Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Exactly, so it really depends on how serious one is about global warming. The idea of toll roads is highly inconvenient, but highly worthwhile to the issue of global warming--much more than probably any other idea (speaking again to the notion of a sense of urgency).

    Obviously some tweaks are necessary to fully lay the idea, but I suppose the point has been made.
    I skimmed over the "toll road -- everywhere" part of your idea. Yea, I could not get behind that. I thought you meant more toll roads and/or higher tolls. Nonetheless, it is one thing that could be done to encourage car pooling or public transportation.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Originally posted by HobbesIsReal
    04/27/2007, 05:53 PM
    Source

    I have to say, that it still amazes me that with the potential of the world's wealth as a prize, that we do not have more advancement in alternative fuel sources for cars and other modes of transportation. I enjoy reading about the advancements of electronic cars, fuel cells, to nuclear powered batteries, etc... It seems that with all the technology we have now and all the new technologies we are developing and discovering all the time that there isn't a solution yet. It seems that no matter what alternative source you look at, it is "almost there"....but that for one challenge or another they are not able to mass market it, just cannot get that extra umph of power to make it have that mass appeal, just have to make it last a little longer to make it meet every day needs, etc...

    It reminds of what someone just posted today or yesterday....remember the movie Money Pit where the contractor keeps on telling Tom Hanks for months he will be finished in two weeks.

    I have already posted most of this quite a while ago, but I think it has been lost in the massive discusions on this topic here at TC, so here it is again.......There is no doubt that we effect the climate with our fossil fuel usage, coal burning, etc...(the point of interest in this with me is how much is a natural cycle as well). Even if one wanted to ignore all data confirming this, there is little doubt that there is certainly national security issues with our economy based on the oil prices that are directly controlled by all intentions our enemies or easily could become our potential enemies in the Middle East. Or with such a narrow pipeline (figuratively and literally speaking) of oil from the ground to our pumps that a terrorist org could stop our economy cold with some luck and planning on disrupting the oil supply chain. That with all this in mind, we need alternative fuel sources.

    So if someone cannot come to grips on the impact of our climate, maybe they can relate to the security needs of our nation. It doesn't matter if one believes in one and someone else in the other, the same solutions will meet both perspectives.

    I see this needing to be addressed in two...possibly three stages...these are just off the top of my head:

    IMMEDIATE NEEDS/GOALS (1-9 years)
    • Need to decrease foreign support for oil. this may mean domestic drilling to help curve this dependence.
    • I would support a tax on the oil companies AND at the pump that will go directly to funding alternative fuel research and implementation. With public awareness of where the money is going with public progression updates at least every 6 months.
    • I am generally not a gov regulation type of guy, but I have heard talk of gov regulations for oil companies that so much research must be geared toward alternative fuel sources. I would think that this would be a logical step. The day is coming when oil companies are going to be memory of the past for the most part, I would think they want to be involved in the next step.
    • Offer federal assistance to American auto makers to develop and implement current options (like more electrical power vs fossil fuel).
    • Increased Tax savings to individuals individuals who buy these cars.
    • There are certainly ethanol solutions that could be implemented now. Some with very few or minor adjustments to current trucks running diesel. Then add incentives for companies to implement the expansion of the distribution of the the new fuel and for auto makers to support it.

    LONG TERM NEEDS/GOALS (10-25 years)
    • Develop a car that does not run on fossil fuel at all. This would be such a HUGE financial incentive that the private sector should be easy to involve.
    • Add tax breaks for companies actively pursuing this goal with reviews of progress to continue these breaks.
    • Federal funding for University research into alternatives.
    • Implement a distribution system to support the new alternative fuel if needed that will need to replace gas stations.
    • The loss of world political clout that the Middle East will experience from such a transition will be HUGE and must be addressed in how to prepare for these concerns now. It is possible that this loss of wealth and power could turn violent if face with no longer having the world dependent on them for fuel consumption.
    • Have a $100 million X prize for the first person or org to present a mass market solution for non fossil fuel car.

    Again, these are just rambling thoughts that I am sure many are not thought out very far. Please add your perspective of what we need to do now for immediate goals and long term goals to move away from fossil fuel consumption all together.
    Wow...you're a fountain of ideas! Seriously, I've liked them since you've posted them so I'm glad you reposted - thanks.

    My favorite - $100MM x-prize. That is the sort of motivation the private sector needs to get this going. That takes care of the car companies.

    I'm not sure if the oil companies though. Given their staggering profits they could literally wipe their ____ with $100MM. So I don't know how else to motivate them other than to drag them kicking and screaming - meaning more regulation. But I'm open to ideas that others may think could motivate oil companies to stop being...well...oil companies.

    Here is another reason I really want to see the US take THE leading role in moving to alternative fuels - there's not much else we lead in these days. So what if we did invest in and led the world in hydrogen fuel cell technology? What if we produced much of the technology and had businesses (modern day Halliburtons if you will) that helped other nations build an infrastructure supporting hydrogen? Back in the old days, there were many a cajillionaire made because of oil and all of the infrastructure that supports a fossil fuel based economy. Why can't there be a modern day Rockefeller for hydrogen?

    If we can spend $3 trillion dollars to defend our national security interests in the middle east (arguably...oil) then we can muster up the coin to take the lead in moving to alternative fuels. Now, now later. Not after we determine if global warming is real or not. Putting that debate aside, I believe there is much more for us to gain as a country leading the world in the move to hydrogen rather than simply mitigating the risks of global warming.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 03/03/2008 at 06:46 PM.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I'm not sure if the oil companies though. Given their staggering profits they could literally wipe their ____ with $100MM.
    I still don't understand this kind of statement. Yes, profits are large, but compare them to amounts invested and risks taken. You've got to pay shareholders SOMETHING.

    And as far as wiping their _____, yes they could. Wherein they would likely either reduce investment into renewables/"greens" (where at least three of these companies spend Billions a year), reduce shareholder profits, pass costs to consumers, etc.

    Same with fiddling with tax rates. THEY don't pay, the average consumer and/or shareholder does.

    Anyone catch the news that one of these companies plans on divesting interests (worth billions) in their renewables sector?
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    Too bad something like nuclear power, which seems like an obvious alternative, evokes such a visceral response from the very people that champion global warming and spurn oil consumption. Why not more nuclear power plants?
    I briefly mentioned it in passing above in post 3. There is actually research going on for nuke batteries. They would be intended for everything from cell phones to cars. That's right...how would you feel having a nuke held against your head while at the same time having yet a bigger one under your bum? (then think of the cool movie car crash scenes!)

    They say though that a cell phone with one of these will be able to run 24/7 for about 10 years. Then you chuck into the local nuclear trash bin and get a new one.

    I posted a link in one of the threads a few years ago about it......
  5.    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    I still don't understand this kind of statement. Yes, profits are large, but compare them to amounts invested and risks taken. You've got to pay shareholders SOMETHING.

    And as far as wiping their _____, yes they could. Wherein they would likely either reduce investment into renewables/"greens" (where at least three of these companies spend Billions a year), reduce shareholder profits, pass costs to consumers, etc.

    Same with fiddling with tax rates. THEY don't pay, the average consumer and/or shareholder does.

    Anyone catch the news that one of these companies plans on divesting interests (worth billions) in their renewables sector?
    Funny. I don't understand your defensiveness since the context of my comment was that a $100MM prize would likely not motivate the oil companies given their ginormous profits.

    That said, I get the whole gotta "...pay shareholders something" - I'm just not drinking that Koolaid.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Funny. I don't understand your defensiveness since the context of my comment was that a $100MM prize would likely not motivate the oil companies given their ginormous profits.

    That said, I get the whole gotta "...pay shareholders something" - I'm just not drinking that Koolaid.
    Not trying to be defenive here, I truly just don't understand the logic behind the "enormous profits" statement that I often hear (not in the context you used it, though).

    And, you're right, I don't think it would add to their motivation in finding new, cleaner, renewable forms of energy. For the few big oil companies that are already pouring billions into this effort, why would anyone expect the amount stated to increase their motivation? For the ones that are not actively engaged in the effort, in a sense I think you're right there, too. Some of the companies in that category have already spent large sums, and have dropped the effort. The other companies in that category simply continue to do what they know they know how to do (find, drill, produce). Either way, they're large companies, so I don't think it will change their motivation either way. So, you're right, they could just wipe their whatever with that kind of money. They often lose many multiples of that amount due to projects that failed (for whatever reason -- political, geological, environmental, etc.)

    But, I agree, it is a great idea, it's plenty of motivation for individuals or smaller organizations/companies to succeed in this endeavor.

    Koolaid?
  7.    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    Koolaid?
    Sorry about that. It's a silly 90's expression from Silicon Valley dot-com days referencing the Jim Jones cult mass suicide whereby they literally drank poisoned Koolaid. In dot-com speak, it meant you believed the hype and the story behind a particular tech, business model, company, etc.
  8. #28  
    Okay, I've thought about it some and have some concerns here:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    IMMEDIATE NEEDS/GOALS (1-9 years)
    1. Need to decrease foreign support for oil. this may mean domestic drilling to help curve this dependence.
    2. I would support a tax on the oil companies AND at the pump that will go directly to funding alternative fuel research and implementation. With public awareness of where the money is going with public progression updates at least every 6 months.
    3. I am generally not a gov regulation type of guy, but I have heard talk of gov regulations for oil companies that so much research must be geared toward alternative fuel sources. I would think that this would be a logical step. The day is coming when oil companies are going to be memory of the past for the most part, I would think they want to be involved in the next step.
    4. Offer federal assistance to American auto makers to develop and implement current options (like more electrical power vs fossil fuel).
    5. Increased Tax savings to individuals individuals who buy these cars.
    6. There are certainly ethanol solutions that could be implemented now. Some with very few or minor adjustments to current trucks running diesel. Then add incentives for companies to implement the expansion of the distribution of the the new fuel and for auto makers to support it.
    1. I would say that there is no, "may" about it; it does mean drilling domestically. ANWR here we come.
    2. Aren't the oil companies taxed enough? 30 billion in 2007 (up from 28 billion the previous year) for Exxon Mobil (at roughly 41%) seems to be sufficient. Second, can we really expect the public (by and large) to care enough to maintain a reasonable transparency with the taxes at the pump (I know they should, but what is the reality)?
    3. Hope you enjoy higher prices at the pump.
    4. On whose dime? Wouldn't that be somewhat discriminative to companies who manage to minimize their own carbon footprint by energy reduction improvements? I suspect you see where I am going with this.
    5. Wait, isn't the cost savings at the pump a sufficient motivation? Besides, we already offer a $300 tax savings for individuals for items like tankless water heaters and people aren't blowing up the market for Rinnai water heaters (which also provide the exact same long-term cost-savings as well as being environmentally friendly).
    6. Hmm, not up on ethanol although I seem to remember seeing something negative about it--can't remember though.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    LONG TERM NEEDS/GOALS (10-25 years)
    1. Develop a car that does not run on fossil fuel at all. This would be such a HUGE financial incentive that the private sector should be easy to involve.
    2. Add tax breaks for companies actively pursuing this goal with reviews of progress to continue these breaks.
    3. Federal funding for University research into alternatives.
    4. Implement a distribution system to support the new alternative fuel if needed that will need to replace gas stations.
    5. The loss of world political clout that the Middle East will experience from such a transition will be HUGE and must be addressed in how to prepare for these concerns now. It is possible that this loss of wealth and power could turn violent if face with no longer having the world dependent on them for fuel consumption.
    6. Have a $100 million X prize for the first person or org to present a mass market solution for non fossil fuel car.
    1. IF, it is a financial incentive then the private sector will have no problem getting there on their own.
    2. Okay, I agree with the tax breaks; however, I am still skeptical about who will really care enough to warrant the regular reviews.
    3. While I absolutely detest federal funding (for various reasons), I can get on board with the concept of public money going to the education segment for research (particularly instead of private companies).
    4. Hmmm, seems to me like that same distribution system will be paramount to a companies success and worth their monetary risk.
    5. Here, I agree 100%. I say we make it very simple: Point a few missiles in their direction and wait. Okay, maybe not quite that simple, but the point stands--we would have to be absolutely 150% firm with them and let them know we aren't playing games anymore (yeah right huh?).
    6. So let me get this right, I:
    • A) develop a better mousetrap
    • B) patent it
    • C) win 100million (of taxpayer money I presume )
    • D) sell the idea or rights to the highest bidder
    Seems to me like there is quite a bit of government intervention ranging from sticking its ugly nose into the private sector more to taxing the private sector more as well as taxing the public more as well.
    Last edited by DL.Cummings; 03/05/2008 at 09:42 PM. Reason: sloppy spelling
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Sorry about that. It's a silly 90's expression from Silicon Valley dot-com days referencing the Jim Jones cult mass suicide whereby they literally drank poisoned Koolaid. In dot-com speak, it meant you believed the hype and the story behind a particular tech, business model, company, etc.
    Yeah, I know. That's the reason for the . I was just messin.
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    Yeah, I know. That's the reason for the . I was just messin.
    LOL...sorry (again).
  11. #31  
    DL, good post.

    As far as taxes are concerned, any changes will be felt only by shareholders, employees, and/or consumers. Taxes suck, for you and me.

    Ethanol, at least from first gen, ain't gonna cut it from most any standpoint. It is feel-good crap that does more harm than good.

    All boils down to $ and every individual's personal well being (however they see it).
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    LOL...sorry (again).
    s'cool.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Originally posted by HobbesIsReal
    05/18/2007, 02:40 PM
    Source

    Now this sounds really promising....a possibly solution that can be used with our current cars and fossil fuel engines with an easy conversion. And with greater potential as fuel cell solutions become viable on a mass production level. Again this is another....almost there thing, but one that I think shows the most potential with dealing with the issue of using it now, having to establish a new distribution system, and with the where the future of cars is heading:

    Clean energy claim: Aluminum in your car tank
    Professor says Energy Department ‘egos’ blocking hydrogen breakthrough





    whmurray.....times like this I wish I had $100 billion dollars as this would have caught my attention enough to learn more about the realistic potential it has to offer with what funding for research.
    Again, H2 is cool, clean and hot! Just need to get it where we want it (cheaply)!

    This sounded so promising when I heard about it a while back. I know it takes a while to develop stuff like this, but it seems like forever, since the time it was reported, to hear of any kind of update.

    In the meantime, we've got to deal with what we've got and what we know.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Hmm, not up on ethanol although I seem to remember seeing something negative about it--can't remember though.
    There are several negatives with ethanol. Primary is that it uses a food crop for production (e.g. corn) which will raise prices for that food in places that can little afford the price increase (e.g. Mexico). Secondary is that to produce it requires quite a few steps which use energy. Unless your 'distillery' is powered by clean sources of energy, you're not really helping the environment.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #35  
    Alot of the points you brought up were already addressed in post #8 above, but here are some of my thoughts......
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    1. I would say that there is no, "may" about it; it does mean drilling domestically. ANWR here we come.
    2. Aren't the oil companies taxed enough? 30 billion in 2007 (up from 28 billion the previous year) for Exxon Mobil (at roughly 41%) seems to be sufficient. Second, can we really expect the public (by and large) to care enough to maintain a reasonable transparency with the taxes at the pump (I know they should, but what is the reality)?
    3. Hope you enjoy higher prices at the pump.
    4. On whose dime? Wouldn't that be somewhat discriminative to companies who manage to minimize their own carbon footprint by energy reduction improvements? I suspect you see where I am going with this.
    5. Wait, isn't the cost savings at the pump a sufficient motivation? Besides, we already offer a $300 tax savings for individuals for items like tankless water heaters and people aren't blowing up the market for Rinnai water heaters (which also provide the exact same long-term cost-savings as well as being environmentally friendly).
    6. Hmm, not up on ethanol although I seem to remember seeing something negative about it--can't remember though.
    These are solutions to be looked at individually as the whole solution, but rather a small solutions from several different avenues to provide the means of the whole solution.

    1) Sure, domestic drilling is exactly what I am talking about. It is just not ANWR either. There are several oil hot spots off the coast all round the nation. I would even open this up to domestic companies making deals with Canada and Mexico to decrease oil dependency on foreign sources such as the Middle East, Russia, and VZ.

    2) I am not an oil tax expert in any sense. At first glance at the link you provided they did list lots of items like $410 million for a tax-related benefit. I am not even saying increase their taxes, the gov could give a tax break to the oil companies to have them break when a certain amount of money is given to approved research programs like universities to fund alternative fuel programs.

    And as far as at the pump, I am not talking about dollars extra a gallon. Even a 3-8 cents tax I would imagine would be a huge bump to funding alternative fuel research. How many gallons are pumped a year? I don't know. But you times that by lets say $.05.

    To answer your second point....this would go along with the public campaign I talked about a few posts later. The public needs to be made aware. New Orgs need to follow up on it. And yes, especially if there is progress being made there will be attention generated.

    3) Again see point above, their support of research can be offset by several other means and kept to a very small percentage of their overall income, which a small percentage of 2.5% can go a long ways in funding a program at one of our major universities.

    4) No. To be honest I don't see where you are going with this. If certain standards in decreasing a car's consumption on oil are met they qualify, no matter if they are doing it with current research or have done it and are offering a car on the market last year. I do not see how this is discriminative against car companies at all.

    5) So you are against an additional incentive for an individual to pay extra when they are buying a car to make sure it is a hybrid or any other fuel reduction technology? I never really thought this would a major point of debate.

    6) I am not up on all the ethanol pros and cons either. Some of the cons were just mentioned. We are then subject to drought, higher produce prices, etc... I would assume among the pros would be less foreign or domestic oil needed? I did read an article not too long ago that apparently diesel engines could be easily converted to use ethanol and the the many gas stations could support offering it without much trouble. And since trucking is a major oil source it would offer short term benefits in our nation's oil consumption without having to bring the general population in on it.



    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    1. IF, it is a financial incentive then the private sector will have no problem getting there on their own.
    2. Okay, I agree with the tax breaks; however, I am still skeptical about who will really care enough to warrant the regular reviews.
    3. While I absolutely detest federal funding (for various reasons), I can get on board with the concept of public money going to the education segment for research (particularly instead of private companies).
    4. Hmmm, seems to me like that same distribution system will be paramount to a companies success and worth their monetary risk.
    5. Here, I agree 100%. I say we make it very simple: Point a few missiles in their direction and wait. Okay, maybe not quite that simple, but the point stands--we would have to be absolutely 150% firm with them and let them know we aren't playing games anymore (yeah right huh?).
    6. So let me get this right, I:
    • A) develop a better mousetrap
    • B) patent it
    • C) win 100million (of taxpayer money I presume )
    • D) sell the idea or rights to the highest bidder
    Seems to me like
    1) That is the point. I spoke in detail a couple posts later that you have two sides in the private sector that have huge incentives to NOT push this along. You have the oil companies pulling in billions of dollars a year. They are happy with the way things are now. Then you have the Carbon sales companies pulling in Billions each year on the other side. They are happy with the way things are now.

    There is a HUGE reward for whoever brings it to the market, but they have a lot of pressure to not do it too fast, challenges finding funding, etc....because of the billions being made with the oil that this research will stop the demand for.

    2) If you look at the news coverage over the last 10 years, there has been an ever increasing awareness. You look at the global warming groups. You look at those who are looking to break us from our foreign oil dependency. There are a lot of the general public that are semi aware to watchful of this stuff. There are orgs that monitor it for their own political gain. Imagine if they start to get results? News orgs will be all over it.

    But as I also point out several posts later, there still needs to be a public education program about these programs.

    3) I agree that university research programs can produce wonderful results.

    4) Again, I am not a Gov regulation guy, but in this case since our economy will be based on the distribution system that develops, I think there should be some involvement and sharing of the funding for the initial roll out.

    5) this can a thread of it's own....but a real serious issue that needs to be planned for now because our goal will almost certainly be viewed as a threat to their current way of life and to their political power / leverage in the world.

    6) An X Prize can be an incentive for larger companies, but more importantly generates a huge motivation for small companies or even individuals with brilliant ideas to step up and take move ahead with their ideas and inventions. This X Prize would not only be for an alternative solution for vehicles but also offering the distribution system to support it. Heck it if puts the US in a place where we have a solution that the use of alternative fuel for all of our cars and trucks can be implemented I would even support this to be raised to $1,000,000,000 ($1 Billion).

    This can be funded by soliciting corps, private investors, environmental protection orgs, public donations, etc...and then topped off by the gov. The US certain has an invested interest in being the first to find a solution.

    there is quite a bit of government intervention ranging from sticking its ugly nose into the private sector more to taxing the private sector more as well as taxing the public more as well.
    I think the US has a unique opportunity to establish it's own energy independence while at the same time becoming the leader in the world for energy instead of the Middle East, VZ, and Russia. How much did we pay to be the first to develop the nuke? Imagine the economic freedom, the economic leadership, eliminating all power of foreign countries to crashing our economy by stopping their oil to us, imagine the environmental impact of not having the billions of pounds of carbon dioxide from cars being dumped in the air on a daily basis, imagine.....

    Now here is my alarmist proclamation.......This is a serious matter of possible environmental implications beyond what even the most rabid global warm-ist can imagine. This is a serious matter for the stability of our economy. All it would take is two or three countries refusing us oil (Iraq, Iran, and VZ) and prices would jump to $8-12 a gallon and our economy crashes. No matter what angle you prescribe to, there may a reality that we are living on borrowed time.

    Here is my real proclamation......We need to be oil independent and relieved of any foreign oil dependency (two totally different items). Period. This needs to happen sooner than later. We need to take responsibility now for whatever damage we may or may not be doing to the global environment. We have several avenues available to us now to move this along....but with very little being done to take advantage of this.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/06/2008 at 09:53 PM.
  16. #36  
    Another possible negative of ethanol is that it might increase global warming, according to some:

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...bgDxAD8ULPD0G0
  17. #37  
    First gen ethanol is a disaster. There is a ton of info available on the subject.
  18. #38  
    Here's another link regarding ethanol:

    http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...nol%20Hoax.htm
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  19. #39  
    I don't buy any of the latest "global warming is man-made" crap. Sure, we may have a slight influence on it, but history shows the Earth's climate undergoes a cyclical change anyway. How are we to change that? Also, scientists are now saying the sun is actually getting hotter. Not a darn thing we can do about that.

    I am in favor of finding alternative fuel sources. Afterall, what we rely on now won't last forever.
  20. #40  
    Seems to me that the best way is to collect taxes at the pump rather than tolls. Then, everyone has the same motivation to buy energy efficient vehicles AND to drive less. The rich won't be AS MOTIVATED, but then they will continue paying more taxes at the pump than you and I.

    Most solutions become viable only when the price of fuel goes high. Such as ethanol - it is now cost effective when gas is about $3 per gal. If it drops to $2 again, you will see the ethanol plants shut down.

    So, to make solar, hydrogen, electric, etc cars, it all depends on expensive gas to make it a viable solution at that time. The govt can discuss energy independence all they want to, but the corporations will make the decision based on profitability.


    How much does this affect global warming? I don't think anyone can argue that we need to pollute less for long range benefits, but it will still come down to profitability. (A new global warming study now arguing that we are actually cooler than in the past century??) The original owner of 'Weather Channel' now planning to sue Al Gore on basis that he is overrepresenting the degree of global warming. (Headline on Foxnews.com today)???

    If we can't even agree that global warming is a 'real' threat, how can it ever progress to a solution?
    RJuhl
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions