Home News Reviews Forums Shop


New Campaign Plane in the US

General discussion. Come introduce yourself. Talk about whataver you want!

New Campaign Plane in the US

Postby aviationwiz on Tue May 25, 2004 9:36 am

Looks like there's a new campaign plane soon to be in the skies:

Image
Image
Image
Image

Saw it on Airliners.Net just a minute ago.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby Ian on Tue May 25, 2004 9:50 am

It's good to see a presidential candidate that knows how to piss away his campaign funds. I'd rather see him fly coach like the rest of us. Then again, at least he's not landing jets on air craft carriers.
"Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt." - Steve Jobs
User avatar
Ian
Grand Poobah
 
Posts: 14882
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby aviationwiz on Tue May 25, 2004 9:57 am

During the primary campaign, I don't think he ever flew coach, I know he was using a ChampionAir 727 earlier on.

Saying that Kerry should fly in Coach is like saying that Bush should fly in coach, it isn't going to happen, secret service wouldn't allow it.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby MonteLDS on Tue May 25, 2004 10:40 am

I say he is wasting money.
User avatar
MonteLDS
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:32 pm
Location: San Fran Bay Area CALIFORNIA

Re: New Campaign Plane in the US

Postby dodecahedron on Tue May 25, 2004 11:12 am

aviationwiz wrote:Looks like there's a new campaign plane soon to be in the skies:

bring out them Stingers :o :lol: (J/K)

aviationwiz wrote:Saying that Kerry should fly in Coach is like saying that Bush should fly in coach, it isn't going to happen, secret service wouldn't allow it.

not the same.
he hasn't been President yet, not yet privvy to all the state Secrets.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Re: New Campaign Plane in the US

Postby aviationwiz on Tue May 25, 2004 12:15 pm

dodecahedron wrote:
aviationwiz wrote:Saying that Kerry should fly in Coach is like saying that Bush should fly in coach, it isn't going to happen, secret service wouldn't allow it.

not the same.
he hasn't been President yet, not yet privvy to all the state Secrets.


His secret service detail may be small in comparison to that of Bush's, but it is the same principal, the secret service wouldn't allow it, especially considering the controversy behind the elections this year.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby aviationwiz on Tue May 25, 2004 9:11 pm

I found this interesting in regards to the cost of chartering the plane:

The Kerry campaign has chartered the jet through Nov. 2. A campaign spokeswoman, Allison Dobson, said the new plane — at $25,000 per flying hour — — was actually $7,000 an hour cheaper than the individual charters the campaign had been relying on. She described the new craft as a "complete flying office."


So, Monte, he really isn't wasting money, he's actually saving money in the long-run.

Then there is the excerpt regarding what's on the inside of the plane:

According to an employee of Air Charter Team, the company that arranges and operates Mr. Kerry's flights, the new plane will have 94 seats in 4 sections: one for Mr. Kerry, with two 360-degree swiveling sleeper-seats and a pullout couch; one for his staff, with 16 seats, 8 of them around 2 worktables; one for traveling reporters and producers, with 24 first-class-sized seats; and one for still photographers and Secret Service agents, with 10 rows of 3-by-3 coach seats.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby eliminator on Wed May 26, 2004 2:28 am

He's wealthy - more power to Kerry ... I wouldn't be caught dead in coach if I had that dough ! =D>
User avatar
eliminator
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:15 am
Location: TheLoneStarState

Postby TheWizard on Thu May 27, 2004 1:15 am

Two things:

1. Nobody can see the plane when it is up in the air, unless you are viewing it from another plane/chopper close by. Hence, the advertising effect is limited to the ground, so why not just buy a campaign van and parade around the US? It's a helluva lot cheaper.

2. In actuality, Kerry bought the plane slightly used. It used to be in the FedEx fleet, all Kerry did was give it a new paint job. :D
No, I like women.
TheWizard
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 2074
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 6:56 pm

Postby dodecahedron on Thu May 27, 2004 3:27 am

the plane's purpose probably isn't advertising.

but while it's on the ground it's there, so might as well paint it up with a promo!
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby Bhairav on Thu May 27, 2004 4:28 am

Promo by Mrs Kerry - "Heinz Meanz Happinezzz, even at 30000 feet! Oh, and while you're at it, please vote for my husband!"

=D>
Q6600@3.1Ghz | Asus P5Q-E | 4GB DDR2-800 | 8800GT | 4TB HDD | Viewsonic vx2025wm
Xonar DX | Pioneer DVR-212 | Pioneer 111L | Benq 1655
User avatar
Bhairav
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 5:44 am
Location: Bombay,India

Postby aviationwiz on Thu May 27, 2004 8:53 am

bhairavp wrote:Promo by Mrs Kerry - "Heinz Meanz Happinezzz, even at 30000 feet! Oh, and while you're at it, please vote for my husband!"

=D>


You do know that she only owns 4% of Heinz shares, right? :roll:
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby aviationwiz on Thu May 27, 2004 9:00 am

TheWizard wrote:
1. so why not just buy a campaign van and parade around the US? It's a helluva lot cheaper.


You do know that people have to get to places quickly, right? Also, he has the money for it, so he might as well, while he might not have the $250 mil. that Pres. Bush has, he has around $50 mil.

TheWizard wrote:2. In actuality, Kerry bought the plane slightly used. It used to be in the FedEx fleet, all Kerry did was give it a new paint job. :D


Actually, he didn't buy it, he is only leasing it up to November 2nd.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby Bhairav on Fri May 28, 2004 1:52 am

aviationwiz wrote:
bhairavp wrote:Promo by Mrs Kerry - "Heinz Meanz Happinezzz, even at 30000 feet! Oh, and while you're at it, please vote for my husband!"

=D>


You do know that she only owns 4% of Heinz shares, right? :roll:


Heh, absoulutely no idea, until you informed me. Still, 4% is 4%, and I'd think she would be interested in promoting Heinz!
On a side note, I'd really like Kerry to become your next President.. Dubya is an idiot.
Q6600@3.1Ghz | Asus P5Q-E | 4GB DDR2-800 | 8800GT | 4TB HDD | Viewsonic vx2025wm
Xonar DX | Pioneer DVR-212 | Pioneer 111L | Benq 1655
User avatar
Bhairav
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 5:44 am
Location: Bombay,India

Postby XXXXX on Fri May 28, 2004 2:54 pm

I'm still supporting Bush. He follows his convictions, and does what he says. Not that I agree with everything, but it's refreshing to finally have someone that doesn't blow in every poll's wind.

Also, it's hard to image that Kerry is more boring and depressing than Gore. The jokes are already rampant on Saturday Night Live, Jay Leno, and Letterman shows. Where do they get these repeated examples of "no charisma" leaders? The demo's rejected Dean and Edwards, both of which had charisma, in favor of another Gore"monotone clone."

The real interesting thing will be to see what happens if there is another major terrorist attack as predicted this summer. People will either use it to flock to Bush as a known terrorist fighter, or reject Bush as having stirred up the hornet's nest. I don't know any way to prove that either way.
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby code65536 on Fri May 28, 2004 8:49 pm

XXXXX wrote:I'm still supporting Bush. He follows his convictions, and does what he says. Not that I agree with everything, but it's refreshing to finally have someone that doesn't blow in every poll's wind.

Also, it's hard to image that Kerry is more boring and depressing than Gore. The jokes are already rampant on Saturday Night Live, Jay Leno, and Letterman shows. Where do they get these repeated examples of "no charisma" leaders? The demo's rejected Dean and Edwards, both of which had charisma, in favor of another Gore"monotone clone."

The real interesting thing will be to see what happens if there is another major terrorist attack as predicted this summer. People will either use it to flock to Bush as a known terrorist fighter, or reject Bush as having stirred up the hornet's nest. I don't know any way to prove that either way.


He follows his convictions? Based on what he's done, he's just like any other politician. Willing to do anything to stay in power and to follow an agenda that is to his benefit. Pity that Clark isn't running against him. Now that's someone with character (sorry guys, but Kerry is too much of a caricature Massachusetts politician for my tastes... I guess Clark will make a good veep, though, if he can't be prez). And not to mention, just about anyone would have more (and better) foreign policy experience than Bush (right, we're gonna stop the terrorists by making everyone in the world hate and resent us! good job, Bush... putting out a fire by dousing it with gasoline...)
User avatar
code65536
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: .us

Postby Ian on Fri May 28, 2004 10:49 pm

XXXXX wrote:Not that I agree with everything, but it's refreshing to finally have someone that doesn't blow in every poll's wind.


Or blow his you know what on every interns dress. :wink:

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Damn, I miss Billy C. Talk about a president with character. I'll admit, he did his share of stupid stuff, but wasn't a retard like Bush Jr.

Bush a terrorist fighter? Where the hell is Osama? I'm expecting him to be "captured" right before the elections.
"Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt." - Steve Jobs
User avatar
Ian
Grand Poobah
 
Posts: 14882
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby XXXXX on Sat May 29, 2004 12:14 am

Liberals and French cannot fathom the reality that being passive does not work with suicidal fanatics, or cultures that are based on war and force. France's doormat answer to Hitler's advances didn't work. Eastern european countries caving in to Soviet domination didn't work.

Wishing and hoping that the Islamic terrorists will be good little boys, despite their clear proclamations of destroying the west will not work. Finally, the mideast and the world sees that when Bush says something he means it, and will use force to back it up. In significant part, Bush's use of force has brought Libya, Iran, N. Korea, and other countries back to a healthier middle ground.

As was the case with Hitler, Imperial Japan, & now many of these middle east cultures, unfortunately they only respond to, and respect someone who they know will stand up to them.

There was the same liberal criticism towards Reagan until he was finished with the job of standing up to the Soviet Union & China. Now he is seen as one of our best presidents.

IMHO, the real source of our mideast problem is the infiltration of our national identity and policy by Jews demanding our unwavering support of any of Israel's actions. As long as we support Israel, we will be seen as a threat to Islam, and needing to be destroyed by the fanatics.

Yeah, there are a million things you can find wrong with Bush, or Clinton, or Kennedy, or Reagan, or Carter. However, the world knows that Bush is consistent, will not back down, and has the moral courage to sacrifice his reelection doing what he believes is right in the middle east. I have no doubt that most Presidents would be running away from all the heat he is getting.

I honestly believe that taking pre-emptive actions against nations that support terrorism is the only viable option we have, since our borders are so porous.

If these fanatics know that everything they hold dear will be hit hard in response to their country supporting terrorist attacks of the US, they will rethink their policy the same way that Japan did in the face of the Nuclear bombs that ended WW-II. I wish there were some other way.

If there is another major attack on the USA this summer, I would strongly support the USA invading both Syria and Iran, even using tactical nuclear weapons if necessary. Eventually, those who stand by and passively support terrorists will realize that they will lose everything, and they will clean out their own houses.
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby aviationwiz on Sat May 29, 2004 8:22 am

OK, I just gotta get at the last paragraph or so:

If there is another major attack on the USA this summer, I would strongly support the USA invading both Syria and Iran, even using tactical nuclear weapons if necessary.


If there is an attack over the summer, and there is no proof linking the attacks to either Syria or Iran, would you still want to invade them?

Nuclear weapons? The international community would be completely outraged by such an attack. That is just unthinkable, I don't believe there is any proof that either nation even is a nuclear power! You don't start a war by using nuclear weapons, ,you start World War 3, which would probably turn into nuclear holocaust, it's not going to happen.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby jase on Sat May 29, 2004 8:28 pm

MonteLDS wrote:I say he is wasting money.


It's his money isn't it?

As for attacking Iran and Syria, oh dear. You can't possibly be serious?

Where next? Libya? Egypt?

Then when they've gone, why not France, Germany and Russia, after all they opposed the US so they must be evil, right?
jase
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby XXXXX on Mon May 31, 2004 3:46 am

If there is no connection to Libya or Iran, then not necessarily would I attack them, but they are both actively supporting terrorism now...and Iran is developing Nukes, and unlike Libya, not cooperating with UN inspectors.

If you had been reading the news, you would have known that Libya has completely turned over all of their WMD and ended their terrorist activities, as has Egypt....and both are now welcomed back into the civilized world. The same is not true of Syria, Iran, or N. Korea.

You can have very low yield tactical nuclear weapons, including those used for deep bunker destruction. If it comes down to millions of US citizens being killed which is the stated goal from Al Quaida this summer, then I think the USA using nuclear weapons is justified.

F*ck the rest of the world at this point...the USA has always led or decided most of the international decisions in the last 100 years. With a few notable exceptions, most countries are not supporting us anyway.

They have not contributed anything significant to ending WW-I, WW-II, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War, Soviet Union destruction, Balkan Fiasco, Afganistan, or now Iraq. It has always been the USA that saved the day, or ended a war started by someone else.

Where are all the Euro blowhards with their certainty that the USA was all about stealing Iraqi Oil now? The most interesting facts are the very countries that opposed the invasion of Iraq were those stealing the Oil for Food revenues, or building the war machines for Hussein.

You people do not yet understand that this group of terrorist and culture of people, similar to the former Soviet Unionm, will only respond to overwhelming force. They don't negotiate like civil human beings.

There is no question that nuclear weapons ended WW-II, and Germany was desparate to build and use them as well. If these terrorists are that willing to destroy us, we must play a tougher game. They must be decimated.
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby code65536 on Mon May 31, 2004 4:44 am

XXXXX wrote:F*ck the rest of the world at this point...the USA has always led or decided most of the international decisions in the last 100 years. With a few notable exceptions, most countries are not supporting us anyway.


And it is precisely that attitude--that nasty tone of arrogance--that makes us so hated around the world, that causes people to want to commit terrorist acts against us. One might almost say that we got exactly what was coming to us. If you side with the conservatives, then you must surely also be one to follow Christian religious teachings. And what do those teachings tell you about the need for humility?

I happen to agree that the USSR is better off gone--it was a system plagued with corruption and gross abuses of power. Likewise, I would love to see the collapse of all the other rotten governments of the world, from the Chinese (I was born there; it's amazing how much brainwashing that government does to its people) to the Taliban to the government in North Korea that's starving its population in favor of even more military development.

So YES, things need to be done. But HOW? You keep claiming that Bush is right in what he's doing, but you are missing the critical point. He pursues a good goal, but it's done in the WRONG way!

In our crusade against the bastardized form of Communism of the USSR, we, on multiple occassions, toppled governments, only to replace them with even more hideous and corrupt ones. Where was our sense of moral dignity when we decry that the Soviet-style governments are bad and then replace them with an even worse government (but one that is anti-Soviet?). Where is our moral high ground when we use force? The use of military force should be considered only as an absolute LAST RESORT, but we seem to have no qualms freely using it.

The simple truth is, we're corrupt, too. Not as corrupt as the places that we're trying to topple, but nevertheless corrupt. We don't always do the right things, and whether you like to admit it or not, a lot of times, we do things not because it's right, but because it's in our own personal selfish interest. And THAT is the problem--we are arrogant and hypocritical. We make lofty claims to some moral high ground to justify what we do when we are also guilty of unsavory things. And THAT is what needs to be addressed. Our poor image, our poor public relation, and our lack of humility.

This is where Bush goes wrong. Instead of fixing things, he's making them much worse. So here's my suggestion for how to fight terrorism...
1/ Don't be so bloody quick to jump to military action! War is a last resort, and should be viewed as a FAILURE by us to do things right (i.e., peacefully)... sure, Bush said that he was hoping for a peaceful solution, but he certainly didn't bother to even give off that impression... his attitude was that of someone who had already decided on war before even pursuing peace--he lacked sincerity
2/ Don't be so arrogant. Be sensitive other other country's concerns. Instead of dismissing them, ADDRESS them. Instead of blowing others off, explain your position! The US seems very dictatorial in this respect. Instead of doing things democratically, we just go off and do whatever the hell we want. This worsens the situation, and it also makes it such that when we do need a democratic consensus (like getting the UN to support us), people will be less likely to do so since we've shown DISRESPECT and DISREGARD for other countries... we shouldn't expect respect from others if we don't give them any respect
3/ Admit to past mistakes. Apologize. Just about every other country have apologized for what they've done. Why can't we? Biting a bit of pride can go a long ways to re-restablishing respect and credibility, and that is really what this "war on terrorism" is all about. It's about us.
User avatar
code65536
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: .us

Postby aviationwiz on Mon May 31, 2004 10:03 am

Just to update on the photos orginally posted, the one who uploaded one of them to airliners.net took it down because it was stolen by the New York Times. The New York times published the photo with a small header to airliners.net, but no-where mentioned the photographer.

Everyone was telling him to take legal action against the NY Times and make some money from the damages, but he wouldn't listen and had them taken down.
User avatar
aviationwiz
Plextor Fan(atic)
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Home of the Red Tail

Postby XXXXX on Mon May 31, 2004 12:34 pm

code65536, I agree with some of the things you just said, but you paint a PollyAnna picture of naivete that is unrealistic. My comment about "F*ck the rest of the world" was more a perjorative statement, than a realistic intention. The USA is hated around the world because we are the temporary "King of the Hill." That was a common feature of every single world leader throughout history...going back to ancient Rome or Greece.

People hate us because we are so big and powerful that we dominate the rest of the world. There is no middle ground. Followers despise leaders. Employees despise employers. Women have despised men who dominate them. Black former slaves despised their white masters. USA Colonialists despised the British Empire. Gays despise straights. That is human nature.

There is no amount of national USA humility that will erase this basic fundamental human operating condition. The main source of middle east angst towards the USA and other western nations is our violation of their Islamic beliefs, and direct support for Israel.

You will see the same thing with the next world power, China. They are already viewed as having a totalitarian arrogance. Wait until they begin controlling the world's economy, and polluting the world's skies....they will make the USA look like a kid in the sandbox.

Over the last 75 years, any time a significant world problem developed, the USA led the charge. We have sacrificed our American blood repeatedly in the name of freedom for those peoples being terrorized or dominated by abusive tyrants. Pacifists and those opposing the Iraqi invasion would have the world assume that all the WMD's that all parties believed to exist, have somehow vanished into thin air.

They would have all ignore the hundreds of thousands who had been tortured, mass murdered, and mutilated by Hussein. They would have the world ignore the fact that their own corrupt governments were stealing HUGE sums of money from the Oil for Food program, and supplying Hussein with his ongoing military apparatus.

In reality, the USA will not end up stealing Iraqi oil, as many perverted Europeans still believe. We will continue rebuilding Iraq into a viable and thriving country, at our own expense, just as we did with Germany and Japan. We will do it because it needed to be done, and because countries like France, Germany, and Russia lack the balls to confront another Hitler-like tyrant. There is no question that destroying the Iraqi regime with all its oil revenue resources was necessary, and sent a very loud message to the entire world about the consequences for continuing to support terrorism, and abusive regimes. Libya got the message loud and clear.

Without exception, there are varying degrees of corruption, and immorality in every nation, religion, organization, corporation, or institution. To demand or even expect that perfect decisions are going to be made 100% of the time is a sign of an immaturely developed intellectual analysis.

Your view is that the USA should have been responsible for making sure that every post-Soviet nation have a "perfect" leader installed, because we continued our Reagan era military build up which the Soviet economy could not financially match. The Soviet Union imploded because it's Leninist/Stalinist model was deeply flawed. It was not the USA's direct action that destroyed them, nor was it our responsibility to establish each country with our view of a perfect leader.

As far as Bush, it is more important to me that the "good goals" as you mention are achieved, rather than trying to enroll countries like France that specialize in "the art of surrender" into supporting us. I would rather that we act as we have done many times before, than wait another 6 months while Hussein continued manipulating "Chief Inspector Clusoe-Blix." We are now even finding that there are serious charges of his very own staff receiving corrupt payoffs from the Hussein regime.

We made a reasonable attempt at the urging of Colin Powell to implore the UN to back its 17 previous failed resolutions. Having more inspections when it was obvious that those teams did not have unfettered, unconditional access, including being allowed to remove any scientist and their family out of the country for interviews, was never going to give an accurate picture of the WMD status.

In summary, there was no way to be more diplomatic on this topic. Wait until there are 911's in France, Germany, Russia, and China. Then we will see who will suddenly become arrogant in their own right. In the meantime I firmly believe that we need to pro-actively take down all of these bases of terrorism, and any governments that harbor or implicitly support them. The USA is too porous to prevent them from entering our borders.

We must destroy them on their home turf for our own protection. That is what the rest of the Euro-Liberals do not yet understand. Where were your outcries when the Soviets unilaterally invaded Afganistan? What about Russia and Chechnia? What about China and Hong Kong, or Tibet? What about all of the European dynasties lording over and dominating their colonial-conquered subjects like India, Africa, etc etc.? The USA is no better or worse than what those who are most critical have done themselves. So I would prefer that they would just STFU while we get on with fixing the problems.
User avatar
XXXXX
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

Postby dodecahedron on Mon May 31, 2004 3:16 pm

Hussein did use WMD - he used gas (mustard gas if i'm not mistaken) against Kurds in the north of Iraq.
civilian population, mind you.

We are now even finding that there are serious charges of his very own staff receiving corrupt payoffs from the Hussein regime.

hilarious.

Wait until there are 911's in France, Germany, Russia, and China.

how true. very sad but true.
i sometimes think what it would be like if some of those countries too suffered from Terror. while of course i don't really want anything of the sort to happen, i do think it would be a good lesson for them, reality giving them a bite in the ass.

but then again, see what happened with Spain. same thing would happen again.
they would find a way to turn it around and blame the US, Israel, whatever, just not extremeist Islamists and their supporters in various governments.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Next

Return to The Beer Garden

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2017 CDRLabs Inc.