It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 3. Experiments in the Sky

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
If you believe the fear over what's been happening in the sky is not warranted, consider the fear over what's to come:

From November 27, 2014
Geoengineering the planet: first experiments take shape

Engineering the planet's weather and climate is a highly controversial idea. That's why we need experiments, the group say, and they want the first to start in two years' time.

Last week, the group published a 'road map' of proposals for how real-world experiments might be carried out...The second, and most detailed, devised by John Dykema of Harvard University, would explore the effects of injecting sulphur-containing substances at an altitude of 20 kilometres – the lower reaches of the boundary with outer space.

...So far, all geoengineering work has been in the lab or based on computer models. 'Modelling and lab experiments are critical,' says Dykema. 'But to understand the intricate chemistry people are concerned about, the only way to find out is in the atmosphere, where you have the right flux of solar radiation, the right mix of chemical species and the real dynamics of aerosol particle interactions in gas, liquid and solid phases.'

'The proposed experiments are quite small scale, and the environmental consequences are likely to be negligible compared with a lot of human activity we already take for granted,' says co-author Doug MacMartin of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

Dykema's experiment, for example, involves releasing just a kilogram of sulphur, the same amount as emitted in just 1 minute by a standard commercial jet.


Perhaps not those experiments involving the release of only a kilogram of sulphur, "small scale" experiments can still harm someone. Regardless of the altitude they are "injecting sulphur-containing substances," what goes up must come down. There is also no number mentioned of these experiments to be conducted, which could be in the hundreds if being replicated for the sake of "robust" findings. Given the above, consider the following:

1. We know they are eager to start experiments in the atmosphere because computer models are not conclusive evidence.

2. They are not being held to any real waiting period of two years. The course of events suggest they already wanted experiments to start in 2012 (see below).

3. From the same article: "They [geoengineers] also call for the formation of national regulatory bodies to independently assess the merits of all proposed experiments and give official permission to conduct them. Such approval is imperative to retain public trust, they say. 'We believe that external governance is critical,' says Dykema. 'But at present, there's no one to apply to, to do the experiments.' "

--This last quote is very important, because regardless of the attempt to set good public relations, which is already crumbling, it means nobody will stop them from doing whatever they want, whenever they want, and they know it. Until a regulatory board is in place (one that can reliably enforce regulations, unlike the EPA), these people can do whatever they want, even risk harming the public and the environment, and if they do it's up to the public to prove a cause and effect relationship exists between the damage and the activities of geoengineers, which is virually impossible because of extraneous variables. As long as there could be other sources of aluminum, barium, sulphur, etc., the inability to isolate this experimental activity in a given location will present the illusion that these geoengineers are innocent. This approach has already been adopted by many debunkers of chemtrail conspiracy theory, and they repeatedly say that if these chemical elements such as sulphur can come from another source, natural or human-made, there is no reason to suspect some covert operation involving geoengineering is to blame. Whether it's intentional or not, these debunkers are already wiping the slate clean of any wrong doing on the part of geoengineers.

Will anyone be protected by the EPA? When I contacted a local EPA office about rain enhancement programs in my area, with a concern about the silver iodide commonly used in the process, they made it clear that the EPA has no authority to regulate anything except the chemicals that are mentioned as greenhouse gas pollutants in the Clean Air Act. They said (overconfidently) if someone was conducting rain enhancement experiments in the area they would know about it, but admitted that if they were using any chemical that isn't currently regulated there would be no need to contact EPA about it. Yet, the major concern contained within the Clean Air Act is supposed to be about reducing acid rain, ozone depletion, airborne toxins, even something like improving ambient air quality in major metropolitan areas. Hazardous emissions include jet exhaust, and they also include various sulphur aerosols, which are suspected as a cause of acid rain and ozone depletion. Chemtrailers sometimes confuse rain enhancement projects with geoengineering, but there is a connection when it comes to the environment and the public's safety. If geoengineering experiments have begun, or if so in the very near future, they will likely violate some part of the Clean Air Act, supposedly only in the good name of science.

There is already a small inconsistency on the part of what geoengineers are saying. They know experimenting and/or the plans for it already started. For example:

July 17, 2012
Experiment in New Mexico will try to establish the possibility of cooling the planet by dispersing sulphate aerosols

Here's another explanation of it with illustration, mentioning British researchers planned a similar experiment
US Geoengineers Turn to Balloon for Planet-Cooling Test

The dissent that followed when these plans were made public, for example:
Agriculture Defense Coalition

And The Guardian's article that a similar experiment run by the Oxford Geoengineering Programme in the UK was cancelled:
Geoengineering experiment cancelled due to perceived conflict of interest

(continued below)
edit on Fri Apr 10 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: title correction per OP




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
(continued from above)

Now, it's true David Keith and his colleague refuted the claim that The Guardian originally made, which was that researchers would release "thousands of tonnes of sun-reflecting chemical particles into the atmosphere" (later edited to "tens or hundreds of kilograms of particles"), but at the same time the actual amount of aerosol they planned to release in the experiment was never really disclosed. More importantly, you see in 2014 they talk about planning the FIRST of real experiments in the field, but it had already started two years earlier based on the proposed 2012 experiment in Ft. Sumner, New Mexico. This inconsistency looks to me like someone is not being entirely honest enough to say, "So far, all geoengineering work has been in the lab or based on computer models." There is also no reason to conclude these two Harvard researchers who have caught the public's eye or the researchers running the program in the UK are the only individuals capable of conducting experiments. If the military or some other government agencies have their own interests in geoengineering research (see for example the lofty proposals outlined in "A Recommended National Program for Weather Modification," 1966 ) they can hide behind the safety of something called a "top secret operation" vital for national security, which means NOBODY outside a small group in the government will know what they are actually doing and why* (see Note below).

Other than balloons, aircraft have not only already been proposed in scientific reports to deliver aerosols into the sky for the purposes of geoengineering (For example, see Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering, ), they are the only current reliable means to release aerosols. Someone who runs the Stratocat website that has information about the launches from NASA's Stratospheric Balloon Base in Fort Sumner suggested to me that the reason the experiments in the UK and the US involving tethered ballons that would release gases is because they are too unstable at high altitudes and technology does not exist to improve the reliability of such devices. The Spice project in the UK outlined that for their experiments, "Delivery systems identified so far include [b[aircraft, weather balloons, ballistics, towers, tethered balloons or dirigibles and tethered jet engine platforms." Given the proposals and the events, how "paranoid" is it really to believe a method is being devised to use aircraft (which are highly reliable and maneuverable) for the purposes of delivering aerosols for geoengineering experiments?

The notion that geoengineering is distinct and discrete from the historical activities of weather modification and control, contrail formation and the study of cirrus clouds on solar radiation management, particularly given aerosol sprays and jet aircraft are indeed involved in all these activities in some manner, is an illusion reinforced by the social reality asserting itself to stygmatize anyone suspected of being a "chemtrail conspiracy theorist." People being branded with the label "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" is manifested first by the question many of them ask, "What are they spraying in the sky?" Debunkers on websites like ATS then single out the ones who make errors about what is a contrail, why does it form, what makes a persistent contrail, etc., and supposedly the concern about "What are they spraying in the sky" becomes completely unwarranted. The quick shift from evidence such as the history of weather modification and its associated experimentation, the history of open air testing done in the US in civilian populations, the desire for the US military to own the sky and control weather for "DOD purposes," the outlined plans of the Spice experiment revealed by John Dykema in the UK, the talk of people like David Keith and his associate about releasing sulphur into the stratosphere as an aerosol as the first of experiements to study the effects --all of this disappears in the good name of geoengineering as if it's nothing but a pure science, and that's exactly what proponents of geoengineering like Bill Gates want. They know how to manufacture consent through social reality, and I examined the process in my prior post in defense of chemtrail conspiracy theorists.

*Note: A history of open air testing in or near civilian areas already haunts the US government. For example:

1. St. Jo Program, see Secret Testing in the United States
2. Big Tom, see U.S. Admits Bio-Weapons Tests
3. Leonard Cole, science professor at Rutgers University and author of the book Clouds of Secrecy: The Army's Germ Warfare Tests Over Populated Areas, writes in the NY Times:
" Since 1979, the Army has conducted more than 170 open air tests at Dugway Proving Ground, 70 miles from Salt Lake City, as part of an expanded biological warfare program. Moreover, Army officials steadfastly assert their right to test outdoors anywhere in the country, including in urban areas. The Pentagon insists -despite a pile of contrary evidence -that the tests are harmless.

The Army admits it is releasing a bacteria called Bacillus subtilis in Utah 'from time to time' to simulate biological warfare attacks with the more lethal Bacillus anthracis, which causes anthrax. Other bacteria, including Serratia marcescens, have also been used there in open air tests.

These bacteria are the same 'simulants' that were sprayed in cities during the 1950's and 1960's to see how well they could spread and survive. Hundreds of mock attacks were conducted, including the release of bacteria during peak travel hours in New York City's subway system and in the main terminal of Washington's National Airport." Read MORE.

One final thought: I am not trying to construct a logical fallacy founded on the notion that because these tests occurred in the past they are thus happening now. I'm only trying to demonstrate that given the rationale of something like "national security," there appears to be no hesitation to put the public's safety at risk when an open air type of experiment is deemed necessary. As John Dykema said above, " 'Modelling and lab experiments are critical...But to understand the intricate chemistry people are concerned about, the only way to find out is in the atmosphere..."



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

Okay one question for you...

How is this related to the chemtrail conspiracy theories that your defending?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Thank you for this sober look at what is happening in the sky.

Too many on ATS, ESPECIALLY in this forum, seem to jump to conclusions and suffer from extreme bias, practically shouting that nothing is happening.

Well, that is not how true science and research works. Start unbiased. Pick an hypotheses, and research and investigate it.

Yet all we hear out of the government on this subject is crickets, kind of like the UFO issue.

Many of us older than 30 or so remember how the skies used to be when we were younger, contrails would stick around for less than a minute or so. Yes, there used to be persistent contrails, but they were labelled an extremely rare phenomenon.

Now, however, on somedays every contrail laid down stays for an hour or longer.

Have the laws of physics and chemistry changed?

Sure, there are more planes in the sky, but that only explains the number of contrails we see, and does nothing to explain why they persist up to 100 to 1000 times longer than in the 70's and 80's.

Sure, some have said that the jet exhaust's are cooler these days. Well, again, that may explain why a contrail may develop more quickly, but the process of a contrail vanishing is still the same as it was pre-2000, basic sublimation, so I don't see the "claimed" science by some on here of how cooler jet exhaust causes a hugely delayed sublimation.

Also, I don't know why some debunkers are obsessed with it, they literally have thousands of posts in this forum. (oh wait, I do know why)





edit on 27-2-2015 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312




If you believe the fear over what's been happening in the sky is not warranted, consider the fear over what's to come


A lot of things could happen. With a finite amount of time to spend, you see this as a priority one, existential threat? Based on evidence I've seen, I must disagree.

If they are spraying for whatever reason, why would they do it during the day when people can easily see it?
Why not just cover the sky at night?
edit on 27-2-2015 by InverseLookingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Thank you for this sober look at what is happening in the sky.

Too many on ATS, ESPECIALLY in this forum, seem to jump to conclusions and suffer from extreme bias, practically shouting that nothing is happening.

Well, that is not how true science and research works. Start unbiased. Pick an hypotheses, and research and investigate it.

Yet all we hear out of the government on this subject is crickets, kind of like the UFO issue.

Many of us older than 30 or so remember how the skies used to be when we were younger, contrails would stick around for less than a minute or so. Yes, there used to be persistent contrails, but they were labelled an extremely rare phenomenon.

Now, however, on somedays every contrail laid down stays for an hour or longer.

Have the laws of physics and chemistry changed?

Sure, there are more planes in the sky, but that only explains the number of contrails we see, and does nothing to explain why they persist up to 100 to 1000 times longer than in the 70's and 80's.



Well lets test that and not just work off assumptions. Who labelled them as extremely rare, when were they labelled that and just how rare?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE




Well, again, that may explain why a contrail may develop more quickly, but the process of a contrail vanishing is still the same as it was pre-2000, basic sublimation, so I don't see the "claimed" science by some on here of how cooler jet exhaust causes a hugely delayed sublimation.


Have you considered that there is more available pollution in the stratosphere now vs. 30 years ago? The persistence of an ice cloud should be dependent on how it's nucleated. In other words, an ice crystal nucleated on a grain of dust or soot will be much bigger and more persistent than one nucleated on S02 molecule.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

This is not actually correct. What you describe may affect contrail formation, making contrails more likely to appear in the first place, but persistence is only driven by relative humidity. This determines the contrails ability to sublimate or not. When it cannot, it persists.

It's always the right conditions somewhere on the planet for contrails to persist (as there are always weather fronts) and it always has been. Nothing has changed there. But when you get more aircraft, with a larger proportion of them flying higher than they used to, there are going to be more persistant trails and these will occur where previous air services wouldn't have caused them, ie a low flying, unpressurised, Dornier 28D piston service running since 1970 may have been replaced by a pressurised, higher flying, Dornier 328 which will now create contrails as it flies higher and faster than its predecessor. It's a pretty simple concept and an example of the reality of many regional and short haul routes as air traffic levels shoot through the roof and aircraft types used evolve from more basic types.

It may be a problem waiting to happen. But it's not chemtrails.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Petros312




If you believe the fear over what's been happening in the sky is not warranted, consider the fear over what's to come


A lot of things could happen. With a finite amount of time to spend, you see this as a priority one, existential threat? Based on evidence I've seen, I must disagree.

If they are spraying for whatever reason, why would they do it during the day when people can easily see it?
Why not just cover the sky at night?


Oh, they do. I see moon chemtrails all the time. Maintaining the global Sky as a holographic image is a 24/hour process.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Thank you for this sober look at what is happening in the sky.

Too many on ATS, ESPECIALLY in this forum, seem to jump to conclusions and suffer from extreme bias, practically shouting that nothing is happening.

Well, that is not how true science and research works. Start unbiased. Pick an hypotheses, and research and investigate it.

Yet all we hear out of the government on this subject is crickets, kind of like the UFO issue.

Many of us older than 30 or so remember how the skies used to be when we were younger, contrails would stick around for less than a minute or so. Yes, there used to be persistent contrails, but they were labelled an extremely rare phenomenon.

I am 46 and remember seeing lasting trails as a kid. I cannot say much about blue skies since I was in Cleveland and you only see the sun about 5-6 weeks there.



Now, however, on somedays every contrail laid down stays for an hour or longer.

Have the laws of physics and chemistry changed?

The amount of planes in the sky sure has. And the design of the engines has changed. The new engines are more efficient, but do create more contrails.



Sure, there are more planes in the sky, but that only explains the number of contrails we see, and does nothing to explain why they persist up to 100 to 1000 times longer than in the 70's and 80's.

But there is photographic evidence that trails did exist back then. Some people remember them, and some don't. I don't remember some Geometry, but the math still exists.


Sure, some have said that the jet exhaust's are cooler these days. Well, again, that may explain why a contrail may develop more quickly, but the process of a contrail vanishing is still the same as it was pre-2000, basic sublimation, so I don't see the "claimed" science by some on here of how cooler jet exhaust causes a hugely delayed sublimation.

Also, I don't know why some debunkers are obsessed with it, they literally have thousands of posts in this forum. (oh wait, I do know why)


Why is it so important to insinuate that those who oppose chemtrails must be doing it for the money? Is it so not possible that we enjoy being here? You have made more than one post in this forum. You seem to have a firm stance on the subject. Are you open to discuss your views, or are the cast in concrete? Is there a donate button on a chemtrail website that belongs to you?



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE




Well, again, that may explain why a contrail may develop more quickly, but the process of a contrail vanishing is still the same as it was pre-2000, basic sublimation, so I don't see the "claimed" science by some on here of how cooler jet exhaust causes a hugely delayed sublimation.


Have you considered that there is more available pollution in the stratosphere now vs. 30 years ago? The persistence of an ice cloud should be dependent on how it's nucleated. In other words, an ice crystal nucleated on a grain of dust or soot will be much bigger and more persistent than one nucleated on S02 molecule.


Why do you think sublimation, that is disappearance of the "contrail" ice crystal will occur more quickly depending on the substrate of nucleation? Of course I can see how differences in the substrate of nucleation may affect the rate of formation, but differences in the substrate of nucleation will have much less effect on the sublimation of the molecule. Of course though you would expect a larger molecule to sublimate more slowly. But how much bigger? Has anyone done a study on the size of contrail crystals from 3 decades ago compared to today?

Also, the stratosphere begins at about 10km? About 33000 ft? I have been on hundreds of planes in my life, many intercontinental, I often watch the stats of the flight, and it is rare to cruise much over that altitude, sure you see 34K ft, 35K ft, but I think I have only seen anything over 35K ft a couple times for civilian flights. My point is the bulk of civilian flights take place on the very low edge of the stratosphere or outside of it.






edit on 28-2-2015 by PlanetXisHERE because: addition



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn




Oh, they do. I see moon chemtrails all the time.


You mean contrails...





Maintaining the global Sky as a holographic image is a 24/hour process.


And keeping this going as something close to the truth must take even longer.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

Many of us older than 30 or so remember how the skies used to be when we were younger, contrails would stick around for less than a minute or so. Yes, there used to be persistent contrails, but they were labelled an extremely rare phenomenon.

Now, however, on somedays every contrail laid down stays for an hour or longer.

Have the laws of physics and chemistry changed?

Sure, there are more planes in the sky, but that only explains the number of contrails we see, and does nothing to explain why they persist up to 100 to 1000 times longer than in the 70's and 80's.

Sure, some have said that the jet exhaust's are cooler these days. Well, again, that may explain why a contrail may develop more quickly, but the process of a contrail vanishing is still the same as it was pre-2000, basic sublimation, so I don't see the "claimed" science by some on here of how cooler jet exhaust causes a hugely delayed sublimation.

Also, I don't know why some debunkers are obsessed with it, they literally have thousands of posts in this forum. (oh wait, I do know why)







Well. .that didn't take long. Third post in and we are called shills. Nice.

We are not obsessed. We are interested. Do you know why I find these threads so interesting? Other than because I love planes and weather, it's because your chemtrail theories are so nuts.....its pure entertainment.

That's why I'm here. For entertainment. It's like watching a science professor debate with the crazy guy in the street. Good value for money.

edit on 2-3-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312




what goes up must come down.


When and where?

A Kg of Sulfur, in what form would it be released, Fine particles I would assume. What altitude is it released from?

You Pick the skies a supposed release could happen and tell us where and when it will come down and how it might harm someone?


How it acts and what reactions happen on its way down, is it still the same substance when released or is it mixed with the whats in the atmosphere and becomes something else when or if it reaches the ground to harm someone?


I am not saying it can or cannot, but you seem serious about the subject so instead of your "what goes up must come down" fact how about at least pointing out and explaining how long and where it might come down from a speculated release point?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE




Many of us older than 30 or so remember how the skies used to be when we were younger, contrails would stick around for less than a minute or so. Yes, there used to be persistent contrails, but they were labelled an extremely rare phenomenon.



What is younger and who labeled lingering contrails as a rare phenomenon?





Sure, there are more planes in the sky, but that only explains the number of contrails we see, and does nothing to explain why they persist up to 100 to 1000 times longer than in the 70's and 80's.

Sure, some have said that the jet exhaust's are cooler these days. Well, again, that may explain why a contrail may develop more quickly, but the process of a contrail vanishing is still the same as it was pre-2000, basic sublimation, so I don't see the "claimed" science by some on here of how cooler jet exhaust causes a hugely delayed sublimation.



Meteorology isn't claimed science, you can learn yourself either at a school or by correspondence or even over the net if all else fails.




Also, I don't know why some debunkers are obsessed with it, they literally have thousands of posts in this forum. (oh wait, I do know why)



Just like I know why you post what you do.

Isn't it a fun game?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Eunuchorn




Oh, they do. I see moon chemtrails all the time.




Maintaining the global Sky as a holographic image is a 24/hour process.


And keeping this going as something close to the truth must take even longer.


Oh yes, 29 hours a day/392 days a year.

& don't even try that 365 days in a year BS with me, shill



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Petros312

Okay one question for you...

How is this related to the chemtrail conspiracy theories that your defending?

I realize that the above question will be asked repeatedly, which is why I specifically addressed it right here (now with some highlights to help show where):


originally posted by: Petros312
The notion that geoengineering is distinct and discrete from the historical activities of weather modification and control, contrail formation and the study of cirrus clouds on solar radiation management, particularly given aerosol sprays and jet aircraft are indeed involved in all these activities in some manner, is an illusion reinforced by the social reality asserting itself to stygmatize anyone suspected of being a "chemtrail conspiracy theorist." People being branded with the label "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" is manifested first by the question many of them ask, "What are they spraying in the sky?" Debunkers on websites like ATS then single out the ones who make errors about what is a contrail, why does it form, what makes a persistent contrail, etc., and supposedly the concern about "What are they spraying in the sky" becomes completely unwarranted. The quick shift from evidence such as the history of weather modification and its associated experimentation, the history of open air testing done in the US in civilian populations, the desire for the US military to own the sky and control weather for "DOD purposes," the outlined plans of the Spice experiment revealed by John Dykema in the UK, the talk of people like David Keith and his associate about releasing sulphur into the stratosphere as an aerosol as the first of experiements to study the effects --all of this disappears in the good name of geoengineering as if it's nothing but a pure science, and that's exactly what proponents of geoengineering like Bill Gates want. They know how to manufacture consent through social reality, and I examined the process in my prior post in defense of chemtrail conspiracy theorists.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn




& don't even try that 365 days in a year BS with me, shill


Shill...seriously?



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312




I realize that the above question will be asked repeatedly, which is why I specifically addressed it right here (now with some highlights to help show where):


And yet none of it has anything to do with chemtrails or it's conspiracy.

Here let's make this easy...

Chemtrails do not exist

Geoengineering is not being done outside the laboratory or computer modeling.

I see you are still under the illusion the DOD is looking at owning the weather...let me guess you believe this to be real and something the government is trying to achieve...


Weather as a Force Multiplier:
Owning the Weather in 2025


csat.au.af.mil...

Here you might like to read this...

www.keith.seas.harvard.edu...

The problem you have is your trying to lump two different topics into one, because you seem to think because they may have similar methods they have to be the same and they are not, so once you actually understand that the better it will be for all of us.

You think your doing a service for the chemtrail conspiracy theory, but in reality all your really doing is making the water murky when it comes to difference between the two.

Because there is a difference.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Eunuchorn




& don't even try that 365 days in a year BS with me, shill


Shill...seriously?


I think he's joking about the shill thing.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join