How (and why) to Ramble On your domestic shorthair - Page 1214 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-19-2015, 11:38 PM   #24261
I take big bites
iTrader: (1)
 
turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,991
Total Cats: 409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rleete View Post
He failed, miserably, as in almost everything he does.

Attached Thumbnails
How (and why) to Ramble On your domestic shorthair-80-d9004d88b2d0440f178359896f1939c3569369dbca36a9642a111d77eb956904_46a4a91a0777827570fa7a4929cc.jpg  
turbofan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 10:42 AM   #24262
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 18,769
Total Cats: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rleete View Post
Just spent over 5 hours in the hospital because my brother tried to kill himself. He failed, miserably, as in almost everything he does.

I already feel I have a different outlook on life. And I fear it will mean a lot more confrontation for those that are willfully ignorant. i.e. liberals.
I offer a tiny amount of sympathy because I really don't know what it's like to have someone close to me try to commit suicide.

I would offer more, but you just insulted me via generalization.
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 10:45 AM   #24263
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Erat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Detroit
Posts: 3,888
Total Cats: 219
Default

I know what it's like.

It's just a bummer he failed.
Erat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 11:19 AM   #24264
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 1,817
Total Cats: 270
Default

Much happenings on the two post lift...

Checked the floor, absolute horror story once we lifted the tiles and drilled holes to check thickness.
2 inches of cheese like, crumbling crap, laid on untreated ground. Less than 1.5 inches thickness in lots of places, with receded ground (read hollow underneath) in some areas.

Took less time than it would to drill through a 2x4 to get to the ground underneath the "concrete".

So, I rented a walk behind type, large concrete saw, cut all that crap out (took me 1 hour to cut it all away).

Hired a couple of laborers, dug the lift foundation down about 45 cm - 1.5 feet, and filled the whole damn thing with C30 concrete.

That. should. hold.
Godless Commie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 03:06 PM   #24265
Elite Member
iTrader: (19)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 5,185
Total Cats: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
I offer a tiny amount of sympathy because I really don't know what it's like to have someone close to me try to commit suicide.

I would offer more, but you just insulted me via generalization.
Fair enough.
rleete is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 06:43 PM   #24266
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,671
Total Cats: 1,571
Default

Visiting my folks down in Florida right now.

I have placed a box of popsicles in the freezer, just above the dog.

This way, If anyone asks if we have any popsicles, I'll be able to say "yeah, they're in the freezer on top of the dog."
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 08:56 PM   #24267
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
 
shuiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 12,205
Total Cats: 749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Visiting my folks down in Florida right now.

I have placed a box of popsicles in the freezer, just above the dog.

This way, If anyone asks if we have any popsicles, I'll be able to say "yeah, they're in the freezer on top of the dog."
My uncle lives a bit out into the country in SC away from Charleston in an area that is mostly farmland. One of his neighbors has a pond out in one of their horse pastures. Several years ago they noticed that all their outdoor dogs and cats were disappearing. Turns out they had a small gator in the pond. My uncle went out and shot the gator. He then cut off the head, wrapped it in tin foil and put it in his freezer. Whenever my uncle has cookouts or gatherings and such, he will have someone who has not been over before go to the freezer to get out more of whatever he is cooking. He then has them open it to find it is really the alligator head, usually screaming happens by whoever opens it up.
shuiend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 11:49 AM   #24268
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,671
Total Cats: 1,571
Default

The dog is in a shoebox wrapped in plastic bags, and we don't open it.

This past year, it was joined by a guinea pig.

Keeping dead pets in the freezer is becoming a family tradition. Granted, it'll probably be a few years before any more are added (although one of the Boston terriers is borderline suicidal), but the dog has already outlived (outdied?) one freezer.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 11:55 AM   #24269
Elite Member
iTrader: (19)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 5,185
Total Cats: 324
Default

And why the hell are you keeping dead pets in the freezer?
rleete is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 12:00 PM   #24270
Hug Life
iTrader: (3)
 
Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,399
Total Cats: 356
Default

Because once we figure out how to dethaw and reanimate Walt Disney, it's only a matter of time before the technology becomes cheap enough to use on pets.

Duh.
Monk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 12:20 PM   #24271
Elite Member
iTrader: (19)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 5,185
Total Cats: 324
Default

I think Steven King wrote a book about that...
rleete is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 12:24 PM   #24272
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,329
Total Cats: 67
Default on tribalism, and cold fusion

A physicist and a science philosopher make a bet which of 2 "unaccepted" scientific discoveries will turn out to be true over time. The physicist chooses based on the reputations of the discoverers and the philosopher chooses based on which discovery less goes against what we know to be true today.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scient...of-cold-fusion
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 12:31 PM   #24273
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,044
Total Cats: 178
Default

"dethaw"?
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 12:37 PM   #24274
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,486
Total Cats: 373
Default

I don't know why but something about the formatting of that site made it really difficult for me to read the article. I tried twice and then gave up.
mgeoffriau is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 12:39 PM   #24275
Elite Member
 
DNMakinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seneca, SC
Posts: 1,786
Total Cats: 159
Default

Yeah, thaw it out, re-animate it, then watch it die from old age a second time.
DNMakinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 01:27 PM   #24276
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,671
Total Cats: 1,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rleete View Post
And why the hell are you keeping dead pets in the freezer?
It was my sister's idea. When Lexi died, they were in the midst of a series of heavy rainstorms, as happens in Florida. So they stuck the dog in the freezer until the backyard was dry enough to bury it. Then laziness took over. This was 2 and a half years ago.

There was some similar excuse when the guinea pig died. By this point, is just become tradition.

They have for dogs right now, but they're all fairly young. I'm sure Lexi will get some more company eventually, but it may be a while.

The morgue:

Attached Thumbnails
How (and why) to Ramble On your domestic shorthair-80-image_1b61a0b38960c4e6c254eee4702161e3da7b0ee6.jpg  
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 01:57 PM   #24277
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,329
Total Cats: 67
Default

quoting
------
A few years ago, a physicist friend of mine made a joke on Facebook about the laws of physics being broken in Italy. He had two pieces of news in mind. One was a claim by a team at the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA) in Gran Sasso, who said they’d discovered superluminal neutrinos. The other concerned Andrea Rossi, an engineer from Bologna, who claimed to have a cold fusion reactor producing commercially useful amounts of heat.

Why were these claims so improbable? The neutrinos challenged a fundamental principle of Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which says that nothing can travel faster than light. Meanwhile cold fusion (or LENR, for ‘low-energy nuclear reaction’) is the controversial idea that nuclear reactions similar to those in the Sun could, under certain conditions, also occur close to room temperature.

The latter was popularised in 1989 by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who claimed to have found evidence that such processes could take place in palladium loaded with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). A few other physicists, including the late Sergio Focardi at Bologna, claimed similar effects with nickel and ordinary hydrogen. But most were highly skeptical, and the field subsequently gained, as Wikipedia puts it, ‘a reputation as pathological science’.

It turned out that my physicist friend and I disagreed about which of these unlikely claims was most credible. He thought it was the neutrinos, because the work had been done by respectable scientists rather than a lone engineer with a somewhat chequered past. I favoured Rossi, on grounds of the physics. Superluminal neutrinos would overturn a fundamental tenet of relativity, but all Rossi needed was a previously unnoticed channel to a reservoir of energy whose existence is not in doubt. We know that huge amounts of energy are locked up in metastable nuclear configurations, trapped like water behind a dam. There’s no known way to get useful access to it at low temperatures. But – so far as I knew – there was no ‘watertight’ argument that such methods were impossible.

My friend agreed with me about the physics. (So has every other physicist I’ve asked about it since.) But he still put more weight on the sociological factors – reputation, as it were. So we agreed to bet a dinner on the issue. My friend would pay if Rossi turned out to have something genuine, and I would pay if the neutrinos came up trumps. We’d split the bill if, as then seemed highly likely, both claims turned out to be false.


It soon became clear that I wasn’t going to lose. The neutrinos were scratched from the race, when it became apparent that someone on OPERA’s team of respectable scientists had failed to tighten an optical lead correctly.

Rossi, however, has been going from strength to strength. While it is fair to say that the jury is still out, there has been a lot of good news for my hopes of a free dinner in the past couple of years. There were two reports (in 2013 and 2014) on tests of Rossi’s device by teams of Swedish and Italian physicists whose scientific credentials are not in doubt, and who had access to one of his devices for extended periods (a month for the second test). Both reports claimed levels of excess heat far beyond anything explicable in chemical terms, in the testers’ view. (The second report also claimed isotopic shifts in the composition of the fuel.) Since then, there have been several reports of duplications by experimenters in Russia and China, guided by details in the 2014 report.

More recently, Rossi was granted a US patent for one of his devices, previously refused on the grounds that insufficient evidence had been provided that the technique worked as claimed. There are credible reports that a 1MW version of his device, producing many times the energy that it consumes, has been on trial in an industrial plant in North Carolina for months, with good results so far. And Rossi’s US backer and licensee, Tom Darden – who has a long track record of investment in pollution-reducing industries – has been increasingly willing to speak out in support of the LENR technology field. (Another investor, the UK-based Woodford Funds, reports that it conducted ‘a rigorous due-diligence process that has taken two and half years’.)

Finally, very recently, there’s a paper by two senior Swedish physicists, Rickard Lundin and Hans Lidgren, proposing a mechanism for Rossi’s results, inspired in part by the second of two test reports mentioned above. Lundin and Lidgren say that the ‘experimental results by Rossi and co-workers and their E-Cat reactor provide the best experimental verification’ of the process they propose.

As I say, I don’t claim that this evidence is conclusive, even collectively. It’s still conceivable that there is fraud involved, as many skeptics have claimed; or some large and persistent measurement error. Yet these alternatives are becoming increasingly unlikely. Rossi is not even the only person claiming commercially relevant results from LENR. Another prominent example is Robert Godes, of the California-based Brillouin Energy.

As several people have noticed, a new clean source of energy would be really, really useful right about now

You can see why I’ve been salivating at the thought of my dinner. And it is not only my stomach that has been increasingly preoccupied with this fascinating story. I’m a philosopher of science, and my brain has been finding it engrossing, too.

Imagine that someone had a working hot-fusion reactor in Florida – assembled, as Rossi’s 1MW device is reported to be, in a couple of shipping containers, and producing several hundred kilowatts of excess power, month after month, in apparent safety. That would be huge news. As several people have noticed, a new clean source of energy would be really, really useful right about now.

But if the potential news is this big, why haven’t most of you heard about Rossi, or Godes, or any of the other people who have been working in the area (for many years, in some cases)? This is where, from a philosopher of science’s point of view, things get interesting.

As a question about sociology, the answer is obvious. Cold fusion is dismissed as pseudoscience, the kind of thing that respectable scientists and science journalists simply don’t talk about (unless to remind us of its disgrace). As a recent Fortune piece puts it, the Fleischmann and Pons experiment ‘was eventually debunked and since then the term cold fusion has become almost synonymous with scientific chicanery’. In this case, the author of the article is blithely reproducing the orthodox view, even in the lead-in to his interview with Darden – who tells him a completely different story, and has certainly put his money where his mouth is.

Ever since 1989, in fact, the whole subject has been largely off-limits in mainstream scientific circles. Authors who do put their head above the parapet are ignored or rebuked. Most recently, Lundin and Lidgren reported that they had submitted their paper to the journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, but that the editors declined to have it reviewed; and that even the non-reviewed preprint archive, arxiv.org, refused to accept it.



So, as a matter of sociology, it is easy to see why Rossi gets little serious attention; why an interview with Darden associates him with scientific chicanery; and why, I hope, some of you are having doubts about me for writing on the subject in a way that indicates that I am prepared to consider it seriously. (If so, hold that attitude. I want to explain why I take it to reflect a pathology in our present version of the scientific method. My task will be easier if you are still suffering from the symptoms.)

Sociology is one thing, but rational explanation another. It is very hard to extract from this history any satisfactory justification for ignoring recent work on LENR. After all, the standard line is that the rejection of cold fusion in 1989 turned on the failure to replicate the claims of Fleischmann and Pons. Yet if that were the real reason, then the rejection would have to be provisional. Failure to replicate couldn’t possibly be more than provisional – empirical science is a fallible business, as any good scientist would acknowledge. In that case, well-performed experiments claiming to overturn the failure to replicate would certainly be of great interest.

What if the failure to replicate wasn’t crucial after all? What if we already knew, on theoretical grounds alone, that cold fusion was impossible? But this would make a nonsense of the fuss over the failure to reproduce Fleischmann and Pons’ findings. And in any case, it is simply not true. As I said at the beginning, what physicists actually say (in my experience) is that although LENR is highly unlikely, we cannot say that it is impossible. We know that the energy is in there, after all.

‘If there is something scientists fear, it is to become like pariahs’

No doubt one could find some physicists who would claim it was impossible. But they might like to recall the case of the great nuclear physicist Lord Rutherford, who claimed in 1933 that ‘anyone who expects a source of power from transformation of… atoms is talking moonshine’ – only days before Leo Szilard, prompted by newspaper reports of Rutherford’s remarks, figured out the principles of the chain reaction that makes nuclear fission useable as an energy source, peaceful or otherwise.

This is not to deny that there is truth in the principle popularised by Carl Sagan, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We should certainly be very cautious about such surprising claims, unless and until we amass a great deal of evidence. But this is not a good reason for ignoring such evidence in the first place, or refusing to contemplate the possibility that it might exist. (As Godes said recently: ‘It is sad that such people say that science should be driven by data and results, but at the same time refuse to look at the actual results.’)"
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 01:58 PM   #24278
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,329
Total Cats: 67
Default

quoting

-----
Again, there’s a sociological explanation why few people are willing to look at the evidence. They put their reputations at risk by doing so. Cold fusion is tainted, and the taint is contagious – anyone seen to take it seriously risks contamination. So the subject is stuck in a place that is largely inaccessible to reason – a reputation trap, we might call it. People outside the trap won’t go near it, for fear of falling in. ‘If there is something scientists fear, it is to become like pariahs,’ as Lundin puts it. People inside the trap are already regarded as disreputable, an attitude that trumps any efforts that they might make to argue their way out, by reason and evidence.

Outsiders might be surprised to learn how well-populated the trap actually is, in the case of cold fusion and LENR. The field never entirely went away, nor vanished from the laboratories of respected institutions. (Rossi’s own background is not in these laboratories, but he acknowledges that his methods owe much to those who are, or were – especially to the late Sergio Focardi, one of the pioneers of the field.) To anyone willing to listen, the community will say that they have amassed a great deal of evidence of excess heat, not explicable in chemical terms, and of various markers of nuclear processes. Some, including a team at one of Italy’s leading research centres, say that they have many replications of the Fleischmann and Pons results.

Again, the explanation for ignoring these claims cannot be that other attempts failed 25 years ago. That makes no sense at all. Rather, it’s the reputation trap. The results are ignored because they concern cold fusion, which we ‘know’ to be pseudoscience – we know it because attempts to replicate these experiments failed 25 years ago! The reasoning is still entirely circular, but the reputation trap gives its conclusion a convincing mask of respectability. That’s how the trap works.

In a case like this, there is very little cost to a false positive. But there may be a huge cost to a false negative

Fifty years ago, Thomas Kuhn taught us that this is the usual way for science to deal with paradigm-threatening anomalies. The borders of dominant paradigms are often protected by reputation traps, which deter all but the most reckless or brilliant critics. If LENR were an ordinary piece of science (or proposed science), the challenge posed by Rossi and others would promise fascinating spectator sport for philosophers and historians of science – a Kuhnian revolution waiting to happen, perhaps, with threats to the stability of the reputation trap now clearly in view. We could take our seats on the sidelines and wait to see whether walls fall – whether distinguished skeptics end up with egg on their faces. ‘Pleasant is it to behold great encounters of warfare arrayed over the plains, with no part of yours in the peril,’ as Lucretius put it.

This alone would be enough to explain why I’ve been finding Rossi’s apparent progress so stimulating. But there’s more, much more. None of us, not even philosophers, are mere spectators in this case. We all have skin in the game, and parts, indeed a planet, quite seriously in peril. We are like a thirsty town, desperate for a new water supply. What we drink now is slowly killing us. We know that there’s an abundant supply of clean, cheap water, trapped behind the dam. The problem is to find a way to tap it. A couple of engineers thought that they had found a way 25 years ago, but they couldn’t make it work reliably, and the profession turned against them. Since then, there’s been a big reputation cost to any engineer who takes up the issue.

Put this way, it is easy to see an argument that we’ve been shooting ourselves in the foot. In a case like this, there is very little cost to a false positive – to investing some time and money in an avenue that in the end turns out to go nowhere. But there may be a huge cost to a false negative. If Rossi, Godes, Lundin, Lidgren and others do turn out to have something useful – something that can make some useful contribution to meeting our desperate need for clean, cheap energy – we will have wasted a generation of progress. What we should have done instead is to have engineered the exact opposite of a reputation trap – perhaps an X Prize-like reward for the first reliable replication of the Fleischmann and Pons results, above some commercial bar.

At last I can explain what I meant earlier, when I asked you to hold on to the thought that I must be a bit flaky myself, if that was your reaction to my willingness to take cold fusion seriously. If you do think that – at least, if you think it without having studied the evidence for yourself – then your reaction is a symptom of the reputation trap. But now I’ve suggested that the trap itself might be an irrational pathology, in a special case such as this, in which the cost of a false negative is very high. If I’m right, then in a more rational world, we would fix our scientific norms to escape it. In a more rational world, you wouldn’t think I’m flaky.

I don’t need to deny that your reaction is an appropriate one, by the standards of science as we currently practice it, or that those standards work pretty well in general. Reputation traps have a useful purpose in the Kuhnian picture. They help to maintain the stability important to what Kuhn called normal science – the ordinary, useful kind of science when paradigms are not under threat. But this is compatible with the claim that they can be harmful in special cases (of which cold fusion might be one) – and that we could do better if we were better at identifying those cases in advance.

I suspect it’s too late to dismantle the trap for LENR – the horse might already be in the process of bolting. If Rossi and Godes et al are actually on to something, then the field is going to be mainstream soon anyway. But we could try to learn from our mistakes. There might be other potential cases with a similar payoff structure (a high cost for false negatives, with a low cost for false positives). I suspect there are some in the area of emerging extreme risks, another field in which I have some interest.

I’ve met scientists employed as technology forecasters for a very large enterprise, who were frustrated at their inability to persuade their organisation to list LENR as a technology of possible strategic interest, even with low probability. Once again, it was the reputation trap at work. This attitude could be disastrous in other cases, if the ideas stuck in the trap happened to be the key to addressing some potentially catastrophic risk. (Indeed, as my physicist friend rightly points out, it might be disastrous in the case of LENR itself, if it turns out to generate its own extreme risks.)

Darden’s attitude displays the cautious open-mindedness that has been lacking in reactions to the field for most of its history

There are big issues here. Would it be possible to avoid these counterproductive cases of the reputation trap without erring too far in the other direction – without opening the floodgates, so to speak? I’m not sure, but I think it is important to put the question on the table. If LENR does develop in the direction I now think likely, we might be able to salvage something useful from mistakes in this case.

I’ll close with some words from Darden, from a speech at ICCF-19, the international meeting of the LENR community held in Padua, Italy this April. (A full transcript is accessible here.) If the field is indeed in the process of digging itself out of the reputation trap, then Darden deserves much of the credit. Either way, his attitude displays the kind of cautious open-mindedness that has been so lacking in reactions to the field for most of its history.

Darden describes how he came to invest in LENR. Until quite recently, he says, he shared the conventional view that ‘the subject was dead’. But several independent enquiries about LENR within a matter of weeks convinced him that there was something worth investigating:

We believed LENR technology was worth pursuing, even if we turn out to be unsuccessful ultimately. We were willing to invest time and resources to see if this might be an area of useful research in our quest to eliminate pollution. At the time, we were not especially optimistic, but the global benefits were compelling.
He reports that things have been going very well. ‘We’ve had some success, and we’re expanding our work… and believe that we may be, at last, on the verge of a new paradigm shift.’ Finally, he expresses his appreciation to his audience, the LENR community themselves, and recalls another controversial piece of Italian science:

I would like to say how truly sorry I am that society has attacked you for the last three decades. The treatment of Fleischmann and Pons, and the treatment of many of you, by mainstream institutions and the media will go down in history as one more example of scientific infanticide, where entrenched interests kill off their divergent progeny. This seems to be a dark component of human nature, and I note the irony of it – we are in Padova, Galileo’s home.
It would be easy to overstate the analogy between mainstream institutions and the Inquisition, but it isn’t entirely empty. If we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that existing scientific institutions are not working as well as they might, we do something to reinforce it. If the reputation trap makes it impossible to question the role of the reputation trap, then the Cardinals are winning.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 02:33 PM   #24279
Destroyer of Inconel
iTrader: (37)
 
EO2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In ur driveway, abusin' ur WPA
Posts: 8,748
Total Cats: 748
Default

You can take the man out of Florida, but you can't take the Florida out of the man.
EO2K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 03:16 PM   #24280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Round Pond, ME
Posts: 670
Total Cats: 15
Default

I must need to start getting smaller pets.
xturner is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Uconn Car Show 240_to_miata Local Meets, Events and Tech Days 1 01-23-2016 10:17 PM
Uconn Car Show Sat, April 9th 240_to_miata Local Meets, Events and Tech Days 7 04-11-2011 11:00 AM
Uconn Car Club Spring 2010 Show 240_to_miata Local Meets, Events and Tech Days 92 04-12-2010 06:20 PM
anual uconn car show/meet 240_to_miata Local Meets, Events and Tech Days 0 02-19-2008 10:03 PM


Tags
brain <3 me, brainy <3s hollywood, cancerous testicles, cuban caveman, furry barnacle, get fragged faeflora, joe p for prez, lyrical joe perez, not hit block, peter falk

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:22 AM.