Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 46 of 46

Thread: Magnetic reconnection/ quasars

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    What is the source of this image?

    For what it's worth, I think this is a pair of WATs (wide-angle tailed radio sources) originating in a pair of relatively nearby elliptical galaxies, possibly with x-ray emission represented in blue.

    ETA: This may be 3C75; compare it with the image in this NRAO webpage.

    Here is our galactic center. The two nodes is where particles are created. See the gasses streaming away in opposite directions.[see previous references]
    I will note that, in my opinion, you are misrepresenting what the image shows; however, until I know the source, I will say no more.

    Antimatter in one direction, matter in the other.
    What is the observational evidence for this?

    These two nodes form our four galactic arms.
    Where are the stars? I do not see anything that looks like star-forming regions in this image.

    In an elliptical, all you see is the nodes, but more brightly because there is no dust obscuring the view.

    <snip>
    What is the observational evidence for this claim?

    ETA: the link to an NRAO site, with an image of 3C75
    Last edited by Jean Tate; 2018-Sep-03 at 03:21 PM. Reason: ETA

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,127

    First I need to tell you to please use the regular quote button, so people know who you are replying to. Thanks


    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Large magnetic fields do not accelerate ions.
    Do you have a reference for this statement?
    I think you have this wrong, YOU have to provide evidence that "large scale magnetic fields" actually accelerate ions.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    Is this your theory? Can you explain the methodology, reasons why there are accelerated
    charges at the galactic center? Can you support it with references?
    BTW Weren't you guys denying that ions are accelerated?
    This is YOUR thread and YOUR ideas that are discussed here. People here do not have to defend mainstream views.
    <snip>

    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Yes, reconnection, e.g. in the Earth's tail, bulk accelerates plasma towards the Earth,
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    The tail is caused by magnetic forces from the sun, 93 million miles away. Isn't that far larger
    than the Debye length, which you claim limits the size of magnetic fields?
    What nonsense is that? I never ever claimed that the Debye length "limits the size of magnetic fields". The idea is preposterous.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,398
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    Starting with a singularity, a point, and expanding, that point would forever be the center of garavity (newtons laws of motion), and the center of our universe. The center of gravity can not just disappear along the way.

    The claims of accelerated expansion comes from observations of deep space, often referred to as "edges" of the universe. Degrasse Tyson for one reference.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    Please explain how dark energy works. what does it do? How does it counter or overpower the effect of gravity?
    This is not the place to address your misunderstandings of cosmology. If you want to learn, I suggest you start a thread in the appropriate section of the forum to ask these questions.

    When theory differs from observation, you calculate by how much and declare another magical universal constant.
    Well, apart from the word "magic" that is pretty much how science works. It is how Neptune and neutrinos were discovered, for example.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    I apologize, it was pretty much everyone else who posted that.
    Then: IF03: List the posts where anyone stated the magnetic fields cannot be larger than the Debye length.

    I did not say that you made up the singularity. I said that you do not know about the Big Bang which does not start from a singularity. Thus my questions with the mainstream sources:
    IF02a: Does the Big Bang start at singularity (time t = 0)?
    IF02b: How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?
    IF02c: Where was the center of the Big Bang?
    IF02d: What is dark energy?
    IF02e: What is the cosmological constant?
    IF02f: List sources for "edges" of the universe as actual edges (your implication).
    If you do not know standard cosmology then you will continue to make mistakes when you write about cosmology. Feel free to ignore them because they are not about your ATM idea.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    Here is our galactic center. The two nodes is where particles are created. See the gasses streaming away in opposite directions.[see previous references] Antimatter in one direction, matter in the other. These two nodes form our four galactic arms
    An unknown image and unsupported assertions about it
    IF04a: Please give the source of your "galactic center" image, 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF04b: Please list your evidence for "gasses streaming away in opposite directions", 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF04c: Explain how a stream of antimatter does not annihilate with the interstellar medium (matter) producing distinctive radiation, 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF05: Show how these 2 streams of matter and antimatter gas become the matter only stars and in the spiral arms, 2ndClassCitizen.

    This Is The Clearest View of The Centre of The Milky Way to Date, And It Is Breathtaking
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Sep-03 at 09:14 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,121
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    Because it is prolific and under constant scrutiny, I trust WIKI as a bNASA reference more than other references.
    Here is a Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection
    If someone threw a bunch of magnets onto a floor together, many of them would connect. When two magnets connect, they form one larger magnet. Magnetic reconnection in space is the alignment of smaller magnetic fields to form a larger magnetic field.
    That is not magnetic reconnection.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Wichita Falls, TX
    Posts
    21
    I apologize. I may have swallowed more alcohol than I should have, and got weird on Sunday. i shame myself when I stoop to lower levels, when I should hover above them.
    I may have to post more after I can read questions. The site logs me off too often, so I copy to a text editor, edit, answer, and log in again post.

    Dark Matter is called "dark" because it does not emit light.
    My mistake, i was calling names in a way, using its name as an insult. I declare a mulligan.

    Dark energy was not a part of big bang theory. It was never predicted, or necessary, by science.
    It played no role in our understanding of any physical phenomenon.
    It is a recent ad-hoc patch to big bangs new "acceleration of expansion" theory.

    Energy can move objects, create magnetic fields, create matter, fuse atoms, as well as heat
    matter; these things can all result in making light.
    Assuming the theoretical "dark energy" is a form of "energy", how do you know and how can
    you prove that it can not make light?

    If theorized "dark energy" does not make light, does that not show that there is no energy at
    work?
    The lack of light means you have no observational evidence.

    What would be the methodology of dark energy, if not just being another magnetic field, another nuclear reaction, ....big bang tends to never hasve specific details, just grandiose all-sweeping declarations.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post

    Dark energy was not a part of big bang theory. It was never predicted, or necessary, by science.
    You seem to be blissfully unaware of how science works. Strange gave you a clue, but you ignored it. You have this odd notion that a theory must be born complete. That is not at all how science works. I recommend you hit the books.

    A key part of the scientific method is to accommodate new observational evidence as it accumulates. Once accelerated expansion was observed, it had to be accommodated. If that accommodation is not possible within the existing framework, then the framework has to be changed. It turns out that Einstein's GR gracefully accommodates accelerating expansion.

    Rather than a weakness, that's a strength.

    It played no role in our understanding of any physical phenomenon.
    Incorrect. What you are really saying is "I don't like it."

    Tough, says Nature.

    It is a recent ad-hoc patch to big bangs new "acceleration of expansion" theory.
    By your definition, adaptation is "ad hoc". No new theory is needed, though, as I've noted above. GR already accommodates the maths with no fundamental change. That doesn't sound ad hoc. It's called science.

    The charge of the electron has a very specific value. It comes from nowhere in our theories. It just is the value that it is. That's just as "ad hoc" as accommodating lambda, so being "ad hoc" in this way is hardly a reason to throw away the theory. You are falling into the common trap of declaring as invalid anything that doesn't conform to your tastes. I recommend repeating to yourself the following: "Nature does not owe me a damn thing."

    Energy can move objects, create magnetic fields, create matter, fuse atoms, as well as heat
    matter; these things can all result in making light.
    Assuming the theoretical "dark energy" is a form of "energy", how do you know and how can
    you prove that it can not make light?
    No one has said that dark energy cannot make light, nor do we have any observational evidence that says it does. Again, your ignorance of mainstream science has caused you to make odd assertions.

    If theorized "dark energy" does not make light, does that not show that there is no energy at
    work?
    I threw a rock into the lake. No light came out. By your odd beliefs, no energy was at work.

    The lack of light means you have no observational evidence.
    Photons are not the only things we can sense, nor are they the only manifestations of "energy at work." You really need to learn some physics. You are making assertions that are nonsensical.



    What would be the methodology of dark energy, if not just being another magnetic field, another nuclear reaction, ....big bang tends to never hasve specific details, just grandiose all-sweeping declarations.
    Somewhat ironic that you would say this, because you have been guilty of "grandiose all-sweeping declarations" without a scintilla of scientfic support.

    ETA: It is a compete waste of time to argue that the mainstream is wrong. Even if that were the case, it would in no way prove your theory correct. Rather, you should spend your limited time showing us, in convincing mathematical detail, that you have a superior theory. By "superior" I do not mean it's simply something that you like better. I mean -- quite specifically -- that your theory offers a testable prediction that differs from that of the mainstream, while remaining compatible with all of the mainstream's successes. So please stop telling us why you don't like the mainstream. Your burden here is quite different, so please answer the pending questions before you without repeating that you don't like the mainstream. We've already discerned that bit. Show us that your idea is better.
    Last edited by Geo Kaplan; 2018-Sep-04 at 11:10 PM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    ...What would be the methodology of dark energy, if not just being another magnetic field, another nuclear reaction, ....big bang tends to never hasve specific details, just grandiose all-sweeping declarations.
    Some repeated and irrelevant ignorance, 2ndClassCitizen.
    This is dark energy yet again. Dark energy has a "methodology" as you were told before and would learn if you read the article (put a positive cosmological constant into GR and the expansion of the universe accelerates as we observe).

    This is the Big Bang yet again with specific details.

    Rather than irrelevant posts perhaps you would like to answer questions.
    IF01:Please give your sources for "Gamma ray emmisions are seen from our galactic center, which are most promoinently caused by annihilations", 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF04a: Please give the source of your "galactic center" image, 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF04b: Please list your evidence for "gasses streaming away in opposite directions", 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF04c: Explain how a stream of antimatter does not annihilate with the interstellar medium (matter) producing distinctive radiation, 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF05: Show how these 2 streams of matter and antimatter gas become the matter only stars and in the spiral arms, 2ndClassCitizen.

    The missing IF2x questions were an attempt to encourage you to learn about the Big Bang and dark energy. IF03 is still outstanding.
    IF03: List the posts where anyone stated the magnetic fields cannot be larger than the Debye length.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Sep-04 at 11:16 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Wichita Falls, TX
    Posts
    21
    An unknown image and unsupported assertions about it
    IF04a: Please give the source of your "galactic center" image, 2ndClassCitizen.
    It is a NASA image from Hubble, and plenty of people know about it.. They were searching for a SMBH but
    instead found streams flowing away from the GC.
    IF04b: Please list your evidence for "gasses streaming away in opposite directions", 2ndClassCitizen.
    "The nature of the Galaxy's bar which extends across the Galactic center is also actively debated..."The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way"
    "...Associated with no previously known object, it seems to imply that a fountain of antimatter positrons
    streams from the GC [galactic center]."
    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970501.html"
    IF04c: Explain how a stream of antimatter does not annihilate with the interstellar medium (matter)
    producing distinctive radiation, 2ndClassCitizen.
    What you are talking about is called boundary conditions. That has been explained already. Annihilations at the center have long been detected by the light and gamma ray energy given off. Annihilations occur above and below the galactic plane (re-look at the bubbles of energy image by NASA, see previous references for the bubbles of energy.) It has been explained that matter and antimatter separating into two arms on opposite sides of a galaxy, prevents collisions.
    There is always a low hum of gamma radiation in deep space. With only one particle per cubic centimeter, particle collisions resulting in annihilation are rare. Hospitals store and use antimatter. Its not like the movies where antimatter has some extra attraction to matter and immediately annihilates matter.
    There will in spiral galaxies sometimes be incidences of more prominent collisions, streams, resulting in anihilations. These are observed:
    "Gamma ray bursts involve quick massive anihilations, and are extremely energetic and extremely rare....The true nature of these objects…remains unknown…"
    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060517.html

    "When the EGRET instrument on the orbiting Compton Gamma-ray Observatory surveyed the sky in
    the 1990s, it cataloged 271 celestial sources of high energy gamma-rays. ...
    ...170 of the cataloged sources, shown in the above all sky map, remain unidentified…...astronomers recently
    called attention to the ribbon of sources winding through the plane of the galaxy, projected here along
    the middle of the map, which may represent a large unknown class of galactic gamma-ray emitters. In any
    event, the unidentified sources could remain a mystery..."
    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap000324.html
    Type 1a supernovae are from collisions of matter and antimatter stars. The tremendous energy quickly levels out when either the matter or antimatter of the inferior star is eliminated. If they are equal in mass, the supernovae leaves no remnant at the center..[image available NASA POTD archive]
    IF05: Show how these 2 streams of matter and antimatter gas become the matter only stars and in the spiral arms,
    You assume that our opposing arm is matter. That can not be proven by observation. Antimatter behaves the same way as matter, and observations are no different that matter observations.
    "Astronomers have lately taken to looking speculatively at distant galaxies to see if they can find anything odd about them. An individual galaxy composed of antimatter would not betray itself in any way we can recognize."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interacting_galaxy"
    When galaxies age, like ours is coming to do, the outer stars start collapsing back to the center, The dusty arms begin to overlap. A cascade of annihilations ensue, destroying the spiral galaxy in a colorful firework show we know as a galactic NEBULAE.
    I did not say that you made up the singularity. I said that you do not know about the Big Bang which does not start from a singularity.
    Definition that comes up with any search for the definition of Big Bang theory:
    The Big Bang is a scientific theory about how the universe started, and then made the stars and galaxies we see today. The universe BEGAN as a very hot, small, and dense superforce (the mix of the four fundamental forces), with no stars, atoms, form, or structure (called a "SINGULARITY").
    Thus my questions with the mainstream sources:
    IF02a: Does the Big Bang start at singularity (time t = 0)?
    That is the mainstream Hawking theory. He said that nothing existed before the big bang. That has since been abandoned for string theory and multiple universe theories.
    IF02b: How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?
    We now know that the universe is at least 10X the size predicted by Big Bang. Many folks say the universe is
    infinite, and expanding. [references omitted for length]
    The size of the universe predicted by BB was supposedly based on the rate of expansion, predicted by BB; and the age, predicted by BB. If one side of an equation is multiplied by ten, then the other side needs to be multiplied by ten for it to remain equal. The fact no attempt is made to redress this demonstrated to me that BB no longer cares to rectify itself with science anymore. It is merely a multi-billion dollar industry with no independent conformation.
    Please read "open letter to science" to see the blatant suppression of all people and observational data that doesn't support BB.
    IF02c: Where was the center of the Big Bang?
    There is no ""center of the universe" and so no need to define it.
    There should, by BB theory, be a center. BB claims there is not. This was discussed earlier. See "Newtons law of motion" and "center of gravity can not be lost along the way"
    IF02d: What is dark energy?
    When those that theorized dark energy tell us what it is, where it comes from, and what new physical process it does, and how that process increases expansion; we will all know.
    If dark energy exists, why is it not detected here, if it can be detected far across the universe?
    Last edited by 2ndClassCitizen; 2018-Sep-04 at 11:52 PM.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    634
    I do hope you are preparing answers to my questions, 2ndClassCitizen.

    I'll assume that you are, and ask just one question about your most recent post, a question that is also very similar to one I have already asked you.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    An unknown image and unsupported assertions about it
    IF04a: Please give the source of your "galactic center" image, 2ndClassCitizen.
    It is a NASA image from Hubble, and plenty of people know about it.. They were searching for a SMBH but
    instead found streams flowing away from the GC.

    <snip>
    To be 100% certain, this is the URL for that image:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/attachm...chmentid=23533

    Please give a specific source ("NASA image from Hubble"), either a URL linking to an official NASA site, or one to an official Hubble Space Telescope site.

    For the record, I am quite confident that this is an image of 3C 75, with the jets observed in the radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,166
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    It is a NASA image from Hubble, and plenty of people know about it.. They were searching for a SMBH but
    instead found streams flowing away from the GC.
    Let me make that official 2ndClassCitizen. In your very next post you will give the exact reference for the image, either a link to an official source or detailed information about the image, or you will be infracted.

    I will also remind you that you were asked by Moderator tusenfem to use the Quote function so we know who's question you are responding to. I will give you credit for at least quoting the question, but there is no indication of who's question it is or from what post.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Wichita Falls, TX
    Posts
    21
    NASA picture of the day archive. All images by Hubble

    Now its time to say goodnight..

    When people don't know something, they should be open for suggestion.[I know you will try to use this sentence to insult me]
    You feel your job is to contradict me, and everything new or different. Instead of search for truth, you go to war and all is fair, whether right or wrong. I will never make you relent, and you will only continue to do battle.
    Real minds are open for suggestion. I always relent to the expert about anything of which I am unsure.[I know you will try to use this sentence to insult me]
    Real minds listen and collaborate and try to understand, and fill in the gaps, construct. This is not possible in a hostile biased environment where the only motive is to contradict. I can do more than has been done.

    It is time to stop this thread, which is redundant and nonsense at this point, and people are being hostile.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    It is a image from Hubble, and plenty of people know about it.. They were searching for a SMBH but
    instead found streams flowing away from the GC. ...
    NASA has maybe millions of images from Hubble. No actual answers to
    IF01:Please give your sources for "Gamma ray emmisions are seen from our galactic center, which are most promoinently caused by annihilations", 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF03: List the posts where anyone stated the magnetic fields cannot be larger than the Debye length.
    IF04a: Please give the source of your "galactic center" image, 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF04b: Please list your evidence for "gasses streaming away in opposite directions", 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF04c: Explain how a stream of antimatter does not annihilate with the interstellar medium (matter) producing distinctive radiation, 2ndClassCitizen.
    IF05: Show how these 2 streams of matter and antimatter gas become the matter only stars and in the spiral arms, 2ndClassCitizen.

    Antimatter
    If antimatter-dominated regions of space existed, the gamma rays produced in annihilation reactions along the boundary between matter and antimatter regions would be detectable.[19]
    How often does the Sun pass through a spiral arm in the Milky Way?
    The Sun passes through every spiral arm during its 230 million year orbit. The Sun and Earth are made of matter.
    IF05a: Why is the Solar System not destroyed when it passes through your antimatter spiral arms (ditto for all stars passing thru the arms), 2ndClassCitizen?

    Just in case: You may think that spiral arms are permanent structures made of stars so they stay in them. This has been known to be wrong since 1925 (Origin of the spiral structure).

    This is a Type 1a supernova
    A type Ia supernova (read "type one-a") is a type of supernova that occurs in binary systems (two stars orbiting one another) in which one of the stars is a white dwarf. The other star can be anything from a giant star to an even smaller white dwarf.[1]
    ...
    In May 2015, NASA reported that the Kepler space observatory observed KSN 2011b, a type Ia supernova in the process of exploding.
    IF06: Show that the collision of a matter star and a antimatter star produces a type Ia supernova, 2ndClassCitizen.

    This is antimatter
    A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner is known to lead to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs.
    Type Ia supernova produce a broad spectrum of radiation, not just gamma rays. Type Ia supernova last for weeks, annihilation is instant. Type Ia supernova leave remains, your scenario might not.

    What looks like an imaginary "mainstream Hawking theory". The mainstream cosmology theory formed by many scientists over almost a century is the Big Bang starting from a hot dense state.

    The Big Bang does not predict the size of the universe. The Big Bang has an infinite or finite universe. Observable universe (the entire universe is estimated to be at least 250 times larger, may be 3×10^23 or larger times bigger, and may be infinite).

    Some 'open letter to science" seeming with paranoia about suppression of data and papers.

    A repeat of your universe has a center and dark energy ignorance yet again!

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,166
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    NASA picture of the day archive. All images by Hubble

    Now its time to say goodnight..

    When people don't know something, they should be open for suggestion.[I know you will try to use this sentence to insult me]
    You feel your job is to contradict me, and everything new or different. Instead of search for truth, you go to war and all is fair, whether right or wrong. I will never make you relent, and you will only continue to do battle.
    Real minds are open for suggestion. I always relent to the expert about anything of which I am unsure.[I know you will try to use this sentence to insult me]
    Real minds listen and collaborate and try to understand, and fill in the gaps, construct. This is not possible in a hostile biased environment where the only motive is to contradict. I can do more than has been done.

    It is time to stop this thread, which is redundant and nonsense at this point, and people are being hostile.
    You get your wish. This tread is done.

    You had your one chance to discuss this idea here. Do not bring up this topic or anything related again without explicit prior approval of the Moderation Team, or you will be suspended.

    In addition, for failing to follow moderator instructions and for you little off-topic rant, you get an infraction.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,166
    Just to close out this one point.

    Here is the link to the APOD image, from 22 October 2017 (thanks to tusenfem).

    What's happening at the center of active galaxy 3C 75? The two bright sources at the center of this composite x-ray (blue)/ radio (pink) image are co-orbiting supermassive black holes powering the giant radio source 3C 75.
    It is not the center of our galaxy.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    Here is our galactic center. The two nodes is where particles are created. See the gasses streaming away in opposite directions.[see previous references] Antimatter in one direction, matter in the other. These two nodes form our four galactic arms.

    In an elliptical, all you see is the nodes, but more brightly because there is no dust obscuring the view.

    I almost forgot the coup de gras....
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

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