Notices
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Resources

  1. #1 Resources 
    Forum Freshman Duke of Essex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Ontario
    Posts
    8
    I have what might be a silly question to some of you, but I honestly don't know the answer.

    What happens to the millions and trillions of tonnes of resources we harvest after they have been crafted, burnt away, or gassed away? I mean, obviously the Earth can take a massive ammount of weight, but can it aford to lose so much as well?

    If we continue to burn oil in our automobiles, where does it go? Trillions of tonnes are being lost and at the rate things go, wouldn't the Earth be incredibly lighter than it once was?

    Also, oil formed over millions of years, wouldn't it be constantly forming still? That goes for many resources, gold, copper, osmium, diamonds, etc... sure it takes millions of years to form, but every second is that much more time for them to form from the previous millions of years.

    I'm puzzled.


    Keep on Rockin' in the freeworld!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The mass of the Earth is 5.97 x 10^24 kg. Every year we turn roughly 3 x 10^12 kg of carbon into CO2 so the planet loses 5 x 10^-11 percent of its mass into the atmosphere every year, (if my math is correct) which is really quite trivial. (The CO2 doesn't stay forever in the atmosphere either so the amount is really even smaller.)

    There are other consequences that we know about that are not trivial, but that's off topic.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    A car engine or wood-stove does not destroy matter. It goes out the chimney or exhaust. A small amount of this makes its way to the limits of Earth's atmosphere and is lost to space. A very small amount - trivial as Bunbury said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Carbon is captured from the atmosphere and entrained into carbonate rocks, some of which eventually get subducted into the upper mantle where the carbon dioxide and other volatiles facilitate volcanic eruptions which return the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The rate of entrainment in carbonates is directly related to the amount of photosynthesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Carbon is captured from the atmosphere and entrained into carbonate rocks, some of which eventually get subducted into the upper mantle where the carbon dioxide and other volatiles facilitate volcanic eruptions which return the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The rate of entrainment in carbonates is directly related to the amount of photosynthesis.
    That is the most absurd and ridiculous model I have ever seen in my life. You have absolutely no clue.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Casual readers should be aware of the following:

    Total Science frequents sciforums under the name OilIsMastery.

    He believes all oil is abiogenic.
    He believes no fossils are found below 15,000.
    He believes plate tectonics is a myth.

    He routinely quotes scientists out of context.
    Laughably, he often misunderstands the written word, quoting scientists opposed to his ideas as if they were in favour of them.
    At other times he does this as a deliberate deception.

    You may wish to consider these aspects of his posting character when reading anything he says. (In short, take all of his words with a large evaporite deposit.)

    Were this my forum I would ban him instantly and permanently for offences against logic and gross distortion of facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    He believes no fossils are found below 15,000.
    No I don't. I believe oil is found below 15,000 feet. As a matter of fact it is even though the now debunked biogenic hypothesis says it's impossible.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Carbon is captured from the atmosphere and entrained into carbonate rocks, some of which eventually get subducted into the upper mantle where the carbon dioxide and other volatiles facilitate volcanic eruptions which return the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The rate of entrainment in carbonates is directly related to the amount of photosynthesis.
    That is the most absurd and ridiculous model I have ever seen in my life. You have absolutely no clue.
    Hi TS,

    I find it interesting you have such an aversion to a model supported by thousands on geochemists across the globe. Granted, the number of people who believe A has no bearing on the truth of A, but in practical terms I must therefore assume you have some recent, groundbreaking evidence.

    Can you please provide the reference for your paper deconstructing plate tectonics, weathering, the formation autochthonous carbonates, dehydration melting, and the CO2 content of volcanic outgassing?

    It must be quite the epic tome, and I can't wait to read it.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    tenderheart bear, if you really want to know you can find the truth here: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/

    My position is the scientific one.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,805
    just out of interest : how do you distinguish abiogenic from biogenic oil ? is there a way by just looking at a sample of oil whether it is biological in origin or not ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    just out of interest : how do you distinguish abiogenic from biogenic oil ?
    I don't distinguish between them because there is no such thing as biogenic oil.

    is there a way by just looking at a sample of oil whether it is biological in origin or not ?
    No such thing as biogenic petroleum.

    "Stable carbon isotopes are not a reliable criterion for distinguishing biogenic from non-biogenic petroleum." -- A.A. Giardini (geologist) and Charles E. Melton (chemist), 1991
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,805
    ok, in that case, how do you prove that oil is abiogenic + not biogenic in origin ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    ok, in that case, how do you prove that oil is abiogenic + not biogenic in origin ?
    Complex hydrocarbons can only be formed at pressures above 30 kilobar which corresponds to a depth of 100 kilometers deep in the mantle. No biological molecule can survive in the mantle because it is past the critical temperature of salt water.

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full

    For further reading see here: http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

    And here: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Complex hydrocarbons can only be formed at pressures above 30 kilobar which corresponds to a depth of 100 kilometers deep in the mantle.
    not being a geologist i can only take your word for that statement - can anyone else confirm it ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    tenderheart bear, if you really want to know you can find the truth here: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/

    My position is the scientific one.
    Then please refer me to your research as presented in a peer-reviewed journal, not a personal website on the blogspot.com domain. The latter tells me nothing and is anything BUT scientific.

    Cheers,
    thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    tenderheart bear, if you really want to know you can find the truth here: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/

    My position is the scientific one.
    Then please refer me to your research as presented in a peer-reviewed journal, not a personal website on the blogspot.com domain. The latter tells me nothing and is anything BUT scientific.

    Cheers,
    thb
    I refer you to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences link posted above which you either (a) accidentally ignored due to lack of reading comprehension or else (b) deliberately ignored due to willful ignorance.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Complex hydrocarbons can only be formed at pressures above 30 kilobar which corresponds to a depth of 100 kilometers deep in the mantle.
    not being a geologist i can only take your word for that statement - can anyone else confirm it ?
    Unlikely.

    Regarding biogenic hydrocarbons:

    Due to application of high-tech organic geochemistry, primarily gas chromatography–mass spectrometry techniques, started in the 1960s in the USA, biotic oil theory became entrenched through the identification of biomarkers, specific organic polymers that are tracers of once living organisms. Biomarkers and stable isotopes definitely marked a “revolution” regarding the origin and occurrence of hydrocarbons.
    (From: A Tsatskin, O Balaban, Peak oil in the light of oil formation theories Energy policy yr:2008 vol:36 iss:6 pg:1826 -1828)

    Cheers,
    thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    I refer you to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences link posted above which you either (a) accidentally ignored due to lack of reading comprehension or else (b) deliberately ignored due to willful ignorance.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full
    The hyperlink http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full does not lead to the same content displayed on http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/ which you orginally passed off as research deconstructing plate tectonics, weathering, the formation autochthonous carbonates, dehydration melting, and the CO2 content of volcanic outgassing.

    Clearly you are confused. No such reference has yet been presented for our consideration. If you're serious about making yourself heard, I'd recommend proofreading your posts so as to provide the correct reference the first time around.

    As for the paper you presented, it's quite interesting with the quick look I took at it. However, evidence for abiogenic hydrocarbons is just that; it does not refute the biogenic source. Secondly:

    The hydrocarbon synthesis conditions in our experiments are the same as the p–T conditions that, according to modern concepts, take place in the Earth’s upper mantle.
    Although the results of the known attempt to synthesize hydrocarbons from inorganic substances under pressure under laboratory conditions seem encouraging, they cannot be considered reliable because of drawbacks of the experimental technique.
    ...the author's own words (emphasis added).

    (J.F. Kenney, V.A. Kutcherov, N.A. Bendeliani and V.A. Alekseev, The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: IV. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: the genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99 (2002), pp. 10976–10981.)

    Cheers,
    thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    Regarding biogenic hydrocarbons:

    Due to application of high-tech organic geochemistry, primarily gas chromatography–mass spectrometry techniques, started in the 1960s in the USA, biotic oil theory became entrenched through the identification of biomarkers, specific organic polymers that are tracers of once living organisms. Biomarkers and stable isotopes definitely marked a “revolution” regarding the origin and occurrence of hydrocarbons.
    (From: A Tsatskin, O Balaban, Peak oil in the light of oil formation theories Energy policy yr:2008 vol:36 iss:6 pg:1826 -1828)

    Cheers,
    thb
    Nonsense.

    Inorganic Geochemistry of Oil: First Results of the Study Using the ICP-MS Method of the East-European and West-Siberian Oil Deposits

    Kirill S. Ivanov1, Yuriy N. Fyodorov2, Yuriy L. Ronkin3, Yuriy V. Yerokhin3, Olga E. Pogromskaya3, and Irina N. Plotnikova4. (1) Institute of Geology and Geochemistry of Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg, Russia, phone: (343)3716282, ivanovks@igg.uran.ru, (2) Tumen Department of KogalimNIPIneft, (3) RAS, (4) Department of Geology of Tatarstan

    New data have been obtained from 59 rare, rare-earth and other elements in crude oil from the West Siberian and the giant Romashkino deposit of the Tatarstan Republic. ICP-MS analyses made with high resolution mass-spectrometer ELEMENT 2. The principle geochemical anomalies in these samples include limitedly low content of most elements, except for the elements V, Ni, Cr, Ca, Sr, Na, Rb, Cs. For the West-Siberian oils marked a PGE (platinoid) presence in substantial quantities, especially of palladium. While normalizing on contents in primitive mantle [Taylor, McLennan, 1985] in oils are established positive anomalies on U, Sr, Ti, Y, Zr, and negative anomalies on Sm, Hf, Th, Nb, Nd. The rare-earth elements in the West Siberian oils demonstrate a particular type of trend characterized by enrichment of the light lanthanides (La/Yb=16-19) and a sharply positive Eu anomaly. The crude oil samples of the Romashkino deposit, when similarly normalized against the primitive mantle distribution in oil of rare and scattered elements, manifest positive anomalies of Sr, Rb, Cs, Hf, Zr, Eu, U and negative anomalies of Ti, Th. The content of PGE is about one order lower in the Romashkino crude oil than in the West-Siberian. Rare-earth elements in the Tatarian oil show approximately one type of trend with gradual enrichment of light lanthanoids with high La/Yb ratio up to 20 units and the presence of sharply positive Eu anomaly. Oils from the West Siberia and Tatarstan are of different geochemical types. The elemental distribution in the crude oil from all studied deposits does not match such of any known crustal rock. The experimental data presented should be taken into consideration during origin of oils is being discussed. The ICP-MS method begin a new stage in oil inorganic geochemistry study.
    Link
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Nonsense.
    Unfortunately for you, TS, it's the accepted idea in the scientific community. A handful of fringe papers using questionable labratory techniques that require further refining are not as revolutionary as you would like to believe or as you portray.

    Unless you can provide evidence to back up your previous claims on a whole host of obvious geological mechanisms (though I'm not holding my breath), I see no reason to allow you to turn this thread into one about your personal, pet theories when indeed one already exists.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Nonsense.
    Unfortunately for you, TS, it's the accepted idea in the scientific community. A handful of fringe papers using questionable labratory techniques that require further refining are not as revolutionary as you would like to believe or as you portray.
    And once again you ignore all the disconfirming scientific evidence and all the peer reviewed scientific papers such as that from the AAPG posted above.

    Unless you can provide evidence to back up your previous claims on a whole host of obvious geological mechanisms (though I'm not holding my breath), I see no reason to allow you to turn this thread into one about your personal, pet theories when indeed one already exists.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    It's not my personal pet theory. It's scientific reality.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    And once again you ignore all the disconfirming scientific evidence and all the peer reviewed scientific papers such as that from the AAPG posted above.
    Certainly then, I am in excellent company as you seem quite willing to ignore the wealth of evidence that destroys your hypothesis and offends your David vs Goliath sensibilities. As I noted previously, dramatics over logic seems key in your presentation.

    It's not my personal pet theory. It's scientific reality.
    I await the evidence on those topics excluding the already discussed abiogenic oil with much anticipation then.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    I await the evidence on those topics excluding the already discussed abiogenic oil with much anticipation then.
    No you don't. You said no blogs are credible. Deliberate ignorance and dismissal of scientific evidence seems to be your political and religious agenda.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Deliberate ignorance and dismissal of scientific evidence seems to be your political and religious agenda.
    how do you know this is a political or religious agenda ? i don't see anything in thb's posts to indicate anything but a personal opinion rather than being a front for a political or religious movement
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Complex hydrocarbons can only be formed at pressures above 30 kilobar which corresponds to a depth of 100 kilometers deep in the mantle.
    not being a geologist i can only take your word for that statement - can anyone else confirm it ?
    Total Schizoid overlooks the fact that each of us is forming and reforming complex organic molecules every second of the day under surface conditions. It is from such pre-existing organic materials, trapped in sedimentary deposits and subject to increasing pressure and temperature, that hydrocarbons are synthesised under natural conditions.

    There seems little doubt that some hydrocarbon is abiogenic in origin, in particular some methane. However, the contribution of this abiogenic component to hydrocarbon reserves is miniscule.
    The abiogenic hypothesis is popular with opponents of peak oil. They claim oil is being continuously generated at depth by abiogenic processes and is then refilling the depleted oil reservoirs. This is not the case, but it allows them to argue against drives for renewable energy.
    The Russians also, for a time, were big on abiogenic petroleum. They made some discoveries based upon that hypothesis. Those discoveries were more likely a result of trying something new and looking somewhere different, then getting lucky. Currently exploration for oil in Russia does not follow the abiogenic paradigm.

    I think it would be worth re-evaluating aspects of the concept. For example, organic material carried into the upper mantle by subduction would be degraded, but carbon is still carbon. If this material is then reintroduced at shallower depths through volcanic activity, metasomatism, or some other process it could offer raw materials for deep extremophiles to tap into. Their complex organic remains could then produce an alternative source for some hydrocarbons.

    That idea is highly speculative. There is virtually no evidence to support it, but as a neat idea it could be worth looking at. Total Science screws up the opportunities for such discussions with his hysterical, narrow minded, absolutist approach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    I await the evidence on those topics excluding the already discussed abiogenic oil with much anticipation then.
    No you don't. You said no blogs are credible.
    Exactly. Show me something in a peer-reviewed journal. Try Nature, Science, or Geology for starters. Hint - Wikipedia doesn't count.

    Deliberate ignorance and dismissal of scientific evidence seems to be your political and religious agenda.
    Congratulations on 2008's most ironic statement.

    My 'political' and 'religious' agenda is to one day add to wealth of respectable, sensical, and factual knowledge within the geological sciences. This is coming from an atheist who doesn't care about partisan politics, to say nothing of political ideology.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Atheists not political? That's hilarious.

    Anyway, for your information the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is peer reviewed.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Atheists not political? That's hilarious.
    Many atheists are apolitical, myself included. So what exactly are you trying to argue? Sounds like a poor attempt at distraction, as political beliefs having nothing to do with whether obvious and accepted geological processes do in fact take place.

    Anyway, for your information the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is peer reviewed.
    Indeed it is. However, you only provided a single article about abiogenic oil - NOT about any of the other valid Earth processes you have not only denied, but said you would disprove. Your ability to stay focused on a topic that deviates from your personal axe-grinding is disturbingly limited.

    May I redirect your attention back to topics in need of your refutation? They include:

    -plate tectonics
    -weathering
    -autochthonous carbonates
    -dehydration melting
    -volcanic outgassing

    Looks like you have your work cut out for you. I await your reply with anticipation.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke of Essex View Post
    I have what might be a silly question to some of you, but I honestly don't know the answer.

    What happens to the millions and trillions of tonnes of resources we harvest after they have been crafted, burnt away, or gassed away? I mean, obviously the Earth can take a massive ammount of weight, but can it aford to lose so much as well?

    If we continue to burn oil in our automobiles, where does it go? Trillions of tonnes are being lost and at the rate things go, wouldn't the Earth be incredibly lighter than it once was?

    Also, oil formed over millions of years, wouldn't it be constantly forming still? That goes for many resources, gold, copper, osmium, diamonds, etc... sure it takes millions of years to form, but every second is that much more time for them to form from the previous millions of years.

    I'm puzzled.
    Actually, mass of planet is continually but gradually growing as meteoric bodies fall into terrestrial gravity well, sometimes with spectacular consequences for inhabitants. This is offset by escape of helium from radioactive decay from rocks, relatively trivial, and launch of probes to other planets by humans, even more trivial in terms of mass lost.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,008
    your responding to a forum member who will not even get notification you responded, and who only posted 8 times 3 years ago why?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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