Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 343

Thread: Are all scientists this stupid?

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Are all scientists this stupid?

    Could 'Goldilocks' planet be just right for life?

    FULL STORY:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/...sci_new_earths

    SNIP:

    "It's unknown whether water actually exists on the planet, and what kind of atmosphere it has. But because conditions are ideal for liquid water, and because there always seems to be life on Earth where there is water, Vogt believes "that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent."
    Can anyone else see the BLITHERING STUPIDITY of this statement? There MAY be water, and that means "that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent"...
    These people are scientists??? You mean all I needed to become rich and get government grants was sit behind a telescope and make preposterous statements? Maybe we should be giving all this "scientific grant" (welfare) money to poor people instead. What harm could it do? At least nobody would give the nonsensical ravings of a bunch of ghetto dwellers any credibility.

    It's idiocy like this that helps reconfirm my belief that Man Made Global Warming is a collosal SCAM.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 09-30-2010 at 12:42 PM.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Puyallup< WA
    Posts
    285
    Not sure what your big issue is with this article, but the statement Vogt made about 100% possibility for life is a personal opinion, not science. I thought the article and other scientists quoted made that pretty clear.

    As for the scientific process and the money granted to them for their work, you may want to do some more in depth research on the outcomes of this type of research. There are a lot of big finds in the universe. Without this type of research, hydrogen as a long term fuel replacement for vehicles would not be a viable option, as it is slowly becoming. We have learned so much so quickly the last 30 years, that our textbooks are out of date the moment they they are printed. Much of what I learned about science has been proven wrong and many older theories are no longer viable. Einstein's theories on the universe used to be a gold standard, but now are accepted as helpful to the evolution of science, but not much else.

    My point being, that though you may not like the way one man stated his opinion doesn't mean that the whole of the scientific community is in agreement with him. Nor does it mean you have to believe his opinion, just as he doesn't have to agree with you on any given issue. The world and universe is a constantly changing and evolving place and the discovery of a planet with water and stable climate that may harbor life would be a huge milestone for us as the human race. It would have a profound affect on our world as we would be assured that we are not the only "life" in the universe. The religious backlash of us finding life on a planet similar to ours could be the most disturbing, I could see the radical religious becoming violent as they are prone to do, but that is way off topic.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Scientists are very smart.

    Some are just bigoted. They have a predetermined POV and will force the results they want. That makes them really poor scientists.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Could 'Goldilocks' planet be just right for life?

    FULL STORY:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/...sci_new_earths

    SNIP:



    Can anyone else see the BLITHERING STUPIDITY of this statement? There MAY be water, and that means "that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent"...
    These people are scientists??? You mean all I needed to become rich and get government grants was sit behind a telescope and make preposterous statements? Maybe we should be giving all this "scientific grant" (welfare) money to poor people instead. What harm could it do? At least nobody would give the nonsensical ravings of a bunch of ghetto dwellers any credibility.

    It's idiocy like this that helps reconfirm my belief that Man Made Global Warming is a collosal SCAM.
    I'm not sure what your issue is, beyond your own ignorance. The claim is perfectly sound: the chance life could exist is 100%. That is to say, there is nothing that explicitly makes this planet unsuitable for life to form, as there is a zone that is solid, has liquid water, does not get too hot, does not get too cold, does not have too much gravity, receives starlight, et cetera. In comparison, a planet that undergoes extreme phase shifts might have only a 50% chance that it could support life.

    What are you afraid of, that you're not special enough in the universe? Face it, we're all specks that are part of a smaller speck that is infinitesimally a part of the big picture. How insignificant? Here's a picture of Earth taken from Voyager 1 in 1990: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_Blue_Dot.png

    That's right, everyone you know, everyone you've ever cared about, loved, hated, been angry with, everything fits into that small blip of pixels - noise on the background of an immense universe. What's your problem with this?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  5. #5
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Could 'Goldilocks' planet be just right for life?

    FULL STORY:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/...sci_new_earths

    SNIP:



    Can anyone else see the BLITHERING STUPIDITY of this statement? There MAY be water, and that means "that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent"...
    These people are scientists??? You mean all I needed to become rich and get government grants was sit behind a telescope and make preposterous statements? Maybe we should be giving all this "scientific grant" (welfare) money to poor people instead. What harm could it do? At least nobody would give the nonsensical ravings of a bunch of ghetto dwellers any credibility.

    It's idiocy like this that helps reconfirm my belief that Man Made Global Warming is a collosal SCAM.
    The planet is in a temperate zone, most water comes from outer space in the form of space debris and gases that coalesce into various liquids using the heat and energy from the sun and the planets natural radiation so yes there is a chance that it has "Liquid Water". The chances of life being able to develop are 100%, that doesn't mean that there is life at the moment. There were thousands of false starts on earth before conditions were right and various forms of life developed. An asteroid hit providing the proper elements could kick start life on that planet or kill off any life that may be there. It may have higher life forms that move about and graze on things or it may just be slime under rocks near a lake but life is life.

    What is your problem with his statement. I read it and nowhere did he or anybody else claim there are men on that planet looking at us and wondering if there is life on our ball of rock water and mud. If one of them postulated that there is a chance of life on our planet I bet he would be called an idiot too. He would probably have to go around armed to protect himself unless they are a lower life form and have anti-gun laws.

    It's just chemistry and it's going to happen whether you approve or not. Given enough time it will eventually happen anyplace the conditions are favorable. Nothing we can do about it.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If one slips the word "may" in there, then the 100% label can be liberally and meaninglessly applied.

    There is a 100% chance that I may rob a bank today. There is also a 100% chance that I may not.

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Vogt and Butler ran some calculations, with giant fudge factors built in, and figured that as much as one out of five to 10 stars in the universe have planets that are Earth-sized and in the habitable zone.
    I think this says volumes about the scientific community these days. Just like the numbers in the research on global warming had a huge fudge factor built in. In other words, they cheated.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Science is a way of thinking that will lead to truth, unlike stupid way of thinking

    There are biologists, and astronomers, physicists, logicians and mathematicians that may practice science. Self-proclaimed "scientists" generally aren't, kind'a like self-proclaimed messiahs and seers.

  9. #9
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    There is a 100% chance that I may rob a bank today. There is also a 100% chance that I may not.
    Actually that translates into 50% each way.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Puyallup< WA
    Posts
    285
    I believe the fudge factors in this case were towards the not having life supporting planets side of the equation. In other words fudged against their argument, not in support. Space is an ever growing and expanding phenomenon, therefore no solid mathematics apply to it. Things "out there" change on a scale so massive it literally warps, bends, distorts or destroys our laws of science and mathematics.

    Crazy and amazing place we live in, all that much more fascinating when you don't try to bend it to your own will and objectives. The forces of even our expanding universe, one of an infinite and ever expanding number, are unpredictable and surprising.

    The long term, several billion plus years, survival of the human race depends on scientific research such as that in the posted article. In time, our sun will burn off it's fuel and begin a cycle of consuming our planet, of course we'll be dead well before it does because it will destroy our climate conditions and cause our extinction. in essence we need to find habitable planets that we can populate before it's too late and we have to look now and then work on a way to travel their in a survivable time frame.

    Sounds like something from star trek, but it's real life science and we're working on it now. If people would quit worrying about the massive particle collider creating a black hole that will destroy the earth we'd be making better progress on advancing our species and surviving the universe.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by irish52084 View Post
    I believe the fudge factors in this case were towards the not having life supporting planets side of the equation. In other words fudged against their argument, not in support.
    I didn't get that from the article. IMHO, a fudge factor anywjere in science or statistics is a no-no, no matter which direction you fudge. Let's get the real numbers. The rest of your comment means nothing to me as the world, as we know it, will be gone long before they figure that stuff out.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The Drake equation and similar efforts are really a list of factors that would be necessary for life (or civilized life) to exist elsewhere in the universe. The numbers assigned to the various factors a wild guesses and some factors are ignored--I would say thousands of factors, maybe more.

    For example, consider our Moon. No one pays to much attention to its role in life developing on the Earth as we know it today. If it were not there, or too much closer, or too much farther away, the wildness of our tides (or the lack of them) would have dramatically changed life on our planet, delayed its development by eons, or prevented its development altogether.

    How about the magnetic field that blocks much of the dangerous radiation from the Sun while allowing the right amount of the right kinds of radiation through? That's a function of the iron in our core.

    These stabs at calculating probabilities are just so much arrogance, which is the real problem with many scientists, not stupidity. They just don't know when to say that they don't know.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    I didn't get that from the article. IMHO, a fudge factor anywjere in science or statistics is a no-no, no matter which direction you fudge. Let's get the real numbers. The rest of your comment means nothing to me as the world, as we know it, will be gone long before they figure that stuff out.
    IMHO bad spelling in writing is a no-no, no matter, which side you're arguing.

    fudge factors are generally not as simple as that article and most people think. Yes, its best not to have them, but we put a man on the moon with huge fudge factors. A fudge factor simply means the equation in use does not quite fit reality. This is very common since most people like to use analytical equations which end up needing approximations. I'll admit they are very annoying, but they aren't as bad as you think.

  14. #14
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    IMHO bad spelling in writing is a no-no, no matter, which side you're arguing.

    fudge factors are generally not as simple as that article and most people think. Yes, its best not to have them, but we put a man on the moon with huge fudge factors. A fudge factor simply means the equation in use does not quite fit reality. This is very common since most people like to use analytical equations which end up needing approximations. I'll admit they are very annoying, but they aren't as bad as you think.
    Are you a topic cop as well as a spelling cop, maybe a rules cop to go with it. Just what we need on this forum, another one. BTW, that's not a spelling error, it's a typing error. I just didn't proof read it and didn't catch it.

    SUE ME!!!
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If one slips the word "may" in there, then the 100% label can be liberally and meaninglessly applied.

    There is a 100% chance that I may rob a bank today. There is also a 100% chance that I may not.
    That's a bit different than what the person purportedly being quoted said.

    "chances for life on this planet are 100%"

    That means that there is 100% chance for life to have sprung up on this planet. Can you not understand the difference between saying "there is a 100% chance life has formed" and "there is a 100% chance for life to form"?

    The first states what is, the second states that nothing stops what could be. To use your bank robbing example, "chances for you to rob the bank are 100%" would mean that you are always in the bank, armed, with no guards, and no witnesses, etc. The chance is always there, but you may never capitalize upon it. Compare that to "chances for you to rob the bank are 1%" - you're only in the bank 2% of the time, you're armed 100% of the time, but there are guards 50% of the time.

    As for people taking offense at using a "fudge factor" - guess what, I do it all the time, and there's a good chance you're using software where that has occurred. Fact is, there's often a good reason to use a large fudge factor, such as saying "this app will maximally consume 25 MB of paged system memory" when it will generally only use 8MB... Doing so helps give you a better idea of the worst case. Let's not even get started on the fact this is a reporter writing a story. They're about as good at science as they are at firearms...
    Last edited by Tawnos; 09-30-2010 at 09:18 PM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The Drake equation and similar efforts are really a list of factors that would be necessary for life (or civilized life) to exist elsewhere in the universe. The numbers assigned to the various factors a wild guesses and some factors are ignored--I would say thousands of factors, maybe more.

    For example, consider our Moon. No one pays to much attention to its role in life developing on the Earth as we know it today. If it were not there, or too much closer, or too much farther away, the wildness of our tides (or the lack of them) would have dramatically changed life on our planet, delayed its development by eons, or prevented its development altogether.

    How about the magnetic field that blocks much of the dangerous radiation from the Sun while allowing the right amount of the right kinds of radiation through? That's a function of the iron in our core.

    These stabs at calculating probabilities are just so much arrogance, which is the real problem with many scientists, not stupidity. They just don't know when to say that they don't know.

    It's because they've drawn a conclusion already:

    That there has to be other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and (in many cases) there could not possibly be a God. Finding mold on a rock outside our gravity would a smoking gun to prove it. Therefore any evidence that could be used to argue in favor of that theory shall be trumpeted from the mountaintops, and any information that diminishes it will not be factored.

    If my pointing out the stupidity of saying,

    "It's unknown whether water actually exists on the planet, and what kind of atmosphere it has. But because conditions are ideal for liquid water, and because there always seems to be life on Earth where there is water, Vogt believes "that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent."
    illustrates ignorance on my part, believing such a statement certainly illustrates profound naivete.


    I do not take issue with that statement because I have a problem with the concept of other worlds inhabited with highly intelligent peoples or because such believes compromise my belief in God. My problem is "scientists" and other "educated" elites making insipid statements, and millions of people accepting them as fact. Just like the MMGW hoax, only more so because there are so many scientists that dispute these theories, but are ridiculed by the "educated" elites in the leftwing fringe of both the scientific community and the media.


    If I were God, I'd have planets all over the universe teeming with life. He probably likes watching wars, and eventually we'll be involved in intergalactic battles. In any case, in His infinite wisdom, he seems to have spaced the planets so far apart the rest of the universe is safe from liberalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    That's a bit different than what the person purportedly being quoted said.

    "chances for life on this planet are 100%"

    That means that there is 100% chance for life to have sprung up on this planet. Can you not understand the difference between saying "there is a 100% chance life has formed" and "there is a 100% chance for life to form"?

    If Vogt was misquoted, proof reading by a qualified editor should have called into question this statement. It is stupid, no matter how you twist it.

    As for people taking offense at using a "fudge factor" - guess what, I do it all the time, and there's a good chance you're using software where that has occurred. Fact is, there's often a good reason to use a large fudge factor, such as saying "this app will maximally consume 25 MB of paged system memory" when it will generally only use 8MB... Doing so helps give you a better idea of the worst case. Let's not even get started on the fact this is a reporter writing a story. They're about as good at science as they are at firearms...

    You have the luxury of using fudge factors if you aren't a government funded scientist who's studies are used to set policy. Especially policy that could change the fundamentals of the global economy (not in our favor either) like the global warming hoax could potentially do. When reporters and their media outlets distribute information like this, it should be condemned when anyone can easily point out how stupid, or politically biased it is. They're obvioulsy bad at both science and firearms. They're obviously pretty bad at truth and investigative journalism as well.

    That's about as useful as a lifeguard who can't swim, hence my indignation.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    It's because they've drawn a conclusion already:

    That there has to be other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and (in many cases) there could not possibly be a God. Finding mold on a rock outside our gravity would a smoking gun to prove it. Therefore any evidence that could be used to argue in favor of that theory shall be trumpeted from the mountaintops, and any information that diminishes it will not be factored.
    That essentially was the point of my post above (#3):

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Scientists are very smart.

    Some are just bigoted. They have a predetermined POV and will force the results they want. That makes them really poor scientists.
    Although the bigotry is not always the impossibility of God, just sometimes.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That essentially was the point of my post above (#3)
    It was such a good point I felt the need to expound upon it.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Puyallup< WA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    I didn't get that from the article. IMHO, a fudge factor anywjere in science or statistics is a no-no, no matter which direction you fudge. Let's get the real numbers. The rest of your comment means nothing to me as the world, as we know it, will be gone long before they figure that stuff out.
    The fudge factor is needed in this kind of research, because we cant physically touch or easily test the conditions of this planet. If you can use straight information and formulas, that's great but often not possible. We have to use

    I didn't see anywhere in the article where they claimed that "intelligent Life" would for sure be found. I think they even brought up the fact that it would likely be microbial "life", but i haven't re-read it so I could be wrong.

    You talk about fudge factors being so terrible and that the real numbers should be everything, yet you claim that the world as we know it will be gone before "they" figure that stuff out. Where are your real numbers for that statement? Unless I misunderstood and you meant the nanosecond changes in our world that happen an infinite amount of times in a second that make our world as we knew it gone before we figure out faster than light travel or some approximation of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Puyallup< WA
    Posts
    285
    Here's some info on the research going on with faster than light and the way our scientific theories work in environments other than day to day life. Just wanted to point out this kind of theoretical science has to take place so those real numbers can be determined.

    http://news.discovery.com/space/warp...ip-engine.html
    http://www.universetoday.com/33752/d...er-than-light/
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingte...han-light/1016

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    It's because they've drawn a conclusion already:

    That there has to be other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and (in many cases) there could not possibly be a God. Finding mold on a rock outside our gravity would a smoking gun to prove it. Therefore any evidence that could be used to argue in favor of that theory shall be trumpeted from the mountaintops, and any information that diminishes it will not be factored.

    If my pointing out the stupidity of saying,



    illustrates ignorance on my part, believing such a statement certainly illustrates profound naivete.


    I do not take issue with that statement because I have a problem with the concept of other worlds inhabited with highly intelligent peoples or because such believes compromise my belief in God. My problem is "scientists" and other "educated" elites making insipid statements, and millions of people accepting them as fact. Just like the MMGW hoax, only more so because there are so many scientists that dispute these theories, but are ridiculed by the "educated" elites in the leftwing fringe of both the scientific community and the media.


    If I were God, I'd have planets all over the universe teeming with life. He probably likes watching wars, and eventually we'll be involved in intergalactic battles. In any case, in His infinite wisdom, he seems to have spaced the planets so far apart the rest of the universe is safe from liberalism.
    You seem to be drawing a conclusion ahead of time as well, although you are not too far off for some of my fellows. However, before you assume all scientists are from Berkeley, remember many are highly positive about live existing on other planets because they want it to be true, which is because they are NERDS, and want scifi to become reality.

  22. #22
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by irish52084 View Post
    You talk about fudge factors being so terrible and that the real numbers should be everything, yet you claim that the world as we know it will be gone before "they" figure that stuff out. Where are your real numbers for that statement? Unless I misunderstood and you meant the nanosecond changes in our world that happen an infinite amount of times in a second that make our world as we knew it gone before we figure out faster than light travel or some approximation of it.
    Revelation
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    I didn't get that from the article. IMHO, a fudge factor anywjere in science or statistics is a no-no, no matter which direction you fudge. Let's get the real numbers. The rest of your comment means nothing to me as the world, as we know it, will be gone long before they figure that stuff out.
    What scientific or statistical training do you have, if I might inquire? It seems you expect absolutely perfect measurements, rather than realistic ones, which is odd to me.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    What scientific or statistical training do you have, if I might inquire? It seems you expect absolutely perfect measurements, rather than realistic ones, which is odd to me.
    In physics and many other physical sciences its the theory and analysis that is imperfect. the measurements are usually stupid accurate.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    You seem to be drawing a conclusion ahead of time as well, although you are not too far off for some of my fellows. However, before you assume all scientists are from Berkeley, remember many are highly positive about live existing on other planets because they want it to be true, which is because they are NERDS, and want scifi to become reality.
    I was speaking off the cuff of course, so I should declare that I do not view all scientists with any sort of contempt. The fault in the statement that raised my ire could also be blamed on piss poor journalism to be fair. I just hate to see such nonsense printed so often, without any challenge at all. So just to be clear, thank God for scientists, at least the ones who do their research without an agenda, in the pursuit of truth and advancement of our people.Liberals of all professions disgust me, I wish scientists would invent a pill that cured marxism.That would advance mankind for sure!!
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •