|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/14/2006 : 17:03:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I suspect however that under surface there is more plasma, and I would expect it to be affected in much the same way for exactly the same reasons.
So your model is separated plasma, non-homogenous crust, more separated plasma? The crust just floats in the middle of this layered plasma somehow?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 17:44:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I suspect however that under surface there is more plasma, and I would expect it to be affected in much the same way for exactly the same reasons.
So your model is separated plasma, non-homogenous crust, more separated plasma? The crust just floats in the middle of this layered plasma somehow?
Not only that, HH but this layer would have to have almost no density! Since we know the overall average density of the sun, and since we know its mass and volume (see here), then if we're going to allow for some massive iron surface (I think earlier Michael suggested that it was rather thick), and if we're going to allow for various layers of other elements such as silicone-- again, quite think and rather heavy when compared to hydrogen and helium-- then something's gotta give. And it seems almost certain that it has to be this "unkown" part inside the iron surface.
I'm not sure how this model would work in the real world, but one has to imagine that Michael has some answer! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 18:59:34 [Permalink]
|
| But Cune, it is Michael's contention that we don't know the mass of the Sun. Of course, he claims that the force of gravity is analogous to the centripetal force on a piece of string tied between two objects (one revolving around the other), thus mistaking weight for mass, but still he objects to the idea that we know the Sun's mass with any precision. Thus, with a near-infinite amount of potential mass, Michael doesn't have to posit a shell with "almost no density." He can assert that there's a really thick shell with a high density, and shift the burden of proof off to anyone who claims to know the mass of the Sun. After all, didn't you get his memo about how Newton was right and Einstein was wrong about gravity? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 19:24:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But Cune, it is Michael's contention that we don't know the mass of the Sun. Of course, he claims that the force of gravity is analogous to the centripetal force on a piece of string tied between two objects (one revolving around the other), thus mistaking weight for mass, but still he objects to the idea that we know the Sun's mass with any precision. Thus, with a near-infinite amount of potential mass, Michael doesn't have to posit a shell with "almost no density." He can assert that there's a really thick shell with a high density, and shift the burden of proof off to anyone who claims to know the mass of the Sun. After all, didn't you get his memo about how Newton was right and Einstein was wrong about gravity?
Ugh. I guess I missed this. So my knowledge of science is still rough in this sort of astronomy thing (though I'm learing lots looking up stuff for this thread!), but I thought that we can pretty easily figure this stuff out.
I mean, Newton (or someone) said lots of important things about gravity and mass, and some other important person applied those ideas to, like, the orbits of planets or some such, and everyone agreed that everything was as it should be, so we understand-- at least on some basic level-- mass (and gravity). Then there's volume. And we sort of know the volume of the sun, right? And if we know those, then can't we figure out average density?!?
And if so, then Mozina can start to say some pretty specific things about the sun. For instance, if its average density is X (OK, 1.408g/cm3), then we can play with the densities of things like iron or silicon, and try and figure out what's in the hollow part.
This is why I was trying to get Michaelo to clue me into his guesses for the amount of iron in the sun. Obviously, it's not 0.0037%, like the ill-informed mainstream scientists say. But with such numbers, we could start to arrive at some physical models for Mozina's sun. Actually, I'm sure he's got all these numbers already worked out and he's just holding back to generate excitement. We'll see, I guess... |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 08/14/2006 19:25:55 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 06:41:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Cuneiformist said:
Ugh. I guess I missed this. So my knowledge of science is still rough in this sort of astronomy thing (though I'm learing lots looking up stuff for this thread!), but I thought that we can pretty easily figure this stuff out.
Let me assure you that your knowledge of astronomy already far exceeds the esteemed Michael.
Michael maintains that we cannot know the mass of the sun because of the confounding affects, of (get this) 'dark energy' and 'dark mass', not to mention acceleration in the Z axis(?).
The truth is he cannot accept the obvious fact that the mass of the sun is easily obtained, just like he must dismiss the Big Bang. If the BB is valid his theory hypothesis conjecture on the sun is blown out of the water. Likewise, if we can actually determine the mass of the sun then his conjecture is once again destroyed. Basically he must ignore or rewrite many physical laws to make his silly ideas sound even semi-plausible.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 06:57:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Cuneiformist said:
Ugh. I guess I missed this. So my knowledge of science is still rough in this sort of astronomy thing (though I'm learing lots looking up stuff for this thread!), but I thought that we can pretty easily figure this stuff out.
Let me assure you that your knowledge of astronomy already far exceeds the esteemed Michael.
Michael maintains that we cannot know the mass of the sun because of the confounding affects, of (get this) 'dark energy' and 'dark mass', not to mention acceleration in the Z axis(?).
The truth is he cannot accept the obvious fact that the mass of the sun is easily obtained, just like he must dismiss the Big Bang. If the BB is valid his theory hypothesis conjecture on the sun is blown out of the water. Likewise, if we can actually determine the mass of the sun then his conjecture is once again destroyed. Basically he must ignore or rewrite many physical laws to make his silly ideas sound even semi-plausible.
I guess I need to go back and do some more reading on the past 8 threads! But seriously, the more I hear about this surface-of-the-sun thing, the more is sounds like ID. That is, the explanitory power of the theory is devoted largely to explaining how the prevailing theory cannot be right more than explaining the real world in any reasonable way. Besides "solving" the "mystery" of the images posted on his website, can positing an iron surface of the sun explain anything? It doesn't sound like it. Moreover, like ID, with this theory, we have to abandon more or less everything and condemn it to the realm of the unknown. Mass of the sun? Don't know. Iron in the universe? Don't know. Gravity? Don't know. Evolution of the universe? Don't know.
When a theory results in "explaining" one bit of minutia at the expense of tossing out myriad important known things, the odds are that the theory is wrong. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 09:19:29 [Permalink]
|
| Cat got your tongue Geemack? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 10:03:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
There you go Geemack. Now all the world can see that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, unless of course you can find that line of code that produces consistent patterns in RD images in that subroutine you posted earlier. Good luck.
Of course I never once suggested that some particular line of code produces the effects in running difference images which you have foolishly misinterpreted to be surface features. It seems that once again you've fallen back on your dishonest tactic of grossly misrepresenting what's been said. Or maybe you're just a mouthy troll and you intentionally look stupid to try to get a rise out of people. Maybe you're as seriously mentally ill as you appear and you actually believe you're reading things which aren't really there. And maybe your communication skills are so poor that you simply don't understand what you read or how to write a rational response.
Well no matter, a habitual liar, too stupid to know, a mouthy troll, borderline illiterate, or just plain insane, the results are the same. You display a complete lack of understanding of what's been said and a total lack of ability to present your own position in a clear, understandable, or convincing manner.
Any way about it, you still obviously miss the point, so I'll reiterate. You have never once demonstrated that a running difference image even can show physical features, much less those which lay thousands of kilometers below an opaque layer of material. You don't have any examples or any evidence to show that it even might be true. There certainly isn't a participant in this discussion and there apparently isn't a single professional astronomer or astrophysicist on Earth who agrees with your contention that it is so.
I've phrased the following comment several ways now, and you're the only one, Michael, who doesn't yet understand, but since I am somewhat sympathetic to your [whatever it is that makes you incapable of understanding plain English] problem, I'll give you another chance to get it...
When asked directly if the apparent features in the "Lockheed gold" video were actual physical features, or if they only appeared to be a surface as a result of the processing used to create the video, LMSAL's Dr. Neal Hurlburt said they only appear to be surface features.
So when you get Dr. Hurlburt to agree with you that running difference images created from data acquired by the TRACE satellite show actual surfaces or physical features, how about you just let us know, Michael.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 10:19:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Not only that, HH but this layer would have to have almost no density!
You mean it would have to have an inner configuration that looks something like this?
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
quote:
Since we know the overall average density of the sun, and since we know its mass and volume (see here), then if we're going to allow for some massive iron surface (I think earlier Michael suggested that it was rather thick),
First off, the surface crust is not homogenously iron, it is more along the density of Olivine. If you look at the heliosiesmology paper I listed earlier, the stratification subsurface seems to be centered between .995R and .985R, with some structure down to .97R. compared to the whole depth of the sun, the surface isn't all that "thick" in comparison to the whole sun, just as the earth's crust isn't that thick compared the radius of the earth. The crust itself may represent no more than 10 percent of the total mass of the sun.
quote:
and if we're going to allow for various layers of other elements such as silicone-- again, quite think and rather heavy when compared to hydrogen and helium-- then something's gotta give. And it seems almost certain that it has to be this "unkown" part inside the iron surface.
The plasma on the inside of the crust is likely to be heated and pressurized. As that video demonstrates, spheres in space can do somewhat "unusual" things, and therefore the layout on the inside may not be as we image it to be.
quote:
I'm not sure how this model would work in the real world, but one has to imagine that Michael has some answer!
In the real world, it evidently works quite well. :) |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 10:33:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Not only that, HH but this layer would have to have almost no density!
You mean it would have to have an inner configuration that looks something like this?
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
This is a rather typical tactic you use, Michael, and I've grown rather weary of it. So I ask a basic question about your model-- be it iron, or density, or whatever-- and you toss out some link to some thing that is tangentally related, but doesn't really explain anything.
So what is the above? Some water bubble? What is the density of the material in the bubble compared to its shell? What about the density of that to the density of the matter outside the shell (which may or may not be present in the neat little video you showed)? Again, while the video is a nice diversionary tactic, it doesn't explain anything about what you are trying to say.
So iron might be 10% of the sun-- much more than the 0.0037% that the ill-informed scientists tell us. Can you tell us how this radical change in the sun's make up can be fit into observations about its mass, density, and volume? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 10:48:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
My opinions about gas model theory certainly haven't changed one iota over the past year Dave. I have learned a few things about the standard solar model during our conversations, but one thing I know for sure, it is completely impotent as it relates to explaning direct solar satellite observations.
Right, but you refuse to listen to anyone who tells you what the standard solar model is good for, as evidenced by the fact that you keep asking that question. You are demonstrably opposed to learning those aspects of the standard solar model, and you are also opposed to using terms like "prediction" is their proper context, and the reason you're opposed to these things is that if you were to learn about them, you'd have to admit that the standard solar model is very robust in terms of the things it does predict. And, it just so happens that those things contradict the idea that there can be a solid surface within the Sun.quote:
I know this now from listening to people's explanations from everything from heat signatures of TRACE images to the lack of an explanation for consistent geometric patterns in RD images. I know it can't explain explain the heat source of the corona.
None of which is addressed by the standard solar model.quote:
I know that dispite your "opinions" on the subject, it inaccuately predicted the type and volume of neutrinos that come from the sun. *If* it can actually be demonstrated that neutrinos do oscillate, then I'll rescind my last comment, but the rest will still stand.
The neutrino issue is the fault of the standard particle model, which insisted that neutrinos do not oscillate. That has all changed, Michael, but you won't pull your head out of the sand to take a look around at the new physics. You can't even name a single particle physicist who currently disagrees with the oscillating neutrino model.quote:
FYI, I'll probably have to pick at your post today since my call volume is high today.
I don't really care, but I would like you to specifically address my direct observations of the Earth.quote:
No, I just refuse to give it a free pass when it comes to satellite imagery, and in fact *any* direct observation. It should offer legitimate scientific explanations for all direct observations.
Then why aren't you complaining that the law of gravity fails to explain your shoe size? Your shoe size is a direct observation, and yet no theory of physics explains it. Not gravity, optics, relativity, the standard solar model, etc.
Oh, that's right: your shoe size is irrelevant to all of those theories, because they don't make any shoe-size predictions or explanations. Just like the standard solar model doesn't make any predictions or explanations about what will be found in satellite images. They are irrelevant to the standard solar model, Michael.
Claiming that this is giving the standard solar model a "free pass" is exactly like claiming that not expecting the second law of thermodynamics to explain the taste of veal is giving that theory a "free pass." It's an utterly absurd claim.quote:
quote:
You also seem to be unable to accept that hypotheses with which to expand the standard solar model are being investigated as we speak.
And likewise Sumeet, Hilton, Oliver and I spend out time trying to better understand our solar model too. So?
So, you recognize that it takes time for theories about phenomena to be developed, and you're whining that you should be given a break because you're not thousands of grad students, but you refuse to give solar scientists a break for the same reason. It seems that you think they've had "enough" time already to come up with explanations and somehow tie them into the standard solar model. That's simply unreasonable.quote:
Gas model theory has the added advantage of raw numbers, and yet who's got an explanation for the rigid patterns in RD image and the movements patterns of that same image using gas model theory?
Nobody.quote:
Who's got a ligitimate explanation for the heat source of the coronal loops?
Nobody.quote:
You talk later about "holes" in models but the holes in the gas model are *huge* and it has the benefit of popularity Dave.
No, Michael, since the standard solar model doesn't claim to be able to explain any of the things you gripe that it should explain. "Holes" occur when a theory does attempt to explain something, but can't. Like you being unable to explain the amount of power required to "erode" the Sun's alleged "surface."quote:
quote:
Despite STEREO's stated mission, you assume that we should already have the answers for which STEREO is seeking data.
I have lots of answers based on a Birkeland model.
No, you've got a lot of guesses.quote:
In fact, I already have "predictions" out there so we can test my theories. So where are the predictions based on gas model theory that relate to the STEREO data?
You're putting the cart before the horse, Michael. STEREO's mission is the first step in the scientific method: make an observation. Nobody can create hypotheses without observations, Michael.quote:
|
- 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 - 08/15/2006 : 10:50:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Of course I never once suggested that some particular line of code produces the effects in running difference images.....
Baloney. Here is your quote:
quote:
There aren't any physical features in a running difference image. The patterns you see are resultant of the process used to create the image. There, that's the cause. I've addressed it... again.
That's exaclty what you said big mouth, and it's utterly false. There is no way for the *process* itself to create any patterns, or anyone could isolate the code that created them. You obviously don't have even the first clue what you're talking about and now everyone can see that for themselves. Despite all the big talk, you don't know squat about RD images.
Dave at least has a strong scientific background and the common sense to keep his mouth shut about something he doesn't understand. Evidently you aren't that "wise". You let your ego get in the way and you I just busted it for you.
quote:
It seems that once again you've fallen back on your dishonest tactic of grossly misrepresenting what's been said.
I quoted you directly Sherlock. The patterns we see in the image have absolutely *nothing* to do with the processing method. They are caused by solar processes themselves. Duh! For a guy that claimed to know everything there was to know about RD images you made a completely bonehead mistake, and worse yet, you even repeat the same mistake later in this post.
quote:
Or maybe you're just a mouthy troll and you intentionally look stupid to try to get a rise out of people.
Because you don't have the scientific background that Dave has, and because you don't know what your actually talking about, insults are the only thing you've got, and it's the first thing you go for.
I'm simply pointing out to everyone here that despite your boastful and rediculace claims, you obviously don't understand anything at all about RD image beyond what you parroted from Neal.
quote:
Maybe you're as seriously mentally ill as you appear and you actually believe you're reading things which aren't really there.
See, this is where your ego gets you in trouble. You say rediculace crap for a guy that just stuck his foot in his mouth in such a public way. Instead of admitting it was your mistake, you go out of your way to piss people off with stupid comments like this, and you act all condescending and claim you undersstand what you are talking. As everyone can see however, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
When we finally stripped away all your huffing and puffing, we discovered that you don't have the first clue what what causes the patterns in the image. Worse still, you don't even have the common sense, or common decency to admit it.
All you have left to defend your false statements with now are stupid, irrational and pety insults. Your supersized ego evidently bit off way more than it can actually chew on a scientific level, so you're left with nothing but childish insults. I guess you just hope that people aren't paying attention to how badly you've stuck your own foot in your mouth.
You're all hot air Geemack and everyone can see it for themselves.
quote:
And maybe your communication skills are so poor that you simply don't understand what you read or how to write a rational response.
Maybe that true, but at least I understand running difference images a hell of a lot better than you do. I also know when to keep my mouth shut and when to admit when I'm wrong. I'd much rather have poor communication skills than your problems.
I'm going to ignore the rest of the personal BS. You obviously don't have the first clue what you're talking about, and now everyone can see it. You're supersized ego got you in trouble yet again.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 11:42:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
This is a rather typical tactic you use, Michael, and I've grown rather weary of it. So I ask a basic question about your model-- be it iron, or density, or whatever-- and you toss out some link to some thing that is tangentally related, but doesn't really explain anything.
That was no "tactic" on my part, I was simply trying to give you a visual expalantion of what I'm describing as well as a verbal one. I think this video does explain what's going on inside of the crust of the sun, or I would not have posted it. IMO, the core is most likely composed of a heavy neutron core composing about 50 to 70 percent of the total mass of the sun. The most likely alternative to a neutron core theory is that it has a heavy fission core. The area between the core and shell the sun is filled with different layers of pressurized plasma. The EM fields of the universe itself allow for a heavy "shell" like structure to form on the outside surface. Just as in the videa, the material inside the crust don't all have to be as dense or as heavy as the crust itself.
quote:
So what is the above? Some water bubble?
I'm not sure if you actually watched the whole video, but the last half of that video shows a lighter than water air bubble can form inside of a far more dense outer shell. That was what I was trying to demonstrate with the video.
quote:
What is the density of the material in the bubble compared to its shell?
In the case of the sun, I'm not actually sure just yet. I can technically only "see" down to the surface itself in satellite images. I cannot see under the surface, nor can I see the core. Heliosiesmology can probably help us discover the interior to some degree, but right now the models that are used to compute density and temperature in heliosiesmology are all based on gas model theory, and as such they probably wouldn't apply very well to a Birkeland solar model.
quote:
What about the density of that to the density of the matter outside the shell (which may or may not be present in the neat little video you showed)? Again, while the video is a nice diversionary tactic, it doesn't explain anything about what you are trying to say.
I don't really know the density of the various plasma layers in the atmosphere yet, but as it relates to the sun's totoal density and total mass, the thin outer atmosphere is certainly the least of my worries frankly.
quote:
So iron might be 10% of the sun--
Iron makes up a little more than 50% of the sun according to our theory, but again, the crust is only *mostly* made of iron, in which case the iron contained in the crust may only represent some 5% of the total mass of the sun.
quote:
much more than the 0.0037% that the ill-informed scientists tell us.
Which scientists? Not acccording isotope anysis by Dr. Oliver Manuel from the University of Missouri at Rolla. According to him, the sun is mostly made of iron and is not that different in compostion than typical meteorites.
quote:
Can you tell us how this radical change in the sun's make up can be fit into observations about its mass, density, and volume?
Not completely, at least not yet. I can however cetainly tell you how this radical change manifests itself in satellite images. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 12:35:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Can you tell us how this radical change in the sun's make up can be fit into observations about its mass, density, and volume?
Not completely, at least not yet. I can however cetainly tell you how this radical change manifests itself in satellite images.
Well this is quite stunning. The equation for density is d=m/v, where m=mass and v=volume. Volume is easy enough to figure. Mass, as near as I can tell, can be computed knowing some basic stuff about gravity (see here). So unless you're going to rewrite basic basic stuff like this, we know that the sun's density is-- something like 1.4 g/cm3. Iron, however, is significantly more dense (at room temp, it appears to have a density of 7870 kg/m3; I imagine this would be less at some super-high temperature). Moreover, if you're going to postulate that the sun is ca. 50% iron, then the other 50% almost certainly has to have a negative density. If that's even possible. Perhaps someone more mathematically inclined can work out the numbers for me.
In any case, just from this it seems clear that this model won't work. Seriously-- the argument from satellite images is ridiculous if we have to throw out a perfectly working understanding of volume, mass, density, and gravity. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 12:39:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
First off, the surface crust is not homogenously iron, it is more along the density of Olivine. If you look at the heliosiesmology paper I listed earlier, the stratification subsurface seems to be centered between .995R and .985R, with some structure down to .97R. compared to the whole depth of the sun, the surface isn't all that "thick" in comparison to the whole sun, just as the earth's crust isn't that thick compared the radius of the earth. The crust itself may represent no more than 10 percent of the total mass of the sun.
If the average density is that of Olivine (let's use the 3.27 g/cm3 figure), and is, on average, just 1,000 km thick, then the mass of the entire shell is going to be about 1.968×1028 kg, which is about 1% of the Sun's mass. The problem is that such a shell cannot be "mostly iron" since it's less than half of iron's density (Olivine is only 14% iron by mass), nor does it indicate that the Sun as a whole is "mostly iron," since generalizing from 1% of the mass to the whole thing is a bad idea.
No, for the shell to be "mostly iron" and for the shell to contain most of the Sun's iron (so that the "sun is mostly iron" claim is plausible based on the shell), the shell must obviously mass at least 25% of the whole Sun. So if your density suggestion is correct, then the shell must be at least 25,000 km thick, and that flies in the face of the helioseismology data and your idea that the shell can "crack" but remain in place.
And then, of course, the amount of pressure inside required to keep the shell from collapsing on itself due to its own gravity becomes huge. On the order of 1013 Pa (one hundred million atmospheres or so). If the density of the gas inside the shell is similar to the density of the shell (so as to fool Kosovichev's helioseismic analyses), then (using the Ideal Gas Law) we find that its temperature must be over 26 billion Kelvin, and we're back to the "melting the shell" argument.
And even if the shell only massed 1% of the Sun's total, the temperature required to "inflate" it would still be on the order of a billion Kelvin, much hotter than any part of the Sun in the standard solar model.quote:
As that video demonstrates, spheres in space can do somewhat "unusual" things...
There's nothing unusual about the strength of water's surface tension compared to the tiny effects that self-gravity might have on such a small blob, Michael. Your ignorance of water's usual properties is not evidence for your model. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
