 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / March 2006Troolean operators
No they are not those cute fuzzy little creatures that Cyrano Jones gave to Ohura, on the bridge of the Enterprise. http://img45.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc73&image=21922_tribble3.jpg No a troolean operator is a term I just invented. http://tinyurl.com/lka7e We tend to think that true/false is all you need but what about undecided? If it is greater than or equal to zero then do this. Well what if it is undefined? Nil. 0 is a number. So what about the situation where you might say, if it is there, then is it red or blue? Well what if it is green? Or, you might say, in almost every case, barring quantum fluctuations of the tachyon field, the microwave will propel the operator 63 meters, on detonation, or whatever scientific experiment you are engaged in. barring quantum fluctuations means in lauyman's terms, 'sh*t happens' Also you see, it is a fallacy, to think that everything has an opposite when in fact there is no opposite to a sandwich as an example. My point is simply this... Boolean operators lead to faulty logic and incomplete theories. This results in such things as NASA mission failures like the one where they launched the ranger probe to try and land on the moon, missed the moon, and the probe went into orbit around the sun. Had they thought ahead and said well what if? What if it is neither this or that, what if it is neither this nor that, but may be unknown? Troolean operators. Some of you may recall last year when we had discussions regarding building a new library of knowledge in the Gulf Islands with giant statues like Achilles, and the like, and on this huge complex, we would create an S3 center. A center for higher learning and such which was to include the humanities, and exhibits. 1000 science exhibits and temporary lodgings and a biosphere, and place for the display of genetically engineered animals, and the like. A place which could act as an advisory body to politics and whoever and would be an internal venture to foster global unity. There was some old architect who had this dream of unity, from the 40's or 50's and he did some drawings and I happened upon them one day. This was the image we used last year to dream his dream with him, wherever he went to I have no idea, but this was his rendering of 'The Facility'. http://img135.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc278&image=22945_paradise1.jpg well lo and behold, what do I come across a couple days ago, but yet another drawing from this same person, of the same facility, but from a different view. I included it with the latest version of Personal TV Studio that I am releasing this weekend. I was just grabbing some royalty free example images to include when I found the image. Anyways here is another rendering of the Facility. http://img145.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc167&image=23132_TheFacility.jpg Oh to be rich like Bill Gates, that is what I would do with my money. You know last year we even found the island, it was in the Gulf Islands, and it was even for sale. http://gulfislandsguide.com/real-estate/norway-island.html and we also found out that Bill has his own island, where he was building some sort of dream home or other, about a mile away. Interesting stuff. But what a wonderful thought. To build a center for higher learning, on an island, and have giant statues, like the days of old. Nice architecture as well. You can see the influence of various cultures in his work, and his dream of unity which he built into his ideas. http://img145.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc279&image=23569_DreamScape.jpg [quote] A place which could act as an advisory body to politics and whoever and would be an internal venture to foster global unity. [unquote] that should read International not internal. > You know last year we even found the island, it was in the Gulf > Islands, and it was even for sale. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > building some > sort of dream home or other, about a mile away. well maybe more like 5 miles away. But near there anyways. I really should use that preview button in google. And yes of course there would be genetically engineered hydra-trita-calee on display as well. http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/JackKerouac.mp3 (I have to get back to work) You know, I don't want to be a nit picker Mike (Myers) but I sort of invisioned it to be more, well, less like this... http://tinyurl.com/j75y8 and more like this... http://img135.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc278&image=22945_paradise1.jpg http://img145.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc167&image=23132_TheFacility.jpg http://img145.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc279&image=23569_DreamScape.jpg Um, youre fired. Although I think I understand your point, two-value logic has great strength and utility. For instance, that computer you are using is made possible because of this system of 0/1 - on/off - t/f logic. Now, if your point is that these logical systems are incomplete, well, perhaps you have heard of Gödel. In the strictest sense, it is perhaps true that this logic simply mimics our experiences (thus making it more inductive than deductive) in the real-world, without saying anything really deep about that world. My understanding is that Gödel showed that within any deductive system we can produce statements that basically claim to be decidable iff they are not decided. A rough (and somewhat crappy) analogy is the old statement: "This statement is false", which cannot be assigned a truth-value. Anyways, it's been a long time since my last logic class, so I am probably garbling some of this. But the basic idea that these systems and even the meta-systems which analyze them are flawed is pretty much accepted at this point. And of course there has been extensive work in "many-value" systems of various forms. -KT > No they are not those cute fuzzy little creatures that Cyrano Jones > gave to Ohura, on the bridge of the Enterprise. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > which he built into his ideas. > http://img145.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc279&image=23569_DreamScape.jpg > Although I think I understand your point, two-value logic has great > strength and utility. For instance, that computer you are using is > made possible because of this system of 0/1 - on/off - t/f logic. Yes, but it crashes all the time, because the programmers, never said, true false or something else, they always say, true false or error out, and often, they don't even say error out, the computer just crashes, because they said true or false, and the value of the variable was undefined, and so then if it was meant to be a word value, a positive whole niumber, and it ends up being a negative number like an integer, then well crashola, bad memory assignment or whatever. It is being applied now, by error checking which says, if the value is nil, then do this or that. Because there is a difference between something not being assigned and a value. for instance, you ask the computer if this number is greater than or equal to 0 do this, else do that. You think you have it covered no? Well the problem is that an undefined variable can be any value, whatever happens to be at that memory address, so it is outside of your equasion. You have written code, and are assuming that you will get a math result, which is greater to or equal to 0, but since the value was nil, not assigned, it referenced what was in that memory, pulled out a negative number not related at all to the function result you were expecting. It is almost like a random number has been pulled from the air, because you have no idea, what the value happened to be that was sitting in that register. Hence you have a problem, that does not appear until the computer crashes. There used to also be a problem with division by 0. But that has been fixed. Or at least it doesn't crash the CPU, it will still cause an error and your program whatever it might be then will handle that error. So the design of computers, with 0's and 1's is flawed from the get go, and it still amazes me, how we useed to have to reboot win 95 and win 98 like 10 times a day, .and people accepted it. They didn't have any choice because there was no real alternative. You couldn't just go and ask for your money back like you certainly would, if the washing machine you just bought, had to be unplugged and plugged back in 10 times a day. (sorry for the wordy response) > Now, if your point is that these logical systems are incomplete, well, > perhaps you have heard of Gödel. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > And of course there has been extensive work in "many-value" systems of > various forms. Well I think an improvement would be the troolean operator, in computer logic. This would force the programmer, to consider the what if's, and make more reliable systems overall. I am sure that in any scientific endeavor, at least being consciously aware of quantum fluctuations, has improved things, yet there is no formalized method of applying it short of just saying statistically the result will be so. > Because there is a difference between something not being assigned and > a value. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > whatever happens > to be at that memory address, so it is outside of your equasion. Let me try and clarify this a bit... You have an equasion, and if the result is positive or 0 then this. Now in this above example, it returned a negative number, and so you assume, that you caught that as part of your equasion, and so that. Now what if the value sitting in that register just happened to be a positive number? Well then you assume, what you were expecting was the result in your equasion, was true. Yet that number was just sitting in a memory register, the actual variable which was supposed to represent that memory register, was not assigned a value at all. Now it wasn't technically nil. It has some old number in it from a previous assign call. So here you have a situation, where your supposed air tight equasion, has a thing which can enter into your equasion, yet not be part of your equasion. It has entered because it looked like a value you were expecting, and it became a part of teh equasion, but it just entered in the middle. It did not come in in linear fashion. So what you might have said instead of if the result is greater than or equal to 0, then this, else do that. That is a typical boolean situation and that covers true or false. Lets freeze that frame for clarity right there. Things can only be greater than or equal to 0, and less than 0 no? Yet, what happened was one of the parts of your equasion was an imaginery or random or nil value, it was merely an undefined commodity. So the result looks right. It looks like it is still greater than or equal to 0 or less than 0, but really the equasion answered nothing. Because one of the constituent parts was well a lie. And so what would be the merit of a reply, that was a lie? You can't send rockets to the moon based on lies. "Well when you get out there, in space, be sure that your flaps are not on too steep an angle, you don't want friction to burn them when they are turned towards the sun" So, OK, there is no atmosphere in space, flaps need air pressure to work, yet would the sun cause them a problem, and would that problem surface, when you are back on earth, trying to land? If the person was a known liar who told you that, you would be worried because number one, it sounds serious, yet has components which may not make sense. So it may be a true statement, it may be a false statement, and it may be pure nonsense. troolean operators. > "Well when you get out there, in space, be sure that your flaps are not > on too [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > be pure > nonsense. Lets take it a bit further. So you say, well either what he said was true, or what he said was false. Granted, so what is the result? Undefined. Maybe parts of what he said we true and parts were false, but the whole thing sounds like bs, and you have to make a decision. So you see, if you stop there, you might crash. So using troolean logic, you would expect the unexpected, and in this case get a second opinion and if everyone is just making stuff up? So you still need to assume, that it may be true, it may be false, and if something happens that is not what you might expect then you have a plan c. And that is where a whole lot of problems occur. Right there in plan b. Because you assume a thing is either true or false, so you have a plan b. > > "Well when you get out there, in space, be sure that your flaps are not > > on too [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Because you assume a thing is either true or false, so you have a plan > b. So why stop there? Why not have a plan d, just to be sure? By the time you hit plan c, you no longer have any basis for logical deductive reasoning, so to go to plan d, is just a more robust plan c. case in point, the first attempts to land a probe on the moon. Ranger 3, misses the moon, goes into orbit around the sun. Ranger 4, piles into the moon at about mach 5. Ranger 5, misses the moon by 450 miles. So OK, what we see here is that ranger 5 doesn't look much like a plan c, it looks like yet a repeat of plan a. Why was that? Well they assumed the gravity on the moon was according to their physics a certain value, and well it wasn't. Out of the blue, here is a situation that defied belief. But the result was an unexpected occurance, not accounted for that the gravity on the moon would differ from what everyone would expect at that time. So they stopped there, Russia was launching a set of probes called Luna at the same time. They too had been unseuccessful. After Ranger 5, Russia launches Luna 7, it bores into the moon full tilt. ~poof~ (that's the little dust ball that comes up on impact as it disintegrates) but they kept at it, by now convinced it wasn't just technical glitches and their formulii must be wrong, and so trial and error, and voila, Luna 8 crashes, Luna 9 lands. And then America is successful as well, after everyone finds out what the values actualy were. All along they had been dealing with formulii, that contained a lie. And the result was unpredictable accordingly. It is not sufficient to go on values from a book say as you go along, you need to be able to read those values as input, as you go along, and calibrate your equasions based on known facts. So if Windoze, instead of boolean operators, used troolean operators, in every boolean instance, throughout the code, you would need to provide for three possibilities. This was implemented by the programmers as they went along anyways, but not right there at the place where it needs to be. Every question, every boolean question, needs a what if. So rather than say, if this then that, what we now have is a thing called try. A catch block that goes around your equasion, and it says try this... and if there is a problem then it catches it. Systems are much more reliable and crash far less as a result of that. You don't even see, the miriad of times, the program you are using catches itself from screwing up. It doesn't have to report every error. It just catches it, and carries on, you push a button, and you go, Hmm... nothing happened, and so you try something else. That's correct. "Try" from the Latin tri, as in try this, we have a plan c. In most cases it is nothing happens, because that is the safest bet isn't it? When in doubt do nothing, else you are taking a shot in the dark. In mission critical situations, well the show must go on so you are heading for the moon, at mach 5, well plan c, transmorphigate the flangethrasher in the revitigator, it would appear that quantum fluctuations in the tachyon field are distorting the space-time continuum, affecting the time-manifold, sh*t happens. Yes been there done that got my flaps singed, but you know what helps me to remember? I think of the early test pilots of the X series rockets, that flew in the upper atmosphere, and about the test pilot, who left the atmosphere, doing oh I don't know, mach 6 or 7, and immediately realized, that flaps don't work in space, because there is no atmosphere, and so he no longer had a way, to steer or turn his rocket plane, he just kept on sailing, and is there still. (I assume unless he piled into Jupiter.) Yes he became a space ornament, but without science and the sacrifices of a few good men and women we would still be living in caves chipping flint. I don't know if you saw this yet or not... http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/ Successful civilian commercial spaceflight, Spaceship One, funded by Allen (MSoft cofounder) flies to 62 miles (into space) twice in a week, winning the prize of 10 million dollars. "Mission Control this is delta one niner do you copy?" "Roger delta one niner, what's your ten twenty?" "Um, TFR on that over" lol You know it's amazing how far they have come with radar don't you think? Remember the little blips as the hand sweeps across the screen? http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/gallery/flight_general/13p_boost Image of flight 13P boost from Edwards AFB ground radar facility No that's not us. We are well we are the _other kind. For us it more like this... "Mission control this is delta one niner, do you copy?" "Roger delta one niner, what's your ten ten?" "Uh, TFR on that over" "Roger delta one niner, can you still see your hands over?" "Roger that" "Well then you are still there, proceed to...." lol You know, it's times like this, that I wish I could explain to you, what it is like. I'm a scientist, a field commander of a sort, under cover, deep cover, but not alone, by any means. There are lots of S3's here on good ol terra firma and you will find them in all walks of life. Some of you reading this are probably S3's. So you know of whence I speak. The only framework for discussion that we have, is not really an earthly science based framework, we have our own framework, that we use. Foreign to most people. They wouldn't understand the terminology, the references etc because they are outside their realm of experience, outside their world view. It must be nice I suppose, to be strapped into an X-15 though, being dropped by a B-52 bomber, and feeling the rockets fire, and propel you from mach.8 to mach 5 or 6, in a 80 to 120 second burn. It must be thrilling. But then there is the 4 G's of accelleration, you feel on your chest, which is like a fat lady from a circus sideshow act, perched on your chest, for 80 to 120 seconds and you feel like you are going to die. You are thinking things like, well if I crash, at least the oxygen cylinder beside me will freeze dry me, in a few seconds when it explodes, so I won't suffer much. There is comfort in that, I am sure. But for me, it is different, I have nothing to gain, by climbing into an X-15, because all the results of that exciting ride, which are outside the expected, can only be negative. I have seen the things disintegrate, and they do disintegrate, when the air flow, is not exactly streamlined. If that puppy, is not exactly into the wind, if you start to tumble, you are not in a fixed wing aircraft falling after a nose over, you are going 5 or 6 times the speed of sound. It is just flllltttt.... and scattered debris basically. And there is this argument on-going whether we should even be sending people into space at all, or if we should be just sending robots, and I personally can't answer that question, because it is the human element that makes it interesting. So for us, it is also the human element that makes it interesting. We just don't need the hardware, to get from a to b in that regard. Given the choice, of climbing into an X-15, or doing what I do, which is to fly the DeLorean in mindspace, I will fly the DeLorean any day of the week. What is the most I could hope to accomplish, as an X-15 pilot? Well I will tell you it would never add up to one ounce of the enjoyment I had today, as I walked to the liquor store, to pick up a 6 pack of Heinekens, and was stalked all the way there, and all the way home, by a young goddess, yes a real honest to goodness goddess, who didn't get to go one the DeLorean last night with us, so she made sure by gar that I am going to take her with us tonight. She signed me and signed me and signed me and made sure that I knew exactly what she was telling me, and that she wanted to be included tonight. Wearing certain colors, making all the hand gestures etc from our own S3 sign language we developed last year. And we will. A bunch of us, will get into the DeLorean tonight, like we did last night and we will go on an adventure. Last night we went back in time, to days of the Dick Van Dyke show, and snogged Mary Tyler Moore.Now you can't beat that with a stick if you ask me. Sure it's science, it is just not the dangerous kind of science. Does it acomplish anything oh yes it sure does, but not the tangible sort of hardware high tech improvements that people want, it accomplishges things like it makes people happy and content. Hardware we can have any hardware we want, without having to put hammer to steel. So what does it benefit us, as a group, to risk life and limb, have some fat lady sit on us for 80 to 120 seconds, well it would serve no purpose. Sure it would be exciting, so is a roller coaster, but you know, until we learn to live with each other, in some semblance of harmony, then what would the hardware be used for except for some sort of weaponry anyways. The real interesting thing might be to tow the space station into orbit around the moon. That might be interesting. Unless NASA can show the people something interesting, something special, something wild and exciting, something extraordinary, fantastic, remarkable, wonderous, like finding an alien artifact on the moon, or finding anything that has a human element in it, beside yet more rock and maybe water under the ground, they can't expect the people to buy into their dream. If space is lifeless, dead, then it is just a rock quarry and who cares? We already know what rocks consist of and we have the physics of black holes and all that. You see for us, we can go places in inner space as a group and experience anything we can dream up and it costs nothing, and it is not in any way dangerous, and it is fun. That is where we are at. To me from my experience, it seems like a better place to be. It also seems light years ahead of climbing into a rocket and flying 62 miles above the earth, risking life and limb. If there is nothing out there, then why bother? If all there is is yet more nice photographs of planets, then we have seen them in all sorts of colors. Do we need to see them some more? In more and different colors? I am just not getting it I suppose. I suppose one argument is, well when we have dirtied our nest we will have to go to Mars and live there. Well, maybe if you were to reproduce the conditions on Mars, in a biosphere, and then try and live in it. I mean do a simulation, you would soon find out that dirtying our nest, is not an option. Promoting the idea that Mars might become a world as wonderful as a walk in the woods here on a sunny day, is a pipe dream of huge proportions. We take what we have for granted and think maybe science will save us from ourselves, but really haven't we looked out into deep space and did we see anything living out there at all? So isn't it simply this, we preserve the earth, or we die. And I suppose it is a huge philosophical argument regarding what constitutes a life worth living and we can look back to ancient Egypt and we can even surmise from their heiroglyphics that these people were in contact with another race, from somewhere. But they had no technology we know of, excpet for some rudimentary tools and such, so they were probably in contact with a race, through mindspace. They had the ability to use their minds, by their high priests getting into the so called sarcophogas in the great pyramid, which acted like a sensory deprevation tank, and they could use their mind across time and space and made contact with some other race and recording the things they were shown in visions. Their religion essentially. The river Styx and all that mystical myth and heresay but also a few math formulas, which stayed with us over the years. So should SETI be looking for radio waves, when even a person such as myself, can just conjure up a fully loaded DeLorean, get the girls into it and off we go, without ever putting hammer to steel? Does it not make more sense that any advanced civilization on our own wavelength, would have mastered that by now. If we can use electrons in our brains, and we can understand quantum mechanics, and we can understand higher dimensions, and we know about spacetime and wormholes, and all those things and we have only beeen at it for what? 10,000 years since we got some sort of communication from afar? What would a race using radio waves have to tell us? And when in our history, did we use radio waves for communication? What the 50's? Was that the golden age of radio? A mere blip on the background of time here in our own timeframe. We already have nuclear power. We have harnessed, the energy of the sun basically and we do not have any reason not to be using it to create all those wonderful glass bubble cities and to use it to make a paradise on earth, but we don't. We make excuses, and we talk about fossil fuels and the dangers of radioctive waste and we live like cave dwellers fussing and fighting over silly things. We could make some marvels today if we were inclined. We just don't seem to be unified enough, to get together to really leave our mark on the world. Maybe that is what the Egyptians had that we do not. They had leadership, and they had organization, and that allowed them to accomplish things which we are unable to. I am not saying we couldn't build the pyramids we could, but to leave our mark, like they left theirs. Our dynasty, what will it be? Pollution? Overpopulation? Maybe world peace, that we have managed to really get close to, but what of the wonders? Not these steel and concrete glass towers, they won't last a couple hundred years. Someone once told me, that what we left, will last billions of years. We left space junk, on the moon. > Someone once told me, that what we left, will last billions of years. > We left space junk, on the moon. I'm not going to clean it up, you clean it up, it's your mess. I'm going to just kick back, pick up Marion, that young goddess who signed me today, pick up 4 or 5 other goddesses from Hollywood, and we are going to go to our airship, a giant cruise liner in the sky, which we constructed in mindspace, and we are going to use the facilities, the hot tub, maybe go to the buffet, and all that and just hang out basically. And when we are done, someone else will do the dishes, someone else will change the sheets, and the next time we go there, it will be brand new once again. And even if we were all rich like Bill Gates, we couldn't have such a marvel as our airship here on earth. There would be storms, sending us this way and that, there would be some reason, like taxes, that we couldn't go there and just have fun. You should see it, it is a marvel. And we have friends also, from who knows where, who go there as well, and just hang out, as if it were a real place to be. Sitting in the dining hall, walking down the halls, working as whatever in their blue jackets and slacks with the stripe down the leg, and anything we want, we just have to order from room service. We get there in the DeLorean, we have two of them, and it has a garage and bay doors, and we have been going there almost once a week, for over a year. Needless to say the motivation of our kind, to get out there and drag rocks to build a pyramid? Well we are just a little bit spoiled in that regard. You know I suppose, that if they didn't have the Star Ship Enterprise, they wouldn't have had the holodeck. What the heck were they looking out the windows for though, when all the fun really would be in there? And that says it all in a nutshell. Where rationality breaks down, and you climb into an X-15 rocket. What wre the crew searching for outside the ship, and if they found it, could it possibly be as marvellous as what they would have found within the holodeck, if they had fertile imaginations? What would they find outside? Isn't it almost always danger, and hardship, and things to fight, to beat, to win, to conquer, those are the S2 concepts, and they are generally quite painful. Pain being a signal to the brain, that you shouldn't be doing that. Yet it gets glorified, into a great challenge, well in real terms, people would be in the holodeck, living their dreams not outside fighting and killing each other and being killed. "Well then you are still there, proceed to your destination delta one niner" "but what about the" "your whining has been duly noted, proceed to" "But it's just that" "I am putting a checkmark beside your name Rick" "OK ok, I'm going, hey listen what are you doing later, I could spin by in the DeLorean and pick you up, a little wine a little dinner" "That would be nice" "Hey listen about that checkmark" "What checkmark" "see you after 12" "yeah baby" > Although I think I understand your point, two-value logic has great > strength and utility. For instance, that computer you are using is > made possible because of this system of 0/1 - on/off - t/f logic. >>>>>The excluded middle is a concept which has great utility. Some situations are not only true/false. Especially complex ones. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > A rough (and somewhat crappy) analogy is the old statement: "This > statement is false", which cannot be assigned a truth-value. >>>>>>>>>Yes, Godel's theoerm is built on the Epimenides paradox, "This staement is false"; it is a very complex extension of it. And stictly speaking Godel's original theorem only appies to the Principia Mathematica. However, it has analogs in many different areas. > > Anyways, it's been a long time since my last logic class, so I am > probably garbling some of this. But the basic idea that these systems > and even the meta-systems which analyze them are flawed is pretty much > accepted at this point. >>>>>>>>>> Flawed, yes, but not unusable. GT is a self-referential paradox. It's a consequence of a system being very rich and powerful. The key is to learn to deal with it. It's a small price to have to pay to have access to virtually unlimited knowldege, having to deal with self-ref messiness. Self-ref is what makes us intelligent. It's what rose us above the apes. Once a system achieves self-ref, stand back. - Don > No they are not those cute fuzzy little creatures that Cyrano Jones > gave to Ohura, on the bridge of the Enterprise. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > which he built into his ideas. > http://img145.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc279&image=23569_DreamScape.jpg (Oops forgot to crosspost it, he doesn'r read this trashy physics stuff.) You know, I don't want to be a nit picker Mike (Myers) but I sort of invisioned it to be more, well, less like this... http://tinyurl.com/j75y8 and more like this... http://img135.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc278&image=22945_paradise1.jpg http://img145.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc167&image=23132_TheFacility.jpg http://img145.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc279&image=23569_DreamScape.jpg Um, youre fired. http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=57049452&cdi=0 Hi Donald. What he said Mike. lol rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=57049452&cdi=0 > > Hi Donald. > > What he said Mike. lol I am not over compensating. Shut~up. No I am not listening to elevator music, I am listening to rock and roll. Frank Sinatra is rock and roll. Is so. Is so. Do fat bastard for me. lol |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.