Was Innovation to zero merely about reducing pollution?

DennisTate · Aug 31, 2022

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ing-student-loan-debt.603225/#post-1073696552

Pro_Line_FL said: ↑

Oh, now we're shifting to Bill Gates. Who's next?

Innovating to zero was a speech about reducing pollution.
Click to expand...

Was the TedX lecture entitled "Innovation to zero" merely about reducing pollution?

I personally think that evidence is coming out now that essentially proves that Mr. Bill Gates is rather rabidly Neo - Malthusian and he may sincerely believe that only by reducing the world's population can the Ecology and the Environment be saved.

Frankly..... I admit that this is NOT A STUPID THEORY..... only an idiot could think that human productivity is only positive and could not be used to destroy the environment!!!!

Innovating to zero! | Bill Gates

DennisTate · Sep 1, 2022

I admit that Thomas Robert Malthus was NOT a stupid man.....
he was an Anglican priest and he had a pretty good understanding of how we human being can be astonishingly productive. Even during his time period he saw that the Industrial Revolution was going to do a lot of damage to the environment BUT his view of human productive capability was extremely PESSIMISTIC and he saw very little hope for the possibility that we human being could become productive in positive ways that would even benefit the environment around us.

As his theory developed over the last two centuries Neo - Malthusian thought connected his Malthusian Catastrophe Theory with our human tendency to damage the environment...... Bill Gates is in a sense the leading proponent of Malthusianism at this time and he was NOT talking simply about avoiding pollution. He was advocating widespread use of abortions, sterilization and the reduction of the world population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population die off. This event, called a Malthusian catastrophe (also known as a Malthusian trap, population trap, Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian spectre, or Malthusian crunch) occurs when population growth outpaces agricultural production, causing famine or war, resulting in poverty and depopulation. Such a catastrophe inevitably has the effect of forcing the population (quite rapidly, due to the potential severity and unpredictable results of the mitigating factors involved, as compared to the relatively slow time scales and well-understood processes governing unchecked growth or growth affected by preventive checks) to "correct" back to a lower, more easily sustainable level.[1][2] Malthusianism has been linked to a variety of political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of population control.[3]

These concepts derive from the political and economic thought of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, as laid out in his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus suggested that while technological advances could increase a society's supply of resources, such as food, and thereby improve the standard of living, the resource abundance would enable population growth, which would eventually bring the per capita supply of resources back to its original level. Some economists contend that since the industrial revolution, mankind has broken out of the trap.[4][5] Others argue that the continuation of extreme poverty indicates that the Malthusian trap continues to operate.[6] Others further argue that due to lack of food availability coupled with excessive pollution, developing countries show more evidence of the trap.[7] A similar, more modern concept, is that of human overpopulation.

Neo-Malthusianism is the advocacy of human population planning to ensure resources and environmental integrities for current and future human populations as well as for other species.[2] In Britain the term 'Malthusian' can also refer more specifically to arguments made in favour of preventive birth control, hence organizations such as the Malthusian League.[8] Neo-Malthusians differ from Malthus's theories mainly in their support for the use of contraception. Malthus, a devout Christian, believed that "self-control" (i.e., abstinence) was preferable to artificial birth control. He also worried that the effect of contraceptive use would be too powerful in curbing growth, conflicting with the common 18th century perspective (to which Malthus himself adhered) that a steadily growing population remained a necessary factor in the continuing "progress of society", generally. Modern neo-Malthusians are generally more concerned than Malthus with environmental degradation and catastrophic famine than with poverty.

Malthusianism has attracted criticism from diverse schools of thought, including Marxists [9] and socialists,[10] libertarians and free market enthusiasts,[11] feminists [12] and human rights advocates, characterising it as excessively pessimistic, misanthropic or inhuman.[13][14][3][15] Many critics believe Malthusianism has been discredited since the publication of Principle of Population, often citing advances in agricultural techniques and modern reductions in human fertility.[16] Some modern proponents believe that the basic concept of population growth eventually outstripping resources is still fundamentally valid, and that positive checks are still likely to occur in humanity's future if no action is taken to intentionally curb population growth.[17][18][better source needed] In spite of the variety of criticisms against it, the Malthusian argument remains a major discourse based on which national and international environmental regulations are promoted
Click to expand...

Because he was an Anglican priest Thomas Malthus understood that this statement in Genesis was arguably the most brilliant statement on human productive capability that has ever been written!

"And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." (Genesis 11)

Thomas Malthus was seeing technology increasing rapidly partly due to the greater domination of the English language in many nations.

Ecclesiastes 10:19
"A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things. "

I also believe that Thomas Malthus caught onto the power of money to cause economic activity and productivity to increase and increase and increase.

DennisTate · Sep 1, 2022

To at least some degree.. I believe that Thomas Malthus was an apologist for the abuses of the British Empire all over the world... including how England had handled events in America. His idea that population needed to be kept low and agricultural production NOT maximized..... makes me wonder to what degree the present administrations in the United States and Canada are MALTHUSIAN?????

Malthus' theoretical argument[edit]
In 1798, Thomas Malthus proposed his theory in An Essay on the Principle of Population.

He argued that although human populations tend to increase, the happiness of a nation requires a like increase in food production. "The happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, upon its poverty, or its riches, upon its youth, or its age, upon its being thinly, or fully inhabited, but upon the rapidity with which it is increasing, upon the degree in which the yearly increase of food approaches to the yearly increase of an unrestricted population."[19]

However, the propensity for population increase also leads to a natural cycle of abundance and shortages:

We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population...increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions, must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease; while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great, that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land; to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is already in tillage; till ultimately the means of subsistence become in the same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened; and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated.

— Thomas Malthus, 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population, Chapter II.
Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

— Thomas Malthus, 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter VII, p. 61[20]
Malthus faced opposition from economists both during his life and since. A vocal critic several decades later was Friedrich Engels.
Click to expand...

The way that our governments handled the pandemic smacks of Malthusianism being perhaps more influential in our governments than we might tend to imagine?????

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/business/coronavirus-destroying-food.html

Dumped Milk, Smashed Eggs, Plowed Vegetables: Food Waste of the Pandemic
With restaurants, hotels and schools closed, many of the nation’s largest farms are destroying millions of pounds of fresh goods that they can no longer sell.

In Wisconsin and Ohio, farmers are dumping thousands of gallons of fresh milk into lagoons and manure pits. An Idaho farmer has dug huge ditches to bury one million pounds of onions. And in South Florida, a region that supplies much of the Eastern half of the United States with produce, tractors are crisscrossing bean and cabbage fields, plowing perfectly ripe vegetables back into the soil.

After weeks of concern about shortages in grocery stores and mad scrambles to find the last box of pasta or toilet paper roll, many of the nation’s largest farms are struggling with another ghastly effect of the pandemic. They are being forced to destroy tens of millions of pounds of fresh food that they can no longer sell.

The closing of restaurants, hotels and schools has left some farmers with no buyers for more than half their crops. And even as retailers see spikes in food sales to Americans who are now eating nearly every meal at home, the increases are not enough to absorb all of the perishable food that was planted weeks ago and intended for schools and businesses.

The amount of waste is staggering. The nation’s largest dairy cooperative, Dairy Farmers of America, estimates that farmers are dumping as many as 3.7 million gallons of milk each day. A single chicken processor is smashing 750,000 unhatched eggs every week.
Click to expand...

DennisTate · Sep 1, 2022

Just as many British people had sympathy for Adolf Hitler before WWII so also many influential Americans seem to
be at least partly in agreement with the policy of England against America as occurred from 1751 to 1783.

Many Americans seem to want a Bear Market and perhaps their motive may be that they think that dampening the economy may be the best way to save the environment, and decrease pollution?!??

The History of Banking Control in the United States
Written by Alain Pilote on Saturday, 31 August 1985. Posted in In This Age of Plenty (book)

In this age of plenty - Chapter 49

We are in 1750. The United States of America does not yet exist; it is the 13 Colonies of the American continent, forming "New England", a possession of the motherland, England. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the population of that time: "Impossible to find a happier and more prosperous population on all the surface of the globe."Going over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, Franklin was asked how he accounted for the prosperous conditions prevailing in the Colonies, while poverty was rife in the motherland:

"That is simple," Franklin replied. "In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."

The English bankers, being informed of that, had a law passed by the British Parliament prohibiting the Colonies from issuing their own money, and ordering them to use only the gold or silver debt-money that was provided in insufficient quantity by the English bankers. The circulating medium of exchange was thus reduced by half.

"In one year," Franklin stated, "the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."

Then the Revolutionary War was launched against England, and was followed by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. History textbooks erroneously teach that it was the tax on tea that triggered the American Revolution. But Franklin clearly stated:

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament: which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England, and the Revolutionary War."

The Founding Fathers of the United States, bearing all these facts in mind, and to protect themselves against the exploitation of the International Bankers, took good care to expressly declare, in the American Constitution, signed at Philadelphia in 1787, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 5:

"Congress shall have the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof."

The bank of the bankers
Alexander Hamilton
But the bankers did not give up. Their agent, Alexander Hamilton, was named Secretary of Treasury in George Washington’s cabinet, and advocated the establishment of a federal bank to be owned by private interests, and the creation of debt-money with false arguments like: "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing... The wisdom of the Government will be shown in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and dangerous an expedient as issuing its own money." Hamilton also made them believe that only the debt-money issued by private banks would be accepted in dealing abroad.

Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, was strongly opposed to that project, but President Washington was finally won over by Hamilton’s arguments. A federal bank was thus created in 1791, the "Bank of the United States", with a 20 years’ charter. Although it was termed "Bank of the United States", it was actually the "bank of the bankers", since it was not owned by the nation, but by individuals holding the bank’s stocks, the private bankers. This name of "Bank of the United States" was purposely chosen to deceive the American population and to make them believe that they were the owners of the bank, which was not the case. The charter for the Bank of the United States ran out in 1811, and Congress voted against its renewal, thanks to the influence of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson:

Andrew Jackson
“If Congress," Jackson said, "has a right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."

Thus ended the history of the first Bank of the United States. But the bankers did not play their last card.

The bankers launch the war
Nathan Rothschild, of the Bank of England, issued an ultimatum: "Either the application for the renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war." Jackson and the American patriots did not believe the power of the international moneylenders could extend so far. "You are a den of thieves-vipers," Jackson told them. "I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out!" Nathan Rothschild issued orders: "Teach these impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to Colonial status."

The British Government launched the War of 1812 against the United States. Rothschild’s plan was to impoverish the United States through this war to such an extent that the legislators would have to seek financial aid... which, of course, would be forthcoming only in return for the renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States. Thousands were killed, but what does that matter to Rothschild? He had achieved his objective; the U.S. Congress granted the renewal of the Charter in 1816.
Click to expand...

Chrizton · Sep 1, 2022

DennisTate said: ↑

Just as many British people had sympathy for Adolf Hitler before WWII so also many influential Americans seem to
be at least partly in agreement with the policy of England against America as occurred from 1751 to 1783.

Many Americans seem to want a Bear Market and perhaps their motive may be that they think that dampening the economy may be the best way to save the environment, and decrease pollution?!??
Click to expand...

I think you have it a little turned around but are in the ballpark. We, myself, included, believe that we need to reduce consumption to help with the environment and pollution and to protect wildlife habitat. In a consumption based economy that will have negative effects on the market. The market fluctuations themselves do not generally have a big effect on day to day consumption though (which is why I think you have it backwards).

Hey Now · Sep 1, 2022

I thought Billy Gates was the debil incarnate?

modernpaladin · Sep 1, 2022

Anyone who truly believes there's too many people needs to be a part of the solution and lead by example. Anything less is just elitism.

Bill Gates, for example, not only continues to spew carbon out of his carbon hole, but he has three children as well. So clearly he doesn't think theres too many humans, he just thinks there's too many humans that arent Bill Gates.

F Bill Gates and everyone like him.

Pieces of Malarkey · Sep 1, 2022

This is the fundamental conceit of the "global warming/global cooling/climare change" fraud. No, CO2 doesn't drive it and it's not by any rational definition a "pollutant". An improving world for everyone is driven by the ability to produce affordable energy which requires producing CO2. There are no other options currently available to do that at scale other than fossil fuels. Period. There is no other rational choice.

Whine about what everyone else (admit it, you aren't personally doing squat about it) needs to do to stop climate change, but in the end there isn't a problem and there's really no solution to that mythical problem that's going to be available any time soon.

And forcing it will kill people. Lots of them. No matter what Bill Gates thinks.

DennisTate · Sep 2, 2022

Pieces of Malarkey said: ↑

This is the fundamental conceit of the "global warming/global cooling/climare change" fraud. No, CO2 doesn't drive it and it's not by any rational definition a "pollutant". An improving world for everyone is driven by the ability to produce affordable energy which requires producing CO2. There are no other options currently available to do that at scale other than fossil fuels. Period. There is no other rational choice.

Whine about what everyone else (admit it, you aren't personally doing squat about it) needs to do to stop climate change, but in the end there isn't a problem and there's really no solution to that mythical problem that's going to be available any time soon.

And forcing it will kill people. Lots of them. No matter what Bill Gates thinks.
Click to expand...

I have to plead guilty to being biased against the Al Gore theory from the very beginning......
New Mexico biologist Carl Cantrell and I actually put in two submissions for The Virgin Earth Challenge based on our alternative theory of turning deserts green...... through mega-scale desalination of sea water.

My two somewhat humorous submissions for $25 million Virgin Earth Challenge.

Global Warming II by Carl Cantrell

So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breath, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere, carried away by running surface water such as rain fall, is carried away to other areas by our winds, and diffuses down into the soil towards the earth's crust. All of this warms our planet increasing its average temperature.

Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes. This is very critical because warmer and dryer winds dry out other land areas faster decreasing the vegetation on those land areas. Less humidity in the air also reflects less sun light back out into space so that more sun light strikes the earth and more heat is generated.

The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave.

So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive.

Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds

This will do a number of things. First, it will increase the moisture in the desert soil so that it will develop water tables and water will begin to run in the streams. This water will increase the amount of vegetation in the area and decrease the amount of heat being generated by sun light cooling the watered area and all areas down wind of the watered area. As more available water evaporates, it will cool the air and reflect more sun light back out into space cooling the area even more. Cooler and more humid air will have less of a heating effect on areas down wind and will reflect more sun light back into space in those areas cooling areas we won't be watering yet. Cooler and more humid air will also have less of a warming effect on our seas and oceans.

Rain water running off of cooler soil will decrease the heating effect on our oceans and our planet crusts which will decrease catastrophic storm activities for other areas and seismic activity for the entire planet. Also, returning more ocean water to the surface and aquifers of our continents will lower the sea levels providing more usable land for us to farm and build on.

With cooler desert areas and increasing vegetation, less water will evaporate from our deserts increasing the amount of surface water even more and increasing the amount of vegetation and animal life by huge amounts because deserts currently take up more than 20% of our land surface. Populations will be able to spread out and there will be less competition for existing land areas.

This strategy has to be done in steps with the first step being to begin slowing the rate at which our global warming is increasing. We need to focus on that until we have brought it to a point to where the temperature is not increasing any more and is reasonably stable. While we are doing this, we need to come to a global consensus of just how cool we want to cool our planet down to. If we cool it down too much, we will begin to have devastatingly harsh winters in large populated areas and even cause an ice age to set in.

Then we begin cooling the planet down to a point which will be most beneficial for all countries or the planet as a whole. We need to gradually bring the temperature down because there may be a lag effect in which the planet will continue cooling after we stop increasing our efforts to cool it off more. We may even want to stop cooling the planet once or twice before we reach our targeted temperatures to see if there is a lag effect

We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time. (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell).

Click to expand...

The Sahara Desert is extremely hot in the afternoons but surprisingly chilly by the following morning so where did all that heat go??????

Into the atmosphere!!!!!!!

So....... this certainly tends to back up the logic of Mr. Carl Cantrell's theory!!!!

DennisTate · Sep 25, 2022

Hey Now said: ↑

I thought Billy Gates was the debil incarnate?
Click to expand...

I do think that Bill Gates has been a very, truly bad boy......... and is very much in the mind set of elitist British thinkers from several centuries ago.

He does do a good job of acting like he is on the side of Al Gore and political correctness though.... but in my opinion that is very opportunistic of him.

Hey Now · Sep 25, 2022

DennisTate said: ↑

I do think that Bill Gates has been a very, truly bad boy......... and is very much in the mind set of elitist British thinkers from several centuries ago.
Click to expand...

But not the debil incarnate then?

DennisTate · Sep 25, 2022

Hey Now said: ↑

But not the debil incarnate then?
Click to expand...

Pretty close........ but his gambit is going to fail and what I suspect may have happened in another time line will not happen during Bill Gates' economic reign of terror over this earth.

A century from now our descendants that could still number in the tens of billions will NOT be looking back and thinking of Bill Gates as THE ANTI - CHRIST PERSON!

But he does deserve credit for submitting a competent audition for the role of the anti-Christ person?!

Dannion Brinkley:
BOX 12: Technology & Virus

The 11th box was gone & I was into the 12th box. Its visions addressed an important event in the distant future, the decade of the 90's (remember, this was 1975), when many of the great changes would take place. In this box, I watched as a biological engineer from the Middle East found a way to alter DNA & create a biological virus that would be used in the manufacture of computer chips. This discovery allowed for huge strides in science & technology. Japan, China, & other countries of the Pacific Rim experienced boom times as a result of this discovery & became powers of incredible magnitude. Computer chips produced from this process found their way into virtually every form of technology, from cars & airplanes to vacuum cleaners & blenders.

Before the turn of the century, this man was among the richest in the world, so rich that he had a stranglehold on the world economy. Still the world welcomed him, since the computer chips he had designed somehow put the world on an even keel. Gradually, he succumbed to his own power. He began to think of himself as a deity & insisted on greater control of the world. With that extra control, he began to rule the world.

His method of rule was unique. Everyone in the world was mandated by law to have one of his computer chips inserted underneath his or her skin. This chip contained all of an individual's personal information. If a government agency wanted to know something, all it had to do was scan your chip with a special device. By doing so, it could discover everything about you, from where you worked & lived to your medical records & even what kind of illnesses you might get in the future.

There was an even more sinister side to this chip. A person's lifetime could be limited by programming this chip to dissolve & kill him with the viral substance it was made from. Lifetimes were controlled like this to avoid the cost that growing old places on the government. It was also used as a means of eliminating people with chronic illnesses that put a drain on the medical system. People who refused to have chips implanted in their bodies roamed as outcasts. They could not be employed & were denied government services." (Dannion Brinkley, Saved By The Light, chapter 5)

https://www.alamongordo.com/Prophecies_of_Dannion_Brinkley.html
Click to expand...

Hey Now · Sep 25, 2022

DennisTate said: ↑

Pretty close........ but his gambit is going to fail and what I suspect may have happened in another time line will not happen during Bill Gates' economic reign of terror over this earth.

A century from now our descendants that could still number in the tens of billions will NOT be looking back and thinking of Bill Gates as THE ANTI - CHRIST PERSON!
Click to expand...

Holy !!! Billie is a very bad boy!

DennisTate · Sep 25, 2022

Hey Now said: ↑

Holy !!! Billie is a very bad boy!
Click to expand...

The information that is coming out of India and Africa about what he did there will soon become public knowledge and I suspect that Billie is headed for one of those bright orange jump suits.........and he will really be unhappy as Melinda and his children likely spend his considerable fortune!

Log in or Sign up

Was Innovation to zero merely about reducing pollution?

Is the TedX lecture "Innovation to zero" simply about reducing pollution?

Yes

No

I sure do hope so?????!!!!!

I sure do hope not... because we humans are destroying the environment!!!!!

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Chrizton Well-Known Member

Hey Now Well-Known Member

modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Hey Now Well-Known Member

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Hey Now Well-Known Member

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Was Innovation to zero merely about reducing pollution?

Is the TedX lecture "Innovation to zero" simply about reducing pollution?

Yes

No

I sure do hope so?????!!!!!

I sure do hope not... because we humans are destroying the environment!!!!!

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Chrizton Well-Known Member

Hey Now Well-Known Member

modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Hey Now Well-Known Member

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Hey Now Well-Known Member

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches