| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#32
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Busy day at the office ...
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 2:55:42 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles? Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not. Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the ordnance itself is not banned by international law. It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons are legal. It makes you wonder. When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember Agent Orange? Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a "weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is what makes the latter illegal according to international law. Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh. You're gasping for air Harry. Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange. The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in use of chemical weapons is pathetic. Harry, who is bringing guilt an innocence into this. No one but you. you're trying to throw the subject. You do that a lot when you have no more corners to back into. AO is a chemical defoliant and the majority of the Us military who were effected by it would tell you it's a defoliant that wasn't intended nor used as a chemical weapon. They didn't realize that if you got splattered with it you'd develop weird cancers 20 and 30 years later. who knew? You're trying to make a case out of nothing Harry. You're really looking desperate. |
|
#33
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Busy day at the office ...
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 3:04:08 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:55 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles? Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not. Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the ordnance itself is not banned by international law. It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons are legal. It makes you wonder. When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember Agent Orange? Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a "weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is what makes the latter illegal according to international law. Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh. You're gasping for air Harry. Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange. The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in use of chemical weapons is pathetic. Nobody said their use was "clean" or that they were not misused. Greg posed the question as to why napalm and phosphorus were "legal" for use but sarin (a nerve gas) is illegal. The legality or illegality is governed by international law. That was the question that started this thread. You've taken it off in another direction entirely, as usual. Harry seems to love having knee-jerk reactions. Especially when he has no where else to go. |
|
#34
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 3:57 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles? Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not. Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the ordnance itself is not banned by international law. It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons are legal. It makes you wonder. When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember Agent Orange? Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a "weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is what makes the latter illegal according to international law. Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. Napalm's "official" purpose in Vietnam was that of a defoliant. Agreed, it's a incendiary mixture but is effective in clearing cover in dense growth. The fact that it may have also been used to target the enemy hiding in the growth is a misuse of it's official purpose. |
|
#35
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/17 4:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:55 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles? Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not. Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the ordnance itself is not banned by international law. It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons are legal. It makes you wonder. When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember Agent Orange? Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a "weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is what makes the latter illegal according to international law. Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh. You're gasping for air Harry. Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange. The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in use of chemical weapons is pathetic. Nobody said their use was "clean" or that they were not misused. Greg posed the question as to why napalm and phosphorus were "legal" for use but sarin (a nerve gas) is illegal. The legality or illegality is governed by international law. That was the question that started this thread. You've taken it off in another direction entirely, as usual. Not at all. The point is that "we" are not the innocents in the use of chemical weapons. We've used them, and knowingly. Their use is horrific, no matter who uses them. Our hands are not clean. |
|
#36
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/17 4:13 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:57 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles? Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not. Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the ordnance itself is not banned by international law. It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons are legal. It makes you wonder. When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember Agent Orange? Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a "weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is what makes the latter illegal according to international law. Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. Napalm's "official" purpose in Vietnam was that of a defoliant. Agreed, it's a incendiary mixture but is effective in clearing cover in dense growth. The fact that it may have also been used to target the enemy hiding in the growth is a misuse of it's official purpose. Oh. Napalm's "official" use. Well, that explains it. I hope you have a pair of rubber hip boots. We are as guilty of using chemical warfare as Syria. |
|
#37
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Busy day at the office ...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles? Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not. Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the ordnance itself is not banned by international law. It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons are legal. It makes you wonder. When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember Agent Orange? Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a "weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is what makes the latter illegal according to international law. Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical' weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of people at a very small cost. |
|
#38
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 4:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 4:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 3:55 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles? Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not. Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the ordnance itself is not banned by international law. It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons are legal. It makes you wonder. When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember Agent Orange? Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a "weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is what makes the latter illegal according to international law. Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh. You're gasping for air Harry. Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange. The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in use of chemical weapons is pathetic. Nobody said their use was "clean" or that they were not misused. Greg posed the question as to why napalm and phosphorus were "legal" for use but sarin (a nerve gas) is illegal. The legality or illegality is governed by international law. That was the question that started this thread. You've taken it off in another direction entirely, as usual. Not at all. The point is that "we" are not the innocents in the use of chemical weapons. We've used them, and knowingly. Their use is horrific, no matter who uses them. Our hands are not clean. Who the **** said they were? Geezus Harry, if you are going to play, pay attention, will you? |
|
#39
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 4:14 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 4:13 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 3:57 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles? Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not. Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the ordnance itself is not banned by international law. It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons are legal. It makes you wonder. When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember Agent Orange? Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a "weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is what makes the latter illegal according to international law. Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. Napalm's "official" purpose in Vietnam was that of a defoliant. Agreed, it's a incendiary mixture but is effective in clearing cover in dense growth. The fact that it may have also been used to target the enemy hiding in the growth is a misuse of it's official purpose. Oh. Napalm's "official" use. Well, that explains it. I hope you have a pair of rubber hip boots. We are as guilty of using chemical warfare as Syria. Better watch out for some North Korean Tomahawks over your house tonight. |
|
#40
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles? Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not. Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the ordnance itself is not banned by international law. It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons are legal. It makes you wonder. When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember Agent Orange? Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a "weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is what makes the latter illegal according to international law. Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical' weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of people at a very small cost. John, where was napalm usually dropped? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Busy day at the office ... | General | |||
| It's important to keep her busy... | General | |||
| Busy River | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| Mooron's been busy | ASA | |||
| Busy beyond belief! | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
