Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Someone Explain This "Carbon Footprint" Crap.  
User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

Ok I am suddenly seeing ads everywhere about companies that reduce your "Carbon Footprint" I have even seen a few people mention it here.

So what the hell is a Carbon Footprint and why am I seeing it being used to market everything from cars to airline tickets?

A brief search and the useless similar topics feature turned nothing.

87 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCharlienorth From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1133 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

It's the newest way to use guilt to seperate you from your money nothing more...think of it as modern indulgences

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8763 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

Quoting CaptOveur (Thread starter):
So what the hell is a Carbon Footprint

The amount of CO2 you produce per year. Of course that depends immensely on how you calculate it.  Wink Cutting emissions doesn't hurt, however, so it's not completely meritless.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineCharlienorth From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1133 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
Cutting emissions doesn't hurt, however, so it's not completely meritless.

Making a personal effort to cut emissions isn't a bad idea at all,but you're a real Gomer if you pay for carbon credits.


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

Quoting Charlienorth (Reply 3):
Making a personal effort to cut emissions isn't a bad idea at all,but you're a real Gomer if you pay for carbon credits.

I don't have a problem per se with the carbon credits. Yes, they are a modern day indulgence but if done correctly it's fine by me if you want to spend money that way. I only question the companies behind the whole thing and wonder who is policing them to ensure they are in fact doing what they say they are doing by planting trees and such.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
Cutting emissions doesn't hurt, however, so it's not completely meritless.

Sure its merit-less. It's simply a farce for Hollywood Stars or Liberal Politicians who go around telling us "regular people" how to be carbon-neutral, while they are flying around in private jets, riding in huge limos, and living in big castles while buying a few "carbon credits" which amounts to a few trees being planted.

Carbon Credits and those who believe in them are utterly simply beyond any type of common sense reasoning. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that is nothing more than plant food. The more the CO2, the more the plants prosper. The more the plants prosper, the more they "naturally clean the air."

Carbon Credits are yet just another way liberals can get their hands on your money. Nothing more, nothing less. If you feel the need to buy them, be my guest. I for one will never fall for such foolishness.

[Edited 2007-08-15 01:11:49]


As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 5):
Carbon Credits are yet just another way liberals can get their hands on your money.

It's especially funny when you find out that the people pushing for the carbon credits are the ones that own the companies they want you to buy from.

Generation Investment Management LLP
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html

Quote:
The firm was created in 2004 by six founding Partners:

Hon. Al Gore is Chairman;

David Blood, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is Managing Partner;

Mark Ferguson, previously co-Head of Pan-European Research at Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a Global Equities Portfolio Manager, is Chief Investment Officer;

Peter Harris, previously head of International Operations for Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is Chief Operating Officer;

Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton's successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.; and

Colin le Duc, previously Director of Research for SAM Sustainable Asset Management in Zurich and strategy consultant for Arthur D. Little in London, is Head of Research.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 5):
Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that is nothing more than plant food. The more the CO2, the more the plants prosper. The more the plants prosper, the more they "naturally clean the air."

Unless of course those plants get destroyed by desertification, urban expansion, clear-cutting of forests, etc. Sure, there is some degree of negative feedback, but it can only do so much.

Anyway, the idea behind a carbon footprint is that it represents how much carbon dioxide you and the products you use generate. Per capita, first world nations tend to have large ones. Of course, having a billion and a half people with smaller ones isn't that great either.

As far as the Carbon Credit thing - I don't see how that can work unless you cap the number of credits available and force all CO2 generators to buy them. Let the industries who can clean up easily sell off theirs to the ones who can't, and the market will (hopefully) allocate the "right to pollute" effectively. Or we could all just go plant some trees on our own, and tidy up our footprints that way.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 7):
Or we could all just go plant some trees on our own, and tidy up our footprints that way.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Tell him what he's won Don Pardo...



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 7):
force all CO2 generators to buy them

Translation= "Force Taxes upon business/citizens."

This is no different than taxing smokers to pay for children's health care.
Like I said, yet another way for the Liberals to get their hands on your money.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 7):
Let the industries who can clean up easily sell off theirs to the ones who can't

So, let's say, an industry that produces little CO2, like, um, insurance companies, etc, get free money, while industries like Airlines, any type of factory work, and trucking industry, all must PAY extra taxes because of some unproven theory? Really?

I'm all for clean air and making sure industry is as clean as possible, but to say for an industry like the Airlines who pay gazillion dollars in taxes from fuel, to profit, to everything else they buy, need to on top of that pay yet another tax because Al Gore says so is simply unbelievable.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2446 times:

Just a guess, but possibly pre-labeling it "crap" might, just might be offputting to those who believe in it, and therefore presumably might be equipped to discuss it with you.

You know, kind of like Bill Maher's standing invitation to conservative opinion leaders to be guests on his panel surrounded by three or four liberals - all to be edited before airing by the liberal host's staff.

It is a matter of incentive.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

I dont have a carbon footprint because I drive EVERYWHERE!!


Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8763 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

I should have known this would turn into the 240,000th "liberal vs conservative" war in no time. Pathetic!  sarcastic  Can't you take your partisan crap elsewhere just one damned time?


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8463 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2358 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://www.carbonfootprint.com


After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2314 times:

Quoting CaptOveur (Thread starter):

Climate Change is just a Corporate and Political fad.


User currently offlineJamincan From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 776 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

Well, I've heard it all. It seems global warming is just a Liberal conspiracy to get their hands on our money.  Yeah sure

There are all sorts of expenses to doing business. Paying taxes, paying for gas, paying for employees, &c. But when it comes to the environment, it seems that we see it as a bottomless pit that we can freely throw our garbage in. Nevermind that the scientific community is actually speaking with one voice on this issue. Instead, people just cover their ears and dismiss it as an "unproven theory" because some schmuck paid by Exxon-Mobil says it ain't so.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8763 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

Quoting Jamincan (Reply 15):

You speak the truth, but expect to be flamed for it. This thread is not at all representative of a.netters' opinions on global warming, those of us who do realise it's a problem are just tired of explaining it over and over again only to be disparaged for it.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2274 times:

Quoting Charlienorth (Reply 1):
It's the newest way to use guilt to seperate you from your money nothing more

 rotfl 

Quoting Jamincan (Reply 15):
Nevermind that the scientific community is actually speaking with one voice on this issue.

Not true. There are dissenting views - as to the exact cause of global warming - but those that don't sign on to the prevailing view that it is all the fault of evil humans are castigated and berated.


User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

Quoting Jamincan (Reply 15):
Instead, people just cover their ears and dismiss it as an "unproven theory" because some schmuck paid by Exxon-Mobil says it ain't so.

What do you expect from people who seriously want to ban the theory of evolution from class, only to teach the creation theory again...

It is just so much more convenient to ignore and deny unpleasant knowledge, and replace it with belief that fuels my convenient needs. Knowledge is a strong power, but ignoring knowledge can just make life so damn much easier.

The "carbon footprint" thing may have its weak spots. And I'd actually not expect anyone to buy any credits or certificates to make up for his energy consumption. Ecologic indulgence won't help solving the problem.

But it does not hurt to have a look at your everyday life and check where emissions could easily be reduced, without major inconveniences attached to it. It does not even have to cost money. In fact, it will often help to save money.

But that's the downside - you actually have to use your brain for that. And it is just so much easier to blame it all on the liberals and their attempt to steal my money. Global warming? Who cares! Everybody loves warm and sunny weather.


User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

I am personally trying to make my footprint as large as possible.  duck 

Big version: Width: 2785 Height: 1576 File size: 571kb
A new toy and an old one


User currently offlineFrequentflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 736 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

For all interested in the subject at hand instead of the usual stupid political bickering, I suggest you read Newsweek's last week's issue on Climate change and its deniers. It looks like the deniers are doomed. (Per Newsweek they were complete puppets of the Bush 43 administration, itself slave to Oil Industry for obvious reasons)


Take off and live
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 20):
For all interested in the subject at hand instead of the usual stupid political bickering, I suggest you read Newsweek's last week's issue on Climate change and its deniers. It looks like the deniers are doomed. (Per Newsweek they were complete puppets of the Bush 43 administration, itself slave to Oil Industry for obvious reasons)

And for an alternate view on the Newsweek story....

Quote:
We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. A recent Newsweek cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2007/08/14/AR2007081401331.html


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2233 times:

Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 20):
Per Newsweek

Ah, so if Newsweek prints it then it just has to be true.  sarcastic 

Note - Not supporting Dubya or the oil industry. Just pointing out the obvious bias of the poster.

Quoting Jamincan (Reply 15):
Instead, people just cover their ears and dismiss it as an "unproven theory" because some schmuck paid by Exxon-Mobil says it ain't so.

Some people do exactly that. Some of the us actually think that the cyclical cycle of the earth's climate might have something to do with it in addition to the human influence but we are dismissed as snake oil salesmen from the get go.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12872 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2223 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 11):
I dont have a carbon footprint because I drive EVERYWHERE!!

 rotfl 

While I seriously doubt the benefit of buying "carbon credits", there is clearly value in "carbon offsets". As such, my family has completely offset our carbon footprint with the N'nabadingi tribe in Upper Volta.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 10):
Just a guess, but possibly pre-labeling it "crap" might, just might be offputting to those who believe in it, and therefore presumably might be equipped to discuss it with you.

Valid point.. That was just the phrase that sprung to mind when someone was offering to sell carbon credits along with an airline ticket. Hindsight being 20/20 I probably should have rephrased.

That aside: The more I think about it the more I want to go sit in my driveway and let my car idle all day.

Anyway.. Does anyone know what formula is used to calculate a carbon footprint? That is the part that baffles me.. People talk about size of a carbon footprint but I haven't seen anyone mention how they figured it out.


25 Post contains images L410Turbolet : Why idle? Let it run in neutral on full throttle.
26 DeltaGator : Google online for a calculator. I've used one before but found it to be flawed. It didn't take into account various items such as multiple people in
27 Post contains images Frequentflyer : Some other people try to stick to facts and understand the science. And they are labeled as pro-media gullible, at times even extreme-left from the g
28 Post contains images DeltaGator : Explain the difference as you see it because I think a lot of folks consider offsets and credits the same thing. Unless you mean the ability to buy "
29 Aloges : Why would you waste your hard-earned money on burning petrol uselessly just to "stick it" to people you believe to be loonies anyway? Pretty spiteful
30 Scbriml : They may be in some respects, but in theory, you would offset your carbon deficit with someone who has a carbon surplus. Now, the person with the sur
31 DeltaGator : Ok, on the same page now. Exactly what I said earlier about the whole carbon credit thing as a modern day indulgence and wondering who polices the le
32 Flighty : I think actually Carbon Credits are a very conservative idea. Liberals might say "gee, I can drive my SUV all day long and we should all have infinite
33 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...in part due to how much those of us who realize that said "problem" isn't going to halt nor reverse itself should we buy Priuses instead of Tahoes
34 Post contains images Slider : I won't buy carbon credits. I'll just use the ones that some tribe in Africa isn't using.
35 Post contains links MaidensGator : I hadn't realized that the global warming theory was proven to the same degree as evolution. We all know they didn't make any mistakes in the theory
36 Yellowstone : This is the model I was talking about earlier. The idea behind pollution credits is that businesses can choose whether to spend money to reduce their
37 David L : " target=_blank>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...2.htm Who ever said there were no mistakes in the Theory of Evolution? The new findings don't a
38 Klaus : You've quoted an article about a probable minor readjustment of our knowledge about the evolutionary relationship between early hominids. There is ab
39 ZakHH : Did I imply this? If so, then I probably did not make myself clear. But do you think that the scientific recognition we have should be completely dis
40 ZakHH : After posting my above comments, I read another good example for the discussed topic. NASA just had to correct their climate statistics. Had they so
41 Slider : Bingo... The politics of guilt. Nothing more, nothing less. A fool and his money are soon parted. It's so laughable, this makes for great entertainme
42 ZakHH : But you cannot be so narrow-minded to reduce the whole discussion to this credits thing?
43 Klaus : No. A functioning market for emission certificates requires both demand and supply. And supply in this case consists of certified emission reductions
44 Slider : I didn't say that. But that's a topic for another thread. Assumes facts not in evidence. Carbon trading is a shell game. High end consumers will simp
45 Klaus : How so? It would only be that if there was an endless supply of emission certificates, which is not the case. How so? It is a very much real fact of
46 Post contains links MDorBust : Tell that to these jokers: http://www.carbonfootprint.com/index.html They want $589.00 annually to offset what they claim is my carbon footprint. Not
47 Klaus : Unless you're actually turning formerly infertile land into new natural growth you're contributing nothing to a reduction of your CO2 emissions, rega
48 Post contains images MDorBust : Ahh.. so plants already in existence don't process CO2? Wait, that makes no sense. In fact, that's pure . Of course plants already in existence offse
49 Klaus : You're not doing anything against your net CO2 pollution unless you do your share of reducing total CO2 output or increasing total CO2 reduction. A c
50 MDorBust : If my total CO2 processing ability is already above my total CO2 production, I already have negative net CO2 production and therefore have no CO2 pro
51 Post contains links Halls120 : Really. And http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2007/08/14/AR2007081401331.html
52 Klaus : The whole point is and must be to reduce the total and still growing imbalance. And ownership of unchanged sources or sinks is entirely immaterial to
53 Post contains images Klaus : Oh, sure. If you're eating yourself to death, it's best to throw your hands in the air and proclaim that there wasn't anything you could do anyway. A
54 MDorBust : Wait! Are you really suggesting that I should send this company of con-men money to offset carbon I'm not even producing? Seriously? How much are the
55 Halls120 : I'm not saying we should do nothing. I'm just pointing out there are others who disagree with your conclusions. I know that offends you, but as Mr. S
56 Klaus : I can't tell you whether or not a particular project is real or not; But as I said: Only a change in production and/or extraction is relevant. Unless
57 Klaus : You provided nothing but an excuse for exactly that. Unfortunately dissent is not a moral quality by itself either. Dissenting just for evading the c
58 Flighty : Yes really. A reduction is a reduction. A reduction does not mean the universe is turned on its ear. But, it is a reduction, compared to the alternat
59 MDorBust : So, yes... You are saying I should send con-men money to offset carbon that is already more than offset. Since you're advocating fixing everyone else
60 Post contains links Halls120 : In this particular thread, yes. But in past threads I've posted very specific ideas that I support regarding steps we should take to combat global wa
61 MaidensGator : An owner of natural growth is definitely offsetting CO2 emissions. My house sits on several acres of woodland. There are literally hundreds of large
62 Flighty : Yeah, yeah. Nah. People are just like animals. Animals have been more-or-less carbon neutral (by definition) for millions of years. If not, the CO2 l
63 DeltaGator : You're funny. Now you're getting hilarious. How exactly do you propose these laws be enforced on a global level across 190+ countries with their own
64 Post contains links and images MDorBust : Ummm.. Not so fast there einstein. If the planet had been carbon nuetral you would see a flat line in the following graph. Notice, it's not nearly fl
65 Post contains images Klaus : The problem we're talking about is that our civilization is increasingly overtaxing the natural regeneration capabilities of the global ecosystems. T
66 MDorBust : If you missed the whole thread, I'm not part of the status quo.. which seems to mean, even by your own logic, that I'm not part of the problem. Globa
67 Post contains images Klaus : Global status quo unfortunately encompasses yourself by definition. Translation: "What do I care?" Not that we didn't already get that. I think a mor
68 MDorBust : You're right... I don't care at all about the environment... Assume = Ass, U Is it scientifically wrong? Will a 50% reduction of the human population
69 Post contains links and images Klaus : It's actually worse: You can't be bothered, apparently. It is morally wrong for reasons obvious to pretty much everybody (else). Even by your own cyn
70 MDorBust : Okay, whatever.... yeah.. I can't be bothered about the environment... uh huh ASS, U I didn't ask if it was morally wrong. I asked if it was scientif
71 Post contains images Klaus : You seem to have a problem with responding to my actual arguments. Resorting to personal insults instead doesn't exactly bolster your position, you k
72 MDorBust : Your "argument" consists of skewing my actions on one single portion of environmental protection then asserting my whole view of environmental protec
73 Flighty : MD, if your calculations are right (and I doubt they are, but let's grant it), then why would you oppose a carbon cap? People would indeed give you mo
74 Post contains images Halls120 : No spying at all. I don't have that level of expertise. I just find it very amusing that once I post substantive responses on the issue of how to res
75 Klaus : I didn't have the time for that thread any more. And the list you posted doesn't look too problematic to me, so a rebuttal wouldn't even be needed fo
76 Post contains images Klaus : My "argument" is that you seem oblivious to the difference between maintaining the status quo and actually improving it. How making that point warran
77 Post contains images Gunships : Anyone remember pet rocks?
78 Halls120 : So you remember that thread? If that's the case, why did you post the following statement? and this one? I guess that every time we have a climate ch
79 Klaus : I was explicitly referring to the post of yours I quoted above. And that one warranted my response. What do you expect? Pay me adequately for my serv
80 Halls120 : What I expect is that you stop posting erroneous statements such as "Oh, sure. If you're eating yourself to death, it's best to throw your hands in t
81 Klaus : Your statement above claimed (via quote) that any efforts in that direction were futile anyway. Which required a rebuttal. Nothing erroneous about th
82 MDorBust : Klaus, if you want to believe that the assume = Ass, U euphemism is an insult I've created just for you, go ahead and keep believing that. If you thin
83 Slider : But it makes him FEEL better, which is what so much of environmentalism is about. Total non sequitur. If there is a CO2 imbalance, it is a quantum le
84 ZakHH : Wow! Never realized we live on such a powerful planet. But please help me, during which period of explosion of human population and exhaust emission
85 Frequentflyer : I look forward to definite science on the subject. That'll settle things. Except for obscurantists or political diehards.
86 Flighty : The idea actually is that you are providing a CO2 sink to the public. See, the public owns the air. And you are modifying it. So that is good. So, yo
87 Slider : Your sarcasm aside, don't underestimate the absolute sheer power of nature. A single volcanic eruption, for instance, can have a greater impact on gl
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Help Me Out, Britons, Does This Define "Pikey"? posted Sun Mar 11 2007 23:50:53 by Aloges
Nothing "Goode" About This Lawmaker posted Thu Dec 21 2006 04:53:04 by Falcon84
How Did This Hit Escape "Jacked Up" On MNF? posted Wed Nov 8 2006 08:31:29 by USAFHummer
Who Is This "Nature" Person? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 19:23:06 by Mt99
Caption This "football" Pic! posted Fri Jun 9 2006 09:06:30 by HBDAN
This Won't "Ever" Happen Again! posted Mon Apr 3 2006 04:30:15 by Mr Spaceman
Buying "Chinese" This Holiday Season? posted Sat Dec 3 2005 18:53:58 by Mrmeangenes
Levin's "This Perfect Day"? posted Sun Jul 17 2005 05:35:36 by Dtwclipper
Any German A.netters Care To Explain "schnappi"? posted Wed Apr 20 2005 08:02:52 by Flyboy1980
This Is Why I Love The "Spiegel" :-) posted Mon Jun 14 2004 22:36:20 by Aloges