Get ready for "Earth that was"... by Hans

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Get ready for "Earth that was"...

POSTED BY: HANS
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 08:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3594
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:36 AM

I hope this isn't too far off topic, but considering that Firefly's premise is based on the Earth being "used up" somehow, it's a rather chilling read.

The Pentagon has recently released a report on the possible effects of climate change. These include huge amounts of devastation, riots, wars, and in general, a pretty crappy outlook. Most chillingly, this report indicates that rapid environmental change could happen fairly soon and quite abruptly.

Surprisingly, this report was produced by senior Pentagon insiders, rather than Greenpeace or some other NGO. Not surprisingly, it's being surpressed by the US government.

The story was originally broken by The Observer, and can be found at:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.h
tml

(sorry for the long URL)

Hans

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:47 AM

PHYSICSCHICK

For anyone interested in the science of this, there is a good article by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute:
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_
keigwin.html

I read it quite awhile back and it's quite a fascinating scenario (though I still hope I don't live to see it!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:01 AM

WINTERFELL

The other thing I find eerie about the world is the economica growth of china (you know, the other half of the alliance).. Is Joss some weird prophet or what??

hmm.. hope not.. don't want to fight vampires with bumpy heads

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:09 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Fascinating link PhysicsChick.

I must question the validity of the first link though, the one where unnamed sources in the Pentagon have developed all these Doomsday scenarios from the issue of climate change. I first question who these supposed "analysts" are, and what qualifies them to make these "predicitions". I also have to question how this info leaked out of the Pentagon if the Bush administration was trying to supress it.

I do not doubt that our planet suffers from climate change due to pollution and the damage to the ozone, but to what extent is the damage?

It is odd that a European paper would publish this article. Seems that if this was legit, Kerry would not hesitate to use it in his arsenal to destroy confidence in Bush and pave his way to the White House.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:26 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Fascinating link PhysicsChick.

I must question the validity of the first link though, the one where unnamed sources in the Pentagon have developed all these Doomsday scenarios from the issue of climate change. I first question who these supposed "analysts" are, and what qualifies them to make these "predicitions". I also have to question how this info leaked out of the Pentagon if the Bush administration was trying to supress it.

I do not doubt that our planet suffers from climate change due to pollution and the damage to the ozone, but to what extent is the damage?

It is odd that a European paper would publish this article. Seems that if this was legit, Kerry would not hesitate to use it in his arsenal to destroy confidence in Bush and pave his way to the White House.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

The Observer is a very real, major newspaper. This was not some Matt Drudge article.

You seem to be doubting the very existence of the Pentagon paper itself. This story has been reported at many other news sources. Fortune magazine (hardly a left wing magazine) has picked it up and commented on it:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,582584,00.html

If you read the first article, you'll see that the Pentagon report was written by Andrew Marshall, a very well known bigwig in US goverment planning (he is a key person behind the missile defence plan). If this paper was 100% B.S., I think we'd have heard a denial by now.

The reason it isn't headline news on CNN and the rest of the media just proves how good the White House is at surpressing bad news. You might find that european papers (and others) may sometimes have stories that don't get published in the US for various political reasons...not a very reassuring thought in the land of the free.

Hans

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:28 AM

KALATHENA

I can easily believe and *do* believe that there are currently climate changes going on due to pollution. But when a news article has a lead paragraph without a source cited, it is automatically suspect.

I also cannot imagine that the Bush Administration would put even a buck-fifty into this kind of research. He doesn't want it done; he doesn't want to know what the effects are. He's much more concerned about taking over the Middle East and making sure we're all safe from those horrifying commitment mongers in San Francisco.

I really would love to find out more about the effects of an industrial society on climate and how the climate is going to change in the future because of it. It's a tough one to predict, for sure because we don't have any precedent to look at.

And speaking of predictions, all good writing of speculative fiction makes predictions. How convincing they are makes a huge difference in the credibility of the piece. If Joss had tried to predict that the two major cultural influences of the future would be Aztec and Lithuanian, well, I doubt we'd do anything but snicker.

--Kala

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:34 AM

DECKROID

What's really spooky is that there is a movie coming out this year dealing with something along these lines.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/dayaftertomorrow/

Its made by the same guy as Independence Day, so it should be a Summer Blockbuster type film.

Then again, if you recall, the Pentagon was also very worried about asteroids after a close encounter, (missed by some 6,000,000 miles) back in 1995. Released a paper, and after that, we got two movies about asteroids hitting the earth. (Still think Lucifer's Hammer would have been the best movie of them all.)

Every so often the Pentagon thinks up some DoomsDay type scenerio that might happen. Its what they are paid to do, I guess. One side of me: Happy that someone is thinking of things that might hurt us. Other side of me: Unhappy that the Pentagon doesnt have DeckRoid on the list of Key Personell after DoomsDay.

But its ok, cuz after the world is used up, we find another solar system and we colonize hundreds of earths and terreform thousands of moons and, after a civil war, there is hope in the form of a small Firefly class ship, harboring two fugatives, a rather questionable Shepard, a beautiful Companion, a mechanic who has a way with engines (or so her daddy always said), a great pilot and his 'warrior woman' wife, a troubled fighter with more to offer than his ways let on, and finally a captain who loves his crew and ship as family and will never again be under the yoke of the Alliance. Yes, there is hope yet for humanity.

I call her "Vera"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:46 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Surprisingly, this report was produced by senior Pentagon insiders, rather than Greenpeace or some other NGO. Not surprisingly, it's being surpressed by the US government.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.h
tml

And obviously not very well. If they posted it on the web, and you found it to tell everyone, then they did a really lousy job of suppression.

It should be noted that military thinking is always going to be the most pessimistic. That is how you prevent exactly those worse case scenarios from coming about, by being ready for them and taking action to prevent them. You want a military that expects and plans for the worse. If you are wrong, great. The worst did not happen. And if it is something less than the worse, in most cases you can deal with that as well.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:49 AM

KNIBBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I also have to question how this info leaked out of the Pentagon if the Bush administration was trying to supress it.

You haven't been paying attention to what the Bushies have been doing to science have you? The EPA has scrapped several air and water reports after the White House "edited" them. The employees of the EPA have made several leaks after the administration "suppressed" studies.

I wish I hadn't deleted the short list of interferences - frelling yesterday.

Bush's idea of science can be summed up in a short sentence. "If it's good for Halliburton, it's good for the planet." He's so convinced that Jesus is coming soon, it doesn't matter what we do to the planet because everyone that matters will be elevated into the heavens for perpetual helpings at the salad bar.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:01 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by kalathena:
(stuff cut)

I really would love to find out more about the effects of an industrial society on climate and how the climate is going to change in the future because of it. It's a tough one to predict, for sure because we don't have any precedent to look at.

You're absolutely right that it's a tough situation to predict. There are hysterics on both sides of the isssue. While I lean towards the environmentalist side, I would love for the big oil/anti-kyoto skeptics to be right (that is, that climate change is normal, or if it is abnormal that we can easily fix it). I don't want there to be a doomsday any more than anyone else.

I guess that because it is so hard to predict that I think it's smart, heck, it's downright conservative, to err on the side of caution. I don't want to wait until our cities our flooded before we stand up and say, "gee, I guess those greenpeace guys had it right all along!".

A personal anecdote: I live in Canada (or, as Pat Buchanan calls it, "Soviet Canuckistan"), and in the past year we have experienced some of the most extreme and wild weather in recorded history. There have been floods, droughts, ice storms, and numerous other weather disasters recently. In my city alone (Halifax) we have had both a hurricane and major blizzard in the past six months that have caused significant damage. The hurricane last fall was the first one in recorded history to hit the city. The blizzard (just last week) dumped a metre of snow on the city in 24 hours - twice the amount of snow to fall in this location in all recorded history. And it's not just us - Europe has been hit by both severe drought and floods in the last year.

This is all anecdotal, and it may have had nothing to do with global warming. But when one reads articles like the one psychicchic linked to above, you can see that global warming does not just mean everyone can sunbathe for a few extra months in the year, but can result in extreme and unpredictable weather patterns all over the world.

Hans

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:09 AM

HERO

The whole idea of a 'General Staff' system, is that you take smart, qualified officers and you sit them around in times of peace to speculate about possible wars.

Every major military power uses this system to some extent. The US has planners figuring out scenarios for every possible future conflct. The British like to think globally. The French meanwhile have a bunch of guys figuring out the best method of surrender (white flag, hands up, crying like babies, etc.).

So while I don't doubt such reports possibly exist. It is far more likely they are stored in a file cabnet next to the 17 plans to invade Canada and defend the US against a Mexican invasion (the kind with guns and tanks, not poor people).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:11 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

And obviously not very well. If they posted it on the web, and you found it to tell everyone, then they did a really lousy job of suppression.

Uh, no, they didn't post it on the web. A copy was leaked to The Observer, who then reported on the contents. I imagine it's probably been classified (a great way to surpress something you don't like) which is why we haven't seen the original.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

It should be noted that military thinking is always going to be the most pessimistic. That is how you prevent exactly those worse case scenarios from coming about, by being ready for them and taking action to prevent them. You want a military that expects and plans for the worse. If you are wrong, great. The worst did not happen. And if it is something less than the worse, in most cases you can deal with that as well.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

You're absolutely right that the report is based on worst case scenerios. But when that scenerio pretty much means the end of civilization, isn't it worth taking seriously? The US government is willing to spend billions on a questionable missile defence program to defend against questionable threats. Rightly or wrongly, Bush is taking action based on a worst case scenerio. Why not do the same for environmental threats? Could it be because it would mean taking action against the big oil companies he is so firmly in bed with?

Hans

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

It should be noted that military thinking is always going to be the most pessimistic. That is how you prevent exactly those worse case scenarios from coming about, by being ready for them and taking action to prevent them. You want a military that expects and plans for the worse. If you are wrong, great. The worst did not happen. And if it is something less than the worse, in most cases you can deal with that as well.

You're absolutely right that the report is based on worst case scenerios. But when that scenerio pretty much means the end of civilization, isn't it worth taking seriously? The US government is willing to spend billions on a questionable missile defence program to defend against questionable threats. Rightly or wrongly, Bush is taking action based on a worst case scenerio. Why not do the same for environmental threats? Could it be because it would mean taking action against the big oil companies he is so firmly in bed with?

Hans

I don't think Drakon is suggesting it shouldn't be taken seriously, but rather that it's not inevitable that we'll be plunged into global crisis as a result within the next 20 years.

As for why GWB doesn't want to take it seriously, well, that's another question!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 6:15 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Hans wrote:

Quote:
The Observer is a very real, major newspaper. This was not some Matt Drudge article.

You seem to be doubting the very existence of the Pentagon paper itself. This story has been reported at many other news sources. Fortune magazine (hardly a left wing magazine) has picked it up and commented on it:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,582584,00.html

If you read the first article, you'll see that the Pentagon report was written by Andrew Marshall, a very well known bigwig in US goverment planning (he is a key person behind the missile defence plan). If this paper was 100% B.S., I think we'd have heard a denial by now.

The reason it isn't headline news on CNN and the rest of the media just proves how good the White House is at surpressing bad news. You might find that european papers (and others) may sometimes have stories that don't get published in the US for various political reasons...not a very reassuring thought in the land of the free.

I did not say that I doubted the existence of the paper, rather the qualifications of the person who was the "analyst". I still do, knowing it is Andrew Marshall.

Andrew Marshall works for DOD (Deptarment of Defense) and is 81 yrs old. He has been around since the Nixon administration and hold the title of director of the Office of Net Assessment. I do not see how this makes him qualified to discuss climate shift and it future effects on the world. Here is an article on Mr Marshall and his views:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/marshall.html

You will see for the most part that Marshall is a futurist. He has his hand in military budgets and spending and seems to be a driving force behind future improvements in military weapons and tactics. Doesn't sound like an enviromental expert to me. Sure he may know military capabilities and tactics, but the artilce reads like Chicken Little crying "The sky is falling!" (no pun intended).

I am not so naive as to think the US government does not hide info from the US public, or that they are above altering facts to suit the administrations agenda. That is something man has been doing since a man first started organizing in communities. I also know that European papers tend to print what US papers do not get the chance to. I do take European paper articles w/ a grain of salt as the viewpoints are sometimes skewed w/ bias or paranoia. Not saying all of it is bad, only that one must sort the wheat from the chaff.

Kalathena wrote:

Quote:
I also cannot imagine that the Bush Administration would put even a buck-fifty into this kind of research. He doesn't want it done; he doesn't want to know what the effects are. He's much more concerned about taking over the Middle East and making sure we're all safe from those horrifying commitment mongers in San Francisco.

I am not so certain that Bush holds all the purse strings you think. I am certain that research is being done on climate change and that somewhere in the gov't people are even now studying the effects. Any administration, whether they cover it up or not, would not want to be unprepared for such an event.

I don't think Bush is trying to take over the Middle East either. Such a statement sounds alarmist. Defeating a potential threat and liberating one country is not annexing the Middle East.

Deckroid wrote:

Quote:
Then again, if you recall, the Pentagon was also very worried about asteroids after a close encounter, (missed by some 6,000,000 miles) back in 1995. Released a paper, and after that, we got two movies about asteroids hitting the earth. (Still think Lucifer's Hammer would have been the best movie of them all.)

True indeed, and their are still theories running around the web that the gov't is hiding information on a "Doomsday" asteroid that will bring about an E.L.E.

Drakon wrote:

Quote:
It should be noted that military thinking is always going to be the most pessimistic. That is how you prevent exactly those worse case scenarios from coming about, by being ready for them and taking action to prevent them. You want a military that expects and plans for the worse. If you are wrong, great. The worst did not happen. And if it is something less than the worse, in most cases you can deal with that as well.

Right on the money.

The military, the Pentagon primarily, have teams that come up with possible scenarios and how to prepare for them all the time. Speaking as a former SpecOp soldier who has been in the Pentagon, there are specialists who work around the clock to prepare for nearly any scenario you can dream up and plans to deal w/ each. It is nice to know that they are ready for such things, even if the probability of such an event is nearly nonexistent.

Knibblet wrote:

Quote:
You haven't been paying attention to what the Bushies have been doing to science have you? The EPA has scrapped several air and water reports after the White House "edited" them. The employees of the EPA have made several leaks after the administration "suppressed" studies.

I wish I hadn't deleted the short list of interferences - frelling yesterday.

Bush's idea of science can be summed up in a short sentence. "If it's good for Halliburton, it's good for the planet." He's so convinced that Jesus is coming soon, it doesn't matter what we do to the planet because everyone that matters will be elevated into the heavens for perpetual helpings at the salad bar.

Not paying attention to the current admin? Bite your tongue. I gather and assimilate as much info as I can on what the government is doing, where, and when, as I can. It pays to be informed. Information is power and all that.

Administrations have been "editing" EPA reports on pollution, impact on the enviroment, and other reports for years. Bush's administration is not alone in that practice, and the Democrats are not innocent either.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:00 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I did not say that I doubted the existence of the paper, rather the qualifications of the person who was the "analyst". I still do, knowing it is Andrew Marshall.

Sorry, I should have picked my words a little better...you never said the report did not exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:

The military, the Pentagon primarily, have teams that come up with possible scenarios and how to prepare for them all the time. Speaking as a former SpecOp soldier who has been in the Pentagon, there are specialists who work around the clock to prepare for nearly any scenario you can dream up and plans to deal w/ each. It is nice to know that they are ready for such things, even if the probability of such an event is nearly nonexistent.

Excuse me, but I don't consider surpressing a report as "being ready for such things". It takes more than an ignored report to make us ready to fight global warming. It takes scientific research. It means taking a tough stand on fuel emissions. Just because someone writes a report on something doesn't make us safer - you have to act on it. If the threat from global warming is legitimate and current, a report gathering dust on a pentagon shelf isn't going to help. Bush's attitude towards global warming is like his attitude towards WMDs in Iraq - pick and chose the evidence that supports your pre-determined stance, then ignore everything else.

Hans

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:11 AM

KALATHENA

Quote:
I don't think Bush is trying to take over the Middle East either. Such a statement sounds alarmist. Defeating a potential threat and liberating one country is not annexing the Middle East.

Hmmmmmm....my Sarcasm Circuits still seem to be maladjusted. Must be that chronic lack of body language inherent in online communication.

--Kala

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:51 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Hans wrote:

Quote:
Excuse me, but I don't consider surpressing a report as "being ready for such things". It takes more than an ignored report to make us ready to fight global warming. It takes scientific research. It means taking a tough stand on fuel emissions. Just because someone writes a report on something doesn't make us safer - you have to act on it. If the threat from global warming is legitimate and current, a report gathering dust on a pentagon shelf isn't going to help. Bush's attitude towards global warming is like his attitude towards WMDs in Iraq - pick and chose the evidence that supports your pre-determined stance, then ignore everything else.

Again, you seem to have misread what I wrote. I did not, nor would I ever say that supressing information is a way to prepare for anything. What I actually wrote was that a military and government that makes plans for scenarios to insure preparation is a wise course of action.

I do not agree w/ keeping important info from the American public, or the world community for that matter, but let me ask you this question. Suppose this is all 100% true. Suppose Bush called an emergency news conference tomorrow and told the American people that the climate shift will cause the world to start falling apart in the next 20 years. He goes on to tell the American public that their projections are for armed conflicts on a worldwide scale, nuclear war, and anarchy. What do you suppose the civilian population would do with that news? There would be riots, crime would sky rocket as people looted, stole, and fought to stockpile supplies. Prices would go through the roof as demand outpaced supply. Shortages would be met w/ more riots and crime. People would take the law into their own hands and the government would bring in the military to instill martial law.

Doesn't paint a pretty picture does it?

If the information is true, and Marshall's predictions accurate, then there is no sense in having 20 years of martial law on your hands while you wait for the ballon to go up. Better to focus on ascertaining the extent of the damage and what can be done to repair it. I do believe that the US gov't should share any info w/ the world leaders as it affects them too, and all should work together to effect whatever repairs they can manage.

Kalathena wrote:

Quote:
Hmmmmmm....my Sarcasm Circuits still seem to be maladjusted. Must be that chronic lack of body language inherent in online communication.

Sorry. Sarcasm does not carry well on message boards.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:12 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Again, you seem to have misread what I wrote. I did not, nor would I ever say that supressing information is a way to prepare for anything. What I actually wrote was that a military and government that makes plans for scenarios to insure preparation is a wise course of action.

What you actually wrote...

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:

It is nice to know that they are ready for such things, even if the probability of such an event is nearly nonexistent.

...states that the military or government is "ready for such things", and my point was that a report that is not acted upon, and is instead surpressed, is hardly being "ready" for anything (assuming by the "things" you were including the possibility of catastrophic global warming).

Global warming is not the kind of thing where, by the time a catastrophe is obvious, you can pull out a decade old report and say "look, we predicted this and can fix it!". Rather, it's the kind of thing where if you believe there is a reasonable threat that it might occur you have to take action right now. By the time the catastrophe is obvious it's too late to go back in time and enact clean air legislation, force SUV makers to follow emmission standards, etc.

Of course, if you believe that global warming falls in the category of events whose probability is nearly nonexistant, then there's not much point in preparing for that probability. However, I'm not going to turn this into a debate on the science behind the issue (we'll be here all day!).

Hans

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:54 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Hans wrote:

Quote:
...states that the military or government is "ready for such things", and my point was that a report that is not acted upon, and is instead surpressed, is hardly being "ready" for anything (assuming by the "things" you were including the possibility of catastrophic global warming).

Global warming is not the kind of thing where, by the time a catastrophe is obvious, you can pull out a decade old report and say "look, we predicted this and can fix it!". Rather, it's the kind of thing where if you believe there is a reasonable threat that it might occur you have to take action right now. By the time the catastrophe is obvious it's too late to go back in time and enact clean air legislation, force SUV makers to follow emmission standards, etc.

Of course, if you believe that global warming falls in the category of events whose probability is nearly nonexistant, then there's not much point in preparing for that probability. However, I'm not going to turn this into a debate on the science behind the issue (we'll be here all day!).

Where in my statement did I say covering up or supressing information is condoned or is necessary. I didn't.

I do think it is a good idea that they be prepared for such things. It is preferable than the alternative, which of course is doing nothing and the whole world getting caught w/ it's pants down.

Global warming is possible. Is the US alone responsible for it? Absolutely not. If this info is now public knowledge, thanks to whistle blowers and the Observer, what is your government doing about it? What is any government on Earth doing about it? Are they all to busy whispering of conspiracy theories and pointing at Bush to do anything?

Don't get me wrong, if Bush and his administration are coverin up a real and present danger to this country or this planet, I will be the first to condemn them. I am not big on the federal government personally, though they beat the alternative of a dictator or anarchy.

Surely many of the countries in NATO have the technology and the necessary resources to have come to the conclusions that Marshall has in this document. Which countries are taking steps right now to correct this problem?

And you did not answer my question about full disclosure to the public and the subsequent chaos such an announcement would make. What are your thoughts on that problem.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE