|
jaxashby caught in his own lie
Subject: Best 34 foot blue water cruiser... Jax warning
From: (JAXAshby) Date: 3/16/04 12:46 AM Eastern yes, dougies said that. Labomba 182 wrote such as "cruising" a sailboat down Interstate 95 and claiming it to be a more accomplished sailing experience compared to those who sail a few dozen miles every weekend? Is that true! LOL Capt. Bill Gottja! See below. From: JAXAshby ) Subject: A good NG gone bad View this article only Newsgroups: rec.boats Date: 2004-03-13 06:53:51 PST 100 a day? I don't open any political post, seldom read anything by Harry, never anything by LaBomba182, That was to easy. So, tell us again how you NEVER see any thing by me? Capt. Bill |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
Jax doesn't have a reality, just a dream world of his own making.
When you read his post on any boating subject, it becomes painfully clear that all his information comes from reading some brochures and basic text on any given subject he will pontificate upon. Generally, the only ones who will be caught by his nonsense are "newbies" to the NG and boating. Thankfully, it becomes clear, quickly, that he knows not about that which he speaks and in general, everyone can sit back and watch him make ANOTHER screaming ass of himself. Recently, he was pontificating about RDF and promised all a further installment regarding the "how to" of said subject. Alas, he got so many negative/laughing responses to his initial RDF "thesis", that even he of little mental comprehension, decided it was best not to continue, and in an effort to divert, he created an argument regarding early computers. Having "plonked" the dummy, I can't tell if his daily posting quotient is still up there, but from the number of laughing/negative responses, where the Jaxass's name comes into play, I must assume he may be back under medical care and has resumed taking his "meds". otn Gene Kearns wrote: On 16 Mar 2004 14:21:34 GMT, (LaBomba182) wrote: Subject: Best 34 foot blue water cruiser... Jax warning SNIP Not really.... JAX is caught in his own reality. By observing his opinions, behavior, etc..... it causes the reality to spin the other way. Strange, but backed up by theoretical math and physics. A special case, as it were, just like JAX. Example: Jax wearing a tuxedo.... which, when observed, appears as Speedos...... |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
When you read his posts on any boating subject, it becomes painfully
clear that all his information comes from experience |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:06:47 GMT, otnmbrd wrote:
Recently, he was pontificating about RDF and promised all a further installment regarding the "how to" of said subject. Alas, he got so many negative/laughing responses to his initial RDF "thesis", that even he of little mental comprehension, decided it was best not to continue, and in an effort to divert, he created an argument regarding early computers. Having "plonked" the dummy, I can't tell if his daily posting quotient is still up there, but from the number of laughing/negative responses, where the Jaxass's name comes into play, I must assume he may be back under medical care and has resumed taking his "meds". Here's some oldie but goodie gems from Jax that I dug up, all said seriously: By definition, the Earth's surface is planar. An ICBM has no navigation system. There's no outside reference when using DR to navigate. It costs $15,000/year to make 10gals of water/day with a shipboard watermaker. The human head can take about a 7 G blow before death becomes certain. A rhumb line is a straight line on any chart, Mercator chart (sic) or otherwise. A rhumb is distance between two points one compass point apart. Alternators are (for all practical purposes) capable of only producing one voltage, no matter the rpm. If you can see outside reference points, then you KNOW where you are... There is no such thing as a north seeking gyro. Steve |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
When you read his posts on any boating subject, it becomes painfully clear that all his information comes from experience Give it a rest, Jax, at best you'd fall into the category of "newbie" .... at worst, some one with not enough brainpower to convert what he reads and or experiences, into useable and/or practical actions or responses. You may have a high IQ, but you definitely fall into the "stupid" category when it comes to application and/or understanding. Shen |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
By definition, the Earth's surface is planar.
for the area under consideration, i.e. a hundred mile trip. An ICBM has no navigation system. "ballistic" means "ballistic" There's no outside reference when using DR to navigate. deduced reckoning is navigating by compass and knot log. neither are outside references as to position It costs $15,000/year to make 10gals of water/day with a shipboard watermaker. Don Casey says it is a dollar a gallon. The cost accountants would give the higher figure, in the context of the problem under then discusssion. etc. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
shen, you are a superstitious sailor wannabee. Supersition is by definition
the thought patterns and conclusions of the stupid with or without "time on deck" wannabee is the definition of of those without tod. it is near to impossible to have a rational discussion with the superstitious, for the stupid are not normally much capable of rational thought -- it hurts too much -- and mostly when ever they are faced with new information they deny it and revert to wearing a red shirt to keep waves from boarding. sorry shen, but *you* must NEVER take an EPIRB aboard. EPIRBS make you sterile and cause boats to sink. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
|
jaxashby caught in his own lie
Ah, I see. So then you're saying that if you are in NYC you can see
Philadelphia on a clear day, since they are only around 80 miles apart. Very good. You nailed that one. and the *difference in distances using planer math is *how* much different that using spherical math? |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
Ah, I see. So then since the ICBMs are in the silos pointing straight
up and they have no navigation system, then the only thing they could ever possibly hit is the silo that launched them. Very good. You nailed that one too. who said that couldn't be programed to turned to aim towards a target as they lift off. Who said that was a "navigation" system. dumb cluck. don't even know English as a language. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
Ah, I see. So a compass works without any outside reference, i.e., the
Earth's magnetic field. and a compass tells you where on the planet you are, right? dumb cluck. you don't even understand the English language. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
When ever Jax talks , it s like someone farted in a very small room.
|
jaxashby caught in his own lie
|
jaxashby caught in his own lie
idiot, the difference is neglible in the context.
before you responde, look up -- AND understand -- each word. (basskisser) |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
Minuteman ICBM Technical Specifications:
Guidance: Improved NS-20 (INS-20) gimbaled inertial guidance system manufactured by Autonetics Division, Rockwell International. The bus, or post-boost vehicle, is maneuvered by six pitch and yaw motors, and four smaller roll motors. Current plans are to retrofit the existing force with the gimballess AIRS (advanced inertial reference sphere) developed for the Peacekeeper (MX) missile. This will increase accuracy to 330ft (100 m), comparable to the Peacekeeper. (JAXAshby) wrote in message ... Ah, I see. So then since the ICBMs are in the silos pointing straight up and they have no navigation system, then the only thing they could ever possibly hit is the silo that launched them. Very good. You nailed that one too. who said that couldn't be programed to turned to aim towards a target as they lift off. Who said that was a "navigation" system. dumb cluck. don't even know English as a language. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
"Definition: [n] a missile that is guided in the first part of its
flight but falls freely as it approaches target" (JAXAshby) wrote in message ... Ah, I see. So then since the ICBMs are in the silos pointing straight up and they have no navigation system, then the only thing they could ever possibly hit is the silo that launched them. Very good. You nailed that one too. who said that couldn't be programed to turned to aim towards a target as they lift off. Who said that was a "navigation" system. dumb cluck. don't even know English as a language. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
|
jaxashby caught in his own lie
|
jaxashby caught in his own lie
shen, you don't seem to have enough intelligenc to be able to figure out -- on
your best day -- that eric made that quote up. Minuteman ICBM Technical Specifications: Guidance: Improved NS-20 (INS-20) gimbaled inertial guidance system manufactured by Autonetics Division, Rockwell International. The bus, or post-boost vehicle, is maneuvered by six pitch and yaw motors, and four smaller roll motors. Current plans are to retrofit the existing force with the gimballess AIRS (advanced inertial reference sphere) developed for the Peacekeeper (MX) missile. This will increase accuracy to 330ft (100 m), comparable to the Peacekeeper. Jax is too funny. Now he's trying to convince people that the inertial navigation system in ICBMs that guide them to "aim towards a target as they lift off" (his words) is not a navigation system. Talk about not even knowing English as a language. Steve (JAXAshby) wrote in message ... Ah, I see. So then since the ICBMs are in the silos pointing straight up and they have no navigation system, then the only thing they could ever possibly hit is the silo that launched them. Very good. You nailed that one too. who said that couldn't be programed to turned to aim towards a target as they lift off. Who said that was a "navigation" system. dumb cluck. don't even know English as a language. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
On 19 Mar 2004 02:18:07 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:
shen, you don't seem to have enough intelligenc to be able to figure out -- on your best day -- that eric made that quote up. You're hilarious. First, you don't even know who you're responding to. And second, if you actually had enough "intelligenc" to do a google search you'd see that he didn't make it up at all, that it's a verbatim cut'n'paste from he http://www.geocities.com/minuteman_missile/specs.htm So tell me again how ICBMs have no navigation system... Steve Minuteman ICBM Technical Specifications: Guidance: Improved NS-20 (INS-20) gimbaled inertial guidance system manufactured by Autonetics Division, Rockwell International. The bus, or post-boost vehicle, is maneuvered by six pitch and yaw motors, and four smaller roll motors. Current plans are to retrofit the existing force with the gimballess AIRS (advanced inertial reference sphere) developed for the Peacekeeper (MX) missile. This will increase accuracy to 330ft (100 m), comparable to the Peacekeeper. Jax is too funny. Now he's trying to convince people that the inertial navigation system in ICBMs that guide them to "aim towards a target as they lift off" (his words) is not a navigation system. Talk about not even knowing English as a language. Steve (JAXAshby) wrote in message ... Ah, I see. So then since the ICBMs are in the silos pointing straight up and they have no navigation system, then the only thing they could ever possibly hit is the silo that launched them. Very good. You nailed that one too. who said that couldn't be programed to turned to aim towards a target as they lift off. Who said that was a "navigation" system. dumb cluck. don't even know English as a language. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
yeah, geocities.
shen, you don't seem to have enough intelligenc to be able to figure out -- on your best day -- that eric made that quote up. You're hilarious. First, you don't even know who you're responding to. And second, if you actually had enough "intelligenc" to do a google search you'd see that he didn't make it up at all, that it's a verbatim cut'n'paste from he http://www.geocities.com/minuteman_missile/specs.htm So tell me again how ICBMs have no navigation system... Steve Minuteman ICBM Technical Specifications: Guidance: Improved NS-20 (INS-20) gimbaled inertial guidance system manufactured by Autonetics Division, Rockwell International. The bus, or post-boost vehicle, is maneuvered by six pitch and yaw motors, and four smaller roll motors. Current plans are to retrofit the existing force with the gimballess AIRS (advanced inertial reference sphere) developed for the Peacekeeper (MX) missile. This will increase accuracy to 330ft (100 m), comparable to the Peacekeeper. Jax is too funny. Now he's trying to convince people that the inertial navigation system in ICBMs that guide them to "aim towards a target as they lift off" (his words) is not a navigation system. Talk about not even knowing English as a language. Steve (JAXAshby) wrote in message ... Ah, I see. So then since the ICBMs are in the silos pointing straight up and they have no navigation system, then the only thing they could ever possibly hit is the silo that launched them. Very good. You nailed that one too. who said that couldn't be programed to turned to aim towards a target as they lift off. Who said that was a "navigation" system. dumb cluck. don't even know English as a language. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
On 19 Mar 2004 15:21:12 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:
yeah, geocities. Well, at least we now know that you know you were wrong when you said he made that quote up. But since you don't like geocities, how about these for starters: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=113 LGM-30 MINUTEMAN III Primary Function: Intercontinental ballistic missile Guidance systems: Inertial system http://www.strategic-air-command.com..._Home_Page.htm Peacekeeper Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile Guidance system: Inertial ....the MX's extremely accurate guidance--an inertial system capable of being updated in flight by signals from navigation satellites... Damn Jax, if you were only smart enough to do a google search on "ICBM navigation system" you'd realize how wrong you are. Steve shen, you don't seem to have enough intelligenc to be able to figure out -- on your best day -- that eric made that quote up. You're hilarious. First, you don't even know who you're responding to. And second, if you actually had enough "intelligenc" to do a google search you'd see that he didn't make it up at all, that it's a verbatim cut'n'paste from he http://www.geocities.com/minuteman_missile/specs.htm So tell me again how ICBMs have no navigation system... Steve Minuteman ICBM Technical Specifications: Guidance: Improved NS-20 (INS-20) gimbaled inertial guidance system manufactured by Autonetics Division, Rockwell International. The bus, or post-boost vehicle, is maneuvered by six pitch and yaw motors, and four smaller roll motors. Current plans are to retrofit the existing force with the gimballess AIRS (advanced inertial reference sphere) developed for the Peacekeeper (MX) missile. This will increase accuracy to 330ft (100 m), comparable to the Peacekeeper. Jax is too funny. Now he's trying to convince people that the inertial navigation system in ICBMs that guide them to "aim towards a target as they lift off" (his words) is not a navigation system. Talk about not even knowing English as a language. Steve (JAXAshby) wrote in message ... Ah, I see. So then since the ICBMs are in the silos pointing straight up and they have no navigation system, then the only thing they could ever possibly hit is the silo that launched them. Very good. You nailed that one too. who said that couldn't be programed to turned to aim towards a target as they lift off. Who said that was a "navigation" system. dumb cluck. don't even know English as a language. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
schlackoff, English even as a third language is way beyond you. You are
FORBIDDEN to own an EPIRB. Let Darwin teach you how to navigate. now, about that NewSpeak you found -- the one that change the word "ballistic" to "guided" without changing the word, AND the one that changes the word "intercontinental" to "short range" without changing the word ... yeah, geocities. Well, at least we now know that you know you were wrong when you said he made that quote up. But since you don't like geocities, how about these for starters: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=113 LGM-30 MINUTEMAN III Primary Function: Intercontinental ballistic missile Guidance systems: Inertial system http://www.strategic-air-command.com...eacekeeper_Mis sile_Home_Page.htm Peacekeeper Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile Guidance system: Inertial ...the MX's extremely accurate guidance--an inertial system capable of being updated in flight by signals from navigation satellites... Damn Jax, if you were only smart enough to do a google search on "ICBM navigation system" you'd realize how wrong you are. Steve shen, you don't seem to have enough intelligenc to be able to figure out -- on your best day -- that eric made that quote up. You're hilarious. First, you don't even know who you're responding to. And second, if you actually had enough "intelligenc" to do a google search you'd see that he didn't make it up at all, that it's a verbatim cut'n'paste from he http://www.geocities.com/minuteman_missile/specs.htm So tell me again how ICBMs have no navigation system... Steve Minuteman ICBM Technical Specifications: Guidance: Improved NS-20 (INS-20) gimbaled inertial guidance system manufactured by Autonetics Division, Rockwell International. The bus, or post-boost vehicle, is maneuvered by six pitch and yaw motors, and four smaller roll motors. Current plans are to retrofit the existing force with the gimballess AIRS (advanced inertial reference sphere) developed for the Peacekeeper (MX) missile. This will increase accuracy to 330ft (100 m), comparable to the Peacekeeper. Jax is too funny. Now he's trying to convince people that the inertial navigation system in ICBMs that guide them to "aim towards a target as they lift off" (his words) is not a navigation system. Talk about not even knowing English as a language. Steve (JAXAshby) wrote in message ... Ah, I see. So then since the ICBMs are in the silos pointing straight up and they have no navigation system, then the only thing they could ever possibly hit is the silo that launched them. Very good. You nailed that one too. who said that couldn't be programed to turned to aim towards a target as they lift off. Who said that was a "navigation" system. dumb cluck. don't even know English as a language. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
|
jaxashby caught in his own lie
bass, **IN THE CONTEXT** given, the difference in distance over 120 nm is about
0.000872225 miles, or a little over 3 feet. Oh, I totally understand the differences between planar and spherical mathematics. I also understand that you are foolish if you think that, when measuring distances across the earth's surface, there is absolutely no way that planar math will give you the correct distance. No more that than in ANY circle. The chord length will ALWAYS be shorter than the arc length of the same segment. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, how? |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
From an English language dictionary.
note how the term differs from a *guided* missile, which is NOT thrown. "ballistic" is the term that differeniates the two weapons. ICBM abbr. intercontinental ballistic missile inter- pref. Between; among: international bal·lis·tic adj. Of or relating to the study of the dynamics of projectiles pro·jec·tile n. A fired, thrown, or otherwise propelled object, such as a bullet, having no capacity for self-propulsion. A self-propelled missile, such as a rocket. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
On 19 Mar 2004 17:33:40 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:
schlackoff, English even as a third language is way beyond you. You are FORBIDDEN to own an EPIRB. Let Darwin teach you how to navigate. now, about that NewSpeak you found -- the one that change the word "ballistic" to "guided" without changing the word, AND the one that changes the word "intercontinental" to "short range" without changing the word ... You're too funny Jax. According to your strict definition, a bullet is not ballistic either since it's guided by the gun barrel for the initial portion of it's flight and travels in a straight line, not a ballistic flight path, for that portion of it's journey to the target. Well, an ICBM is just like a bullet. It's guided for the initial portion of it's trip to the target and follows a ballistic trajectory for the final portion. The only difference is that the bullet's guidance system is the barrel and the ICBM's is an inertial navigation system or now GPS. JaxSpeak is certainly a strange language. Are you now going to try and claim that a bullet fired from a gun is not ballistic since it's guided by the barrel? Steve yeah, geocities. Well, at least we now know that you know you were wrong when you said he made that quote up. But since you don't like geocities, how about these for starters: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=113 LGM-30 MINUTEMAN III Primary Function: Intercontinental ballistic missile Guidance systems: Inertial system http://www.strategic-air-command.com...eacekeeper_Mis sile_Home_Page.htm Peacekeeper Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile Guidance system: Inertial ...the MX's extremely accurate guidance--an inertial system capable of being updated in flight by signals from navigation satellites... Damn Jax, if you were only smart enough to do a google search on "ICBM navigation system" you'd realize how wrong you are. Steve shen, you don't seem to have enough intelligenc to be able to figure out -- on your best day -- that eric made that quote up. You're hilarious. First, you don't even know who you're responding to. And second, if you actually had enough "intelligenc" to do a google search you'd see that he didn't make it up at all, that it's a verbatim cut'n'paste from he http://www.geocities.com/minuteman_missile/specs.htm So tell me again how ICBMs have no navigation system... Steve Minuteman ICBM Technical Specifications: Guidance: Improved NS-20 (INS-20) gimbaled inertial guidance system manufactured by Autonetics Division, Rockwell International. The bus, or post-boost vehicle, is maneuvered by six pitch and yaw motors, and four smaller roll motors. Current plans are to retrofit the existing force with the gimballess AIRS (advanced inertial reference sphere) developed for the Peacekeeper (MX) missile. This will increase accuracy to 330ft (100 m), comparable to the Peacekeeper. Jax is too funny. Now he's trying to convince people that the inertial navigation system in ICBMs that guide them to "aim towards a target as they lift off" (his words) is not a navigation system. Talk about not even knowing English as a language. Steve (JAXAshby) wrote in message ... Ah, I see. So then since the ICBMs are in the silos pointing straight up and they have no navigation system, then the only thing they could ever possibly hit is the silo that launched them. Very good. You nailed that one too. who said that couldn't be programed to turned to aim towards a target as they lift off. Who said that was a "navigation" system. dumb cluck. don't even know English as a language. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
Jaxie's original "context" was actually simply mathematics. His "planar"
comment was part of the great "3 dimensional vector" discussion, where jaxie revealed his ignorance in a variety of disciplines. (The ICBM comment was also from that.) His actual comment was: "btw, if vectors are "3 dimensional", just how can they be used at a point on the Earth's surface (which by definition is planer)." And on ICBM's: "An Inter Continental Ballistic Missile is "ballistic" and thus has no navigation system." And, of course, jaxie just made up his "answer," and was wrong by a few orders of magnitude. The difference between a Rhumb Line and a Great Circle route can be a tenth of a mile on a 120 mile trip, and almost a degree on initial heading at mid latitudes. Not a great difference, I'd argue that there are difference aspects of the "non-planar" nature of the ocean that are of more relevance to the coastal sailor. In fact, one sees the effect on any trip longer than a few miles. Of course, near the poles this could be more significant At 70 N, for instance, to go 100 miles East your heading should be 87.6 degrees. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... bass, **IN THE CONTEXT** given, the difference in distance over 120 nm is about 0.000872225 miles, or a little over 3 feet. Oh, I totally understand the differences between planar and spherical mathematics. I also understand that you are foolish if you think that, when measuring distances across the earth's surface, there is absolutely no way that planar math will give you the correct distance. No more that than in ANY circle. The chord length will ALWAYS be shorter than the arc length of the same segment. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, how? |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
You're too funny Jax. According to your strict definition, a bullet is
not ballistic either since it's guided by the gun barrel for the initial portion of it's flight and travels in a straight line, not a ballistic flight path, for that portion of it's journey to the target. ballistic \Bal*lis"tic\, a. 1. Of or pertaining to the ballista, or to the art of hurling stones or missile weapons by means of an engine. ballistic adj : relating to or characteristic of the motion of objects moving under their own momentum and the force of gravity; "ballistic missile" |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
schlackoff, English even as a third language is way beyond you. You are
FORBIDDEN to own an EPIRB. Let Darwin teach you how to navigate. |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
jeffie, go ask your wife to review your posts before sending. be careful that
she is in a good mood, otherwise she might scold you for what you write. Jaxie's original "context" was actually simply mathematics. His "planar" comment was part of the great "3 dimensional vector" discussion, where jaxie revealed his ignorance in a variety of disciplines. (The ICBM comment was also from that.) His actual comment was: "btw, if vectors are "3 dimensional", just how can they be used at a point on the Earth's surface (which by definition is planer)." And on ICBM's: "An Inter Continental Ballistic Missile is "ballistic" and thus has no navigation system." And, of course, jaxie just made up his "answer," and was wrong by a few orders of magnitude. The difference between a Rhumb Line and a Great Circle route can be a tenth of a mile on a 120 mile trip, and almost a degree on initial heading at mid latitudes. Not a great difference, I'd argue that there are difference aspects of the "non-planar" nature of the ocean that are of more relevance to the coastal sailor. In fact, one sees the effect on any trip longer than a few miles. Of course, near the poles this could be more significant At 70 N, for instance, to go 100 miles East your heading should be 87.6 degrees. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... bass, **IN THE CONTEXT** given, the difference in distance over 120 nm is about 0.000872225 miles, or a little over 3 feet. Oh, I totally understand the differences between planar and spherical mathematics. I also understand that you are foolish if you think that, when measuring distances across the earth's surface, there is absolutely no way that planar math will give you the correct distance. No more that than in ANY circle. The chord length will ALWAYS be shorter than the arc length of the same segment. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, how? |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
|
jaxashby caught in his own lie
|
jaxashby caught in his own lie
schlackoff, do no attempt to write English here. use your native language
only. English is beyond you. You're too funny Jax. According to your strict definition, a bullet is not ballistic either since it's guided by the gun barrel for the initial portion of it's flight and travels in a straight line, not a ballistic flight path, for that portion of it's journey to the target. ballistic \Bal*lis"tic\, a. 1. Of or pertaining to the ballista, or to the art of hurling stones or missile weapons by means of an engine. ballistic adj : relating to or characteristic of the motion of objects moving under their own momentum and the force of gravity; "ballistic missile" Neither of those definitions preclude an ICBM from having a navigation system since they are obviously only ballistic for a portion of their flight path, not the entire path. Just like a bullet or hurling stone or missile weapons, all of which are ballistic weapons but do not follow a path strictly under their own momentum and the force of gravity for the entire trip. They all have to get started somehow. The way you are limiting their motion, all they could do is fall when dropped. Face it Jaxie, even though it's obvious you are only arguing for the sake of argument, you can't even do that effectively. Steve |
jaxashby caught in his own lie
|
jaxashby caught in his own lie
From:
[ ] |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com