox, P. Demarque, J. Donatowicz, W. A. Dziembowski, M. Gabriel, D.O. Gough, D.B. Guenther, J.A. Guzik, J.W. Harvey, F. Hill, G. Houdek, C.A. Iglesias, A.G. Kosovichev, J.W. Leibacher, P. Morel, C.R. Proffitt, J. Provost, J. Reiter, E.J. Rhodes Jr., F.J. Rogers, I.W. Roxburgh, M.J. Thompson, R.K. Ulrich, The current state of solar modeling, Science 272 (1996) 1286-1292. The full abstract of that paper can be found here, and very helpfully, Christensen-Dalsgaard actually presents the model, called "Model S," on his own website. Included is a limited set of variables for Model S, in which one will find density (rho) listed as being in grams-per-centimeter-cubed, as absolute values, and not as relative values to the density at r/R=1.
Now, scanning through "Inversion methods in helioseismology and solar tomography," I also fail to find any mention of the density values being relative to the photosphere. Kosovichev compares the density figures from the Sun to the values generated by Model S (figure 6). Were Kosovichev using relative values, he would have to first take the extra step of converting all of the Model S values from absolute densities to relative densities. Nowhere in the paper is any such translation described, and nowhere in the paper is any mention of density being a "relative" value described, even though when he does offer ratios in the paper, he makes it clear, every time. Kosovichev never uses the word "photosphere" in the paper, and only uses the word "surface" 15 times by page 18 (on which figure 6 resides). He doesn't talk about anything "relative" to the surface until he's deep in a discussion of using inversions to measure subsurface solar rotation.
And so, your contention that Kosovichev - or anyone else - uses density numbers relative to the photosphere is based upon the idea that these researchers go through extra work, but don't talk about it. Can you offer any positive support for your claims, Michael, or will you simply continue to insist that there's no evidence that they didn't do that extra work?
Besides which, as was already shown, there can be no difference in the implications of relative density figures versus absolute density figures. If the photosphere were even 1% more dense than the solar models claim, and the relative density figures were accurate, then the entire measured mass of the Sun would be off by 1% also. Since none of the objections you've offered to our ability to accurately measure the mass of the Sun can account for a difference even as large as 1% (and your model requires much more than that for a solid surface to exist), you'll have to come up with some other objection that can be quantified, or accept the mass of the Sun (and thus its density), remain in denial, and/or claim that Kosovichev's (and others') measurements of density (either absolute or relative) below 0.985Rsun are fiction.
Which will it be, Michael?
Oh, I think it's also very important to note that Model S "includes settling of helium and heavy elements." Given the massive (and fast) plasma flows within the Sun (one tiny subset of which you point to as evidence for your model, Michael, in spite the rest of them), that sort of statement is as close as you'll ever get to a mainstream solar scientist agreeing that there should be "mass separation" in the Sun. And this statement about a popular solar model utterly refutes your contention that solar models "only work" if they assume no mass separation at all.
As to the models themselves, you want them to explain satellite imagery, but they don't. Too bad for you. You claim that they're "worthless" because they can't explain the imagery, but that can only be true if the models were ever meant to explain the imagery. They never were. They explain only the relationships between mass, age, luminosity, radius, temperature, density, pressure, opacity, energy generation rate, internal abundance of elements, convection, overshooting, neutrino generation and diffusion. So it's no surprise that nobody can explain to you a satellite image using a standard solar model, that's like "explain this photo of a Rolling Stones concert using nothing but Mendellian inheritance." Hence, my tool analogy, about trying to accomplish the task you've defined using a completely inappropriate tool. In your line of work, Michael, it'd be like demanding that your custodial staff be able to debug your software.
I'm sure this won't stop you from making your wholly unreasonable demands.
And speaking of unreasonable... yes, I pulled resistance, current and size numbers out of thin air to try to model your resistive heating hypothesis because you refused to offer any such numbers on your own. I'd be more than happy to run the equations again, using numbers of your choosing, if you'd bother to just choose some. As soon as you do, then we can test your model and see if it even gets us close to the ballpark. Until then, your entire model has a big untestable hole in it. Because unlike the standard solar models, you've actually claimed that your model can explain coronal heating. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 19:27:40 [Permalink]
|
By the way, since this data effectively defines 2,402 "shells" within the Sun between 0.0Rsun and 1.0Rsun, each with a radius and a density associated with it, I decided to double-check Christensen-Dalsgaard's (et al) figures.
For each density figure in the list, I defined a "shell" to be the volume around the associated radius value, by taking the arthimetic mean between that radius and the next smaller one to be the lower boundary for the "shell," and the arthimetic mean between that radius and the next larger one to be the upper boundary. With those two radius values, I calculated a volume for the "shell" based on 1.0Rsun being 696,000 km (or 69,600,000,000 cm), multiplied that volume by the density as listed for Model S, and added the "shell's" mass to a running total which started at 0.
Of course, this method presented a slight problem for shell 1, which doesn't have a next-smaller shell (and so its lower boundary was defined as 0.0 km), and also for shell 2,402, which doesn't have a next-larger shell (and so its upper boundary was defined as 696,000 km). Surprisingly, in both cases, the volume of the respective "shells" was within an order of magnitude of their neighbors.
To put all this into example numbers:Shell 1:
Rmin = 0.0 km
Rmax = 484.1028 km
Vol = 4.75E+23 cm^3
Dens = 153.88936 g/cm^3
Mass = 7.313E+22 kg
Shell 2:
Rmin = 484.1028 km
Rmax = 974.7132 km
Vol = 3.40E+24 cm^3
Dens = 153.86501 g/cm^3
Mass = 5.24E+23 kg
Shell 3:
Rmin = 974.7132 km
Rmax = 987.8328 km
Vol = 1.59E+23 cm^3
Dens = 153.86447 g/cm^3
Mass = 2.44E+22 kg
...
Shell 2,400:
Rmin = 695,993.980 km
Rmax = 695,996.381 km
Vol = 1.46E+28 cm^3
Dens = 0.0000002052 g/cm^3
Mass = 3.00E+18 kg
Shell 2,401:
Rmin = 695,996.381 km
Rmax = 695,998.782 km
Vol = 1.46E+28 cm^3
Dens = 0.0000002025 g/cm^3
Mass = 2.96E+18 kg
Shell 2,402:
Rmin = 695,998.782 km
Rmax = 696,000.000 km
Vol = 7.41E+27 cm^3
Dens = 0.0000001998 g/cm^3
Mass = 1.48E+18 kg
And if you add up all the mass values for all 2,402 "shells," you get a total mass figure of 1.9891054×1030 kg.
Checking Wikipedia, we find a mass value of 1.9891×1030 kg. So at the very least, a very coarse reading of Model S (without doing the right thing, and actually integrating the equation of state it uses over all radii) and Wikipedia agree on the mass of the Sun to within one part in 10,000. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9692 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 22:36:21 [Permalink]
|
Wow...
You Rock, Dave! |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 05:56:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Wow...
You Rock, Dave!
It should go without saying that I wrote a little software to read in all the input values and do all those calculations. The only real effort was in getting the results to look nice, and I did that by hand for posting them here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 11:00:56 [Permalink]
|
When it comes to the field of heliosiesmology, I agree, you do rock Dave. I appreciate your grasp of heliosiesmology.
Since we've been distracted with BB theory, and I've been working on programming projects I haven't yet read through the Model S links thuroughly.
Before we even get into Kosovichev's work, I have a couple of basic questions about the Mode1 S you're using and specifically the "density" numbers you listed for the inner and outer shells. How were the numbers for these two shell densities derived?
Shell 1:
Rmin = 0.0 km
Rmax = 484.1028 km
Vol = 4.75E+23 cm^3
Dens = 153.88936 g/cm^3
Mass = 7.313E+22 kg Dens = 153.88936 g/cm^3
Mass = 7.313E+22 kg
Shell 2,402:
Rmin = 695,998.782 km
Rmax = 696,000.000 km
Vol = 7.41E+27 cm^3
Dens = 0.0000001998 g/cm^3
Mass = 1.48E+18 kg
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/30/2006 11:02:44 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 11:07:09 [Permalink]
|
One very important question that you've never given me a straight answer on is this one:
Generally speaking, are the coronal loops hotter or cooler than the corona? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/30/2006 11:07:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 12:43:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Before we even get into Kosovichev's work, I have a couple of basic questions about the Mode1 S you're using...
Christensen-Dalsgaard's Model S is the one that Kosovichev compared his density measurements against. I had no choice but reference it to answer your question. For my own curiousity, I decided to check Model S against Wikipedia. Let's not get sidetracked away from the claim you made about Kosovichev using "relative" densities.quote:
How were the numbers for these two shell densities derived?
They are part of the predictions of Model S, specifically taken from the linked table from the line where r/R equals 0.0 (for shell 1) and from the line where r/R equals 1.0 (for shell 2,402). All the other density values came from the same source, from the appropriate data lines. They are the results of the equation of state of Model S. The equation of state is probably close to rho=mu×P/RgT (the equation of state for ideal gasses, based on aging a fusion model through 4.6 billion years), but seeing as I don't have access to the Science paper, and can't locate that particular equation on Christensen-Dalsgaard's website, I can't be sure. But here are those particular data lines, unedited:# sound speed, etc for Model S (Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. 1996)
#
# r/R c (cm/sec) rho (g/cm^3) p (dyn/cm^2) Gamma_1 T (K)
#
1.0000000 7.8925512e+05 1.9979759e-07 7.6084760e+04 1.6357894 5.7775075e+03
0.0000000 5.0465569e+07 1.5388936e+02 2.3492475e+17 1.6682847 1.5668470e+07
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 17:39:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Christensen-Dalsgaard's Model S is the one that Kosovichev compared his density measurements against.
I understand that. My basic question about the Model S is whether these numbers were theoretical predictions or do you claim that these density numbers for the Model S were "direct measurements" as well?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 20:59:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I understand that. My basic question about the Model S is whether these numbers were theoretical predictions or do you claim that these density numbers for the Model S were "direct measurements" as well?
Do you really think I'm that much of an idiot, Michael? Good grief! Kosovichev's "basic claim" in the paper "Inversion methods in helioseismology and solar tomography" is that helioseismology has verified some of the predictions from Model S. It is that claim around which your whole Kosovichev-made-unsupportable-assumptions argument has revolved for umpty-ump months. What could have possibly changed my mind about the density predictions of the model - to the point where I would think that they were "measurements" - in all the time we've been discussing the helioseismology results, other than severe head trauma, Michael?
The basic facts are these: (A) using no data gleaned from helioseismology, Model S predicts certain density values for the Sun, from core to photosphere (and somewhat beyond). And (B) using no data from Model S, helioseismologists take measurements of the oscillations of the Sun's surface, and infer density values for the Sun, from core to photosphere. The inferred values from helioseismology match, to within 1 part in 50, the predicted values from the model. Because these two independent inferences converge on close to the same value, we can further infer that these sciences are on the right track. Especially since that particular experiment has been repeated and verified by independent researchers.
I predict that you will object to those last inferences on the basis that since both methods "assumed" a big ball of gas, and so made their inferences based upon the same sorts of gas behaviours, they can both be drastically wrong yet still provide the same numbers. Such an objection would assume that a big solid shell of unknown material with some layers of plasma around it and who-knows-what inside it would behave, seismically, in the same fashion that a big ball of gas would. If such an assumption is not made, then there's no reason to think that helioseismology would find nearly the same answers as the model (for at least four parameters, not just density) if the Sun did contain a solid shell. Of course, were you to make such an objection, you'll still have to explain why both sets of density figures match well with the Sun's measured mass based upon the orbits of the planets, because that method doesn't assume anything about the Sun's structure.
Besides which, since your solid-shell model doesn't make any density predictions at all (or at least, you refuse to do so), it cannot even claim to be "better" than Model S when it comes to answering the question, "what is the density of the Sun at 0.75Rsun?" In fact, in regard to that particular question, your solid-shell model can't even claim to be better than "we don't know." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26025 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 21:05:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I understand that. My basic question about the Model S is whether these numbers were theoretical predictions or do you claim that these density numbers for the Model S were "direct measurements" as well?
By the way, did you happen to notice this?quote:
Originally posted by me
quote:
How were the numbers for these two shell densities derived?
They are part of the predictions of Model S...
So bravo, Michael! You managed to ask a question which so flustered me that I turned into an idiot and forgot that I'd already answered the question.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
