About the closest I'll ever get to automation is my talking computer,
talking thermometer, talking VCR, talking alarm clock, talking braille
device with speech included, etc.
Stacy.
At 05:05 AM 11/08/2002 +, you wrote:
Anyone here interested in home automation? Anyone do any?
Stephen
Just to be clear, I was making fun of your statement. You say that we are
the laughingstock of the world, and I just laugh at that (Ha ha! :-). The
US is in a very difficult position of having sufficient power to destroy
most any enemy, but having no desire to simply crush an entire country (and
I expect that sometime in the future, sooner or later, the power of the US
will dwindle and someone else will rise to preeminence. That will clearly
be a hard pill to swallow.
But it hasn't happened yet, so let's not worry too much about it.
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote in part:
There's an
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
I basically believe we will attack and they in turn attack us. We will
then incite the entire
I know that you are being facetious here, but I truly hope that this is not
your dream. If this were to happen, you would lose all of your sacred
privileges and rights, and the US would be overtaken by the criminals among
us, including those who would like to redistribute your vast wealth.
Jon
Marc,
Who in your opinion presents the best, book length, argument in favor of
evolution? And who in your opinion best presents the best argument against
evolution? I ask these questions so that I might systematically study both
sides of the issue to see who has the better arguments using
Unfortunately, the target is way out in LEFT field, a rather funny place for
JWR to be shooting arrows!
Jon
My point exactly and right on target.
Stacy.
At 11:07 AM 11/07/2002 -0900, you wrote:
Is everyone pretty convinced that Osama bin Laden is still alive? If he
is, maybe we should
Yes, but cocky people are very proud of their deeds. I don't have any doubts.
Stacy.
At 07:13 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera television,
out of
Doha, Qatar, the day after.
I thought the church should strongly against the issue on an evolutionary
process.
Stacy.
At 06:36 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
Marc,
Who in your opinion presents the best, book length, argument in favor of
evolution? And who in your opinion best presents the best argument
against
Well, we can only spread ourselves so thin.
Stacy.
At 11:34 AM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote:
I am constantly amazed at the fuzzy thinking that some people exhibit by
dragging up this obviously silly argument. Now let me get this straight by
using another example that, I believe, is entirely
John, you seem to have a really blind spot on this issue. This is really
not like you - it has given you Alzheimer disease, I think. The video of
USB claiming responsibility and talking about the plans ahead of time was
played ad nauseum on the TV rag outlets. And while we do have an obligation
You weren't attacked by a nation. That's the problem.
Paul Osborne wrote:
Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera television,
out of
Doha, Qatar, the day after. He'd prepared the video ahead of time, so
there's not
much doubt.
Right. And, I'm in favor of nuclear
You sexist pig! That should have been she he
Jon
Paul Osborne gloatingly wrote:
he he
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
Strictly speaking, I honestly don't know, because I don't consider evolution to
be a moral issue which one is converted to -- it's just a toolset for
approaching one question on how the physical world works, like any other theory.
You probably suspected I'd respond that way, but it's true. Also,
Which votes? France and Russia voted in favour of the new US resolution at the
Security Council where they, along with the US, hold permanent seats.
Jon Spencer wrote:
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
Jon
John
To be sure, but it seems the videotape was prepared ahead of time and delivered to
al-Jazeera on condition they not play it until after the 11th of September, from
what I recall. That would at least imply foreknowledge, if not guilt as such.
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Marc A.
Although I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, the logic begs the
question, since it's scripture quoting scripture. If scripture is written in some kind
of code, or compacted language, then a quote, reference to allusion to another
scripture would follow the same format.
Mark
Marc:
I'd most certaily be interested in the article. You may e-mail me a copy if you
wish.
val
-- Marc A. Schindler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Marc A. Schindler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: zion-l [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Up JWR's way -- the Golden Bough of the Misty Isles
Here's the latest statement, which is positive neutrality, which is to say, that
it's not a matter for the Church to have an opinion on one way or the other
(despite what some brethren have written; see my response to John for more
information). This is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on
I wouldn't suggest this for a beginner, but the best and most up-to-date general
actual textbook, meant for university courses, is probably the relatively new,
but very long book that Stephen Jay Gould published just before he died, The
Structure of Evolutionary Theory.
John, you should
I'm compiling a long list of books to buy so that when I walk into an LDS
bookstore I'm not just going um, um, um.
Stacy.
At 10:43 AM 11/08/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Strictly speaking, I honestly don't know, because I don't consider
evolution to
be a moral issue which one is converted to -- it's
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
So you are absolutely sure that if we attack Iraq that no other country
will get involved against us, is that right? --JWR
Dreamer!
Stacy.
At 07:43 AM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
It wouldn't matter if they did - they wouldn't honor them. Especially
considering their votes today in the UN.
So you are absolutely sure that if we attack Iraq that no other
Mark Gregson wrote:
I wouldn't suggest this for a beginner, but the best and most up-to-date general
actual textbook, meant for university courses, is probably the relatively new,
but very long book that Stephen Jay Gould published just before he died, The
Structure of Evolutionary
-Jon-
Yep - I have automated quite a bit at our bookstore, and some
at my home (because I can never get any time to finish it.
What area do you have in mind?
Probably my basement family room, to start with. I've been dreaming
about home automation for many years, and toying with the idea of
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I know that you are being facetious here, but I truly hope that this is not
your dream. If this were to happen, you would lose all of your sacred
privileges and rights, and the US would be overtaken by the criminals among
us, including those who
At 09:31 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
I'm not going to say Yes, of
course the actual event happened as described, because it really doesn't
matter. If it did, great; if not _so what_. I refuse to
The Book of Mormon prophets believed that the water actually parted for
the Israelites but then
Another of these entertaining invitations from Lagos...
GREENFIELDS AGRO-ALLIED COMPANY.
10 BROAD STREET,
LAGOS-NIGERIA.
TEL: 2348023263622
Your Attention:
First, I must solicit your strictest understanding in the matter i am about
to disclose to you,if the contents of this mail does
Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose their
lives in such an attack?
--
Steven Montgomery
At 10:09 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
You weren't attacked by a nation. That's the problem.
Paul Osborne wrote:
Actually he admitted it on a videotape played on Al-Jezeera
Just what is predicted will happen. We will be overrun and the people that
will be left will be in anarchy. Only a relatively few of us (those in the
church that are left) will be the ones to save ourselves and the remnant of
the people. This is the way I see the prophecies that have been
In other words, we should be concentrating on the spirit of revelation, and not
on events, which are simply that, events.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
At 09:31 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
I'm not going to say Yes, of
course the actual event happened as described, because it really doesn't
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Indeed. The article says it may well take a century for the neo-Europe to
rise.
It didn't take that long for the Third Reich. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER:
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
But I hope that you are serious about the challenge of studying the issue
of evolution if you honestly expect to come to some kind of real
understanding. There is so much material to wade through with so many
questions about each fact
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
And finally, if you can hang tight, I might have another resource. I've
had the
idea for an article accepted by a well-known LDS publication (not Dialogue or
Sunstone), and a draft has been submitted. I can't reveal which
publication yet
After much pondering, Mark Gregson favored us with:
But I hope that you are serious about the challenge of studying the issue
of evolution if you honestly expect to come to some kind of real
understanding. There is so much material to wade through with so many
questions about each fact that
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I believe that sometime soon, someone will use a tactical nuke to take out a
carrier battlegroup - they have no other way of doing it. If we were to use
nukes now, then we would create a situation where we had sowed the seeds of
our own loss.
It is! How did you find out?
--
Steven Montgomery
At 12:31 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
He did. And I couldn't supply one.
It's kind of like saying that the answer to life, the universe and
everything is 42.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
I thought John asked for a single best source on the subject,
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
I agree, but no matter what we do we will be overrun. I don't know if I
agree with the prevailing LDS sentiment that we will prevail, either. I
suppose one has to ask what is meant by prevail. If you mean win but
only with a tiny fraction
It is difficult to find books on evolution that avoid dogmatic
approaches. I suspect that most who disagree with the rank and file do
so privately. In my experience any lack of enthusiasm for the currently
favored doctrine of evolution is met with waves of contempt and
derision. If you
Stephen:
Anyone here interested in home automation? Anyone do any?
Dan:
I've thought of it a few times, but wasn't too impressed with the X-10
architecture when I was more serious about it. Planned on rolling my own,
but just haven't had the time.
What do you mean? Did you read what I typed, or are you, too, going blind,
like Ryan and myself?
I will restate my sentence in different terms for you:
It would not matter if Russia and/or China had an existing mutual defense
treaty with Iraq [sidebar: the mere thought is extremely funny!].
I humbly crave your indulgence??
Geoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/02 12:14PM
Another of these entertaining invitations from Lagos...
GREENFIELDS AGRO-ALLIED COMPANY.
10 BROAD STREET,
LAGOS-NIGERIA.
TEL: 2348023263622
Your Attention:
First, I must solicit your strictest understanding in
I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for
any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since WWII?
Actually, contrary to popular misconception he didn't originate the idea, he merely
popularized it. It's now considered fairly mainstream, and part of the New
Synthesis.
I knew he didn't come up with the initial idea when I wrote my previous post but I got
lazy.
However, I am correct in
Quite a jump there, JWR! You mentioned Russia and China, and I shot them
down. That's all.
And yes, I am quite certain, especially after today's UN vote, that not a
single solitary country will join Iraq against us.
That is absolutely correct.
Jon
John W. Redelfs asked:
After much
When logic fails, attack! :-)
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
If it's so smart, then you won't mind giving it all your money. Obviously it
knows what to do with it better than you do. ;-)
Paul Osborne wrote:
After much pondering, Paul Osborne favored us with:
The President of the United
My sentiments exactly. Do you really call that winning, for the few of
us that are left? I suppose in some ways it is. At least those of us who
are left will deserve to be left. But for a while we will have to go
through torment, and don't ask me to look forward to that.
Stacy.
At 10:41
It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
I've already explained on this list some years ago that the nukes did not end the war.
You can disbelieve it, but it's best not to read what actually happened in Japan if
you want to maintain
I thought all personalities were real, despite the way they appear on the
virtual screen.
Stacy.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
OK, I'll go with your last statement. But you said you would like to see
the destruction of the US capital. That is what I was responding to. If
you think that would not be a problem, go live in Saudi Arabia and try to go
on an exchange to see some Saudi investigators!
Jon
John W. Redelfs
Collateral damage would take on a whole new meaning!
Jon
Steven Montgomery wrote:
Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose their
lives in such an attack?
--
Steven Montgomery
At 10:09 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
You weren't attacked by a nation. That's the problem.
Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each
brother. So there will be at least 8 people left. But wait! There will be
two apostles, which means there must be at least on President, so that's 3
guys plus 21 gals - 28 people.
And remember, whoever gives his life for me
I do not want to see the U.S. destroyed. I just know that it will
be. Since I'd like to spend what remains of my mortal existence in
relative comfort, I hope I am dead before much of these events take place.
Stacy.
At 04:22 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote:
OK, I'll go with your last
And we're diggin' as fast as we can, right? :-)
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
We already have the moral low ground. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html
If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I
be able to understand only 28? Suppose some of those 28 are handicapped?
Stacy.
At 04:27 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each
brother. So there will be at
Don't forget that when we started WW II we were pretty much a righteous
nation. I frankly don't see how we can really carry on our battles with
these people when they aren't any more righteous than the majority of the
nation.
Stacy.
At 04:36 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Ah, but I would
Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of
the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other
than accusations of such from the left, during the Gulf War.
Jon
Mark Gregson wrote:
When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since
The Lord will restore them to perfect bodies if needed. He's a really nice
guy, I hear. Or perhaps they will have gifts or powers that renders their
disability irrelevant.
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I
be able to understand
Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there
wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about
cooking? We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not
survive nuclear attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking
about. Or are you
In one sense -the temporal one - I agree with you. I understand that you
are blind. To me, that would be devastating at first. I would hope that I
could learn to cope.
But I do believe that no matter how hard things were, it would be somehow
fulfilling to be a part of the final struggle, so
Jon:
Ah, but I would (be so sure of that)! You see, unlike some on this list,
I am willing to be led by President Bush. I believe that he is honest and
sincere, and that he is no idiot. I don't take everything as gospel, and I
don't agree with some of what he wants to do, but he will not
Stacy:
Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there
wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about cooking?
We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not survive nuclear
attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking about. Or are
Why do you suppose the Lord repeats himself so many times in commanding us
to study words of wisdom out of the best books? Is he referring only to
the scriptures? Or does he want us to seek out and read the best books in
other fields?
If I want to read a biology book, do I want to read a
Thomas S. Monson and Boyd K. Packer.
Stacy.
At 01:44 PM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
Why do you suppose the Lord repeats himself so many times in commanding us
to study words of wisdom out of the best books? Is he referring only to
the scriptures? Or does he want us to seek out and read
Yes, I've started getting those.
Stacy.
At 03:26 PM 11/08/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Stacy:
Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there
wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about cooking?
We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not
I'd rather have Hinckley than Bush.
Stacy.
At 03:23 PM 11/08/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Jon:
Ah, but I would (be so sure of that)! You see, unlike some on this list,
I am willing to be led by President Bush. I believe that he is honest and
sincere, and that he is no idiot. I don't take
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
There is no other side of the world anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of
course, it is probably easier to get to North Carolina from Baghdad than
from where you live, but I digress. :-)
This is a cliche. Of course there is an other side of the
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we should not preemptively
defend ourselves, and ONE HAS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME COMPARING NEPHITES
SITUATIONS TO OUR CURRENT SITUATIONS.
---
Any thoughts on this statement? --JWR
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
I do not want to see the U.S. destroyed. I just know that it will
be. Since I'd like to spend what remains of my mortal existence in
relative comfort, I hope I am dead before much of these events take place.
I'm an adventurer. I want to
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
Quite a jump there, JWR! You mentioned Russia and China, and I shot them
down. That's all.
And yes, I am quite certain, especially after today's UN vote, that not a
single solitary country will join Iraq against us.
You have no idea how that
By reading one book.
No. Waidaminute. It was a trilogy. 4 books. Yeah, that's it
Incidentally, I'm introducing a whole new generation to the wonders of Douglas Adams
-- I've got a big, storybook edition
of the trilogy to give my son for Christmas.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
It is! How did
John, I don't mean to over-complicate your task, but just by coincidence, someone
posted the following statement by the AAAS (who put out Science, the US competitor of
Nature), on Eyring-L just
within the past hour. It's a statement against intelligent design:
Ouch! If they were radioactive do you think I'd want that? Unless the
Lord intends everything that's brought by them to all of a sudden become
free of radiation. That may be a bigger miracle than any prophet has ever
seen happen.
Stacy.
At 02:11 PM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
Going through this world as blind is challenge enough. Going through the
same after nuclear attack I cannot fathom.
I cannot but think that the organizational prowess of the Church would
become even more obvious after any nuclear attack. Who
Try buying one of those military special gliders that one runs on one's
back or whatever.
Stacy.
At 01:55 PM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
There is no other side of the world anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of
course, it is probably easier to
Jon Spencer wrote:
I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for
any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
When did we ever issue a real threat
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
I'm cc'ing Justin Hart on this, so if you want to get in touch with him
for more resources on ID, I'm sure he'd be glad to help.
I'm going to do a little survey reading first, then maybe I'll have you put
me in touch with him. I'm so
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
I don't necessarily feel unrighteous for not wanting to see it all. As I
recall, not all of the disciples wanted to tarry until the Lord comes either.
I don't think you are unrighteous for your desire. It is more prudent. I
am just a more
Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of
the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other
than accusations of such from the left, during the Gulf War.
I heard President George Bush state at the beginning of the Gulf War that the
Jon Spencer wrote:
Quite a jump there, JWR! You mentioned Russia and China, and I shot them
down. That's all.
And yes, I am quite certain, especially after today's UN vote, that not a
single solitary country will join Iraq against us.
That is absolutely correct.
I don't think that
...with sarcasm. Not to be taken seriously.
Jon Spencer wrote:
When logic fails, attack! :-)
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
If it's so smart, then you won't mind giving it all your money. Obviously it
knows what to do with it better than you do. ;-)
Paul Osborne wrote:
After much
You're straining at a camel here. And quoting out of context. I would encourage people
to read the first link, which is a detailed obituary of Gould. It shows the opposite
of what you contend: he challenged the mainstream, but his ideas are now part of the
New Synthesis. Here's another quote
Mark Gregson wrote:
It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
I've already explained on this list some years ago that the nukes did not end the
war. You can disbelieve it, but it's best not to read what actually happened in
Japan
But sometimes one must stand up for what is right. Capt Moroni didn't
back down from the threat of the kingmen. He could have rolled over,
fearing war, and allowed the free republic they had become a kingdom. But
he realized that freedom, religion, and their families were more
important than
I was listening to talk radio today, and they played some stuff from last
night's FrontLine (PBS). They had a newsman slip into Iraq and he was
interviewing people. They were describing the slaughters going on there.
One woman said that her village was forced to an execution. They had to
watch 15
Senator Peolosi from San Francisco is being groomed to take over the top
of the Dem heap in the Congress, while many of the other rats abandon
the sinking ship. Appears that she doesn't even attempt to hide her
whacked-out leftist socialist feminazi idealism. Near as I can tell,
she is an
Paul points out that these types of miracles tend to accompany the very beginning
of a new dispensation, but then are inappropriate (when you read all of I
Corinthians 13 you'll see that he's saying that signs and miracles aren't as
important at that point than Christlike love). I think we see
Jon Spencer wrote:
By the way, to offset all the history revisionists, if you remember, under
Bush 41 we acted FIRST, and then built a coalition, not the other way
around. Does anyone need the history lesson, or do you remember now? (Dan,
I'm not saying you said this, it just popped
Bible stories that Mother Young taught to Brigham when he was a child
may be the stumbling block of those who read the scriptures with a
traditional approach. But Brigham's word on this matter doesn't seem to
be exactly as we might have been led to believe. In context, his
disparaging
Thanks for that -- I wasn't aware of this. I'm not surprised that it involved China,
actually.
Mark Gregson wrote:
Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of
the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other
than accusations of
Fair enough. I know what you mean about projects -- I'm rather like that myself,
as it happens. But you'll find Justin a real gentleman and quite helpful. He and
I have politely agreed to disagree, but we work together at FAIR in apologetics
work (in fact, I got him involved after reading one of
Whaddya mean we? Actually the UN and European aid agencies from Sweden, Norway
and the Netherlands in particular are the ones who have been building the schools
and training doctors. And Medecins sans Frontieres is not a US agency so far as I
know. You're helping, yes, but spread a bit of credit
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
---
What would happen if an elderly lady stood up in your next fast
testimony meeting and started talking in tongues?
---
Unworthy soul that I am, nonetheless I believe I would weep for joy.
This really is a hypothetical, sadly enough. We apparently are not
If I were you, I'd be more worried about what might happen if Administration
policies fail. There's no Democratic Congress to blame anymore.
Jim Cobabe wrote:
Senator Peolosi from San Francisco is being groomed to take over the top
of the Dem heap in the Congress, while many of the other rats
After the scriptures what is the best book on gospel doctrine? My
present
choice would be THE TEACHINGS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH edited by
Joseph Fielding Smith.
I agree, absolutely!!
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for
Ah, but I would (be so sure of that)! You see, unlike some on this
list,
I am willing to be led by President Bush. I believe that he is honest
and
sincere, and that he is no idiot. I don't take everything as gospel,
and I
don't agree with some of what he wants to do, but he will not lead us
Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose
their
lives in such an attack?
IMO, that's all part of the deal. War is hell but we must fight it to win
at minimal cost to our own side and if nuclear bombs will achieve that
end, I am all for it. Whoever attacks this
Our government threatens our liberties more than any terrorists.
Oh brother, give me a break! Try telling that to the victims of 911! You
talk as if the government is the great enemy of our lives. I think the
above was one of your overstatements that you do from time to time.
Paul O
[EMAIL
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
Do we wait until Islam engulfs the nations and becomes a giant
threat,before we encourage it to stand down and live peacefully among
the nations of the world?
Do you really think there is any danger that Islam could become a giant
threat that
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
You forgot Vancouver ;-)
And Prince Rupert must be like Manhattan to you guys, eh? VBG
Vancouver is part of the greater Seattle metropolitan area, isn't it? very
big grin
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
