Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

Oslo: The Journey to Car Free

Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

Oslo: The Journey to Car Free

Reply

Old 05-04-17, 06:42 PM
  #101  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,653

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1430 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post

... less efficient delivery of services and so on. How do we solve that for them?
That is what a free market economy does and does well compared to the alternatives-- i.e., it provides for the most efficient allocation of scarce resources while maximizing net present wealth. When LCF makes sense is when it serves the purposes the individual, not the purposes of a dystopian anti-car political movement.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 06:55 PM
  #102  
350htrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: 27 speed oryx with over 39,000Km on it, 11,000Km with a BionX assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
The automobile has long been seen as a symbol of personal freedom and like the computer, a symbol of modernity; and, like other aspects of modernity, the automobile also has become the subject of the dogmatic prophecy from witchdoctors on the Left (typified by the LCF movement) who point to soccer moms as killing polar bears because of the CO2 that their SUVs emit.
Personal freedom. Yes, certainly... But, it has evolved... To, the point where everyone tries to emulate, the Jones's... Nay, make that, to beat the Jones's... Show wealth, successes.. Instead of moderation where everyone , maybe should, even "probably"? should, The toe the line for society, to survive the present changes in the world.... JMO
350htrr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 07:07 PM
  #103  
jon c. 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 3,585
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 911 Post(s)
Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
Personal freedom. Yes, certainly... But, it has evolved... To, the point where everyone tries to emulate, the Jones's... Nay, make that, to beat the Jones's...
You don't think people have been trying to "get ahead" throughout human history?
jon c. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 07:32 PM
  #104  
350htrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: 27 speed oryx with over 39,000Km on it, 11,000Km with a BionX assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Originally Posted by jon c. View Post
You don't think people have been trying to "get ahead" throughout human history?
Of course they have... and in general that was a step ahead for their progeny. BUT Today, where the next 3 months "profit" for a company you work for controls where things are headed for the whole world, it becomes, a totally different outcome in the long run... as I see it....
350htrr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 07:37 PM
  #105  
jon c. 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 3,585
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 911 Post(s)
Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
Of course they have... and in general that was a step ahead for their progeny. BUT Today, where the next 3 months "profit" for a company you work for controls where things are headed for the whole world, it becomes, a totally different outcome in the long run... as I see it....
I certainly agree that corporate behavior is distorting and ultimately undermining functioning market economics, but I think that's a distinctly different discussion.
jon c. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 07:41 PM
  #106  
350htrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: 27 speed oryx with over 39,000Km on it, 11,000Km with a BionX assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Originally Posted by jon c. View Post
I certainly agree that corporate behavior is distorting and ultimately undermining functioning market economics, but I think that's a distinctly different discussion.
Yes, it is. But, it is still connected... Why is the car culture king? Well there is/are a lot of reasons in the background, but Profit trumps most I suspect...
350htrr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 09:12 PM
  #107  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,762

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3409 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
That is what a free market economy does and does well compared to the alternatives-- i.e., it provides for the most efficient allocation of scarce resources while maximizing net present wealth. When LCF makes sense is when it serves the purposes the individual, not the purposes of a dystopian anti-car political movement.
LOL - I am the one actually arguing for the free market.
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 09:15 PM
  #108  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,762

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3409 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
Cycling can be -- and, for most everybody on Bike Forums is -- a hobby and a bike-centered lifestyle choice. But, on the LCF sub-forum, the bike is just an aspect of a lifestyle choice that especially touches on matters of politics not cycling.
And yet this is your favorite subforum.
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 09:26 PM
  #109  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,762

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3409 Post(s)
Originally Posted by jon c. View Post
As one who lives in a rural area wholly by choice, I see no need for any solution. Yes, there are trade offs but on balance to me they are more than worth it. And there's no reason it isn't sustainable for the foreseeable future.
Your personal lifestyle may well be sustainable, and of course you are free to live it, but for many rural residents it's an illusion that country living is somehow greener than city living. They occupy more space, drive more, need more energy for home heating and other uses, it takes more energy to deliver mail and parcels to them, their malls and mall parking lots take up more space, and in those and many other ways, they strain nature in general far more than if the same number of people lived in a fairly compact neighbourhood; and most of them eat food produced some distance away by somebody else, just like city people.
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 10:03 PM
  #110  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,653

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1430 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
... they strain nature in general far more than... city people


.
The LCF movement disapproves of rural America. Shocker.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 10:10 PM
  #111  
jon c. 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 3,585
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 911 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
Your personal lifestyle may well be sustainable, and of course you are free to live it, but for many rural residents it's an illusion that country living is somehow greener than city living. They occupy more space, drive more, need more energy for home heating and other uses, it takes more energy to deliver mail and parcels to them, their malls and mall parking lots take up more space, and in those and many other ways, they strain nature in general far more than if the same number of people lived in a fairly compact neighbourhood; and most of them eat food produced some distance away by somebody else, just like city people.
It's definitely greener out here. Had our first spring rain the other day and you could smell the green. Delightful.

Generally speaking, malls are more a function of suburban living than rural living. I haven't been in a mall in years, but ironically the only mall that exists in the greater metro area I live near is located in the city.

Undoubtedly delivery of services is more efficient in densely populated areas. But there are downsides as well. Heat island effects and stormwater/wastewater concentration are two that spring to mind. Social issues also tend to increase in high density populations.

All human existence impacts the environment and regardless of where they live it is the increasing number of humans that will exacerbate these impacts. I'm not convinced the clustering more people closer together provides any great solution. I think the two most significant steps forward that we could make now in terms of lessening negative impact of humans on their environment would be to eliminate fossil fuels and control population growth. I have hope for the former.
jon c. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 10:17 PM
  #112  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,762

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3409 Post(s)
Originally Posted by jon c. View Post
I'm not convinced the clustering more people closer together provides any great solution. I think the two most significant steps forward that we could make now in terms of lessening negative impact of humans on their environment would be to eliminate fossil fuels and control population growth. I have hope for the former.
Again, this is not about you. Thought experiment: If all those people currently crammed into your nearby city spread out at your density, do you see that lessening their impact on the environment?
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-17, 10:29 PM
  #113  
350htrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: 27 speed oryx with over 39,000Km on it, 11,000Km with a BionX assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Originally Posted by jon c. View Post
It's definitely greener out here. Had our first spring rain the other day and you could smell the green. Delightful.

Generally speaking, malls are more a function of suburban living than rural living. I haven't been in a mall in years, but ironically the only mall that exists in the greater metro area I live near is located in the city.

Undoubtedly delivery of services is more efficient in densely populated areas. But there are downsides as well. Heat island effects and stormwater/wastewater concentration are two that spring to mind. Social issues also tend to increase in high density populations.

All human existence impacts the environment and regardless of where they live it is the increasing number of humans that will exacerbate these impacts. I'm not convinced the clustering more people closer together provides any great solution. I think the two most significant steps forward that we could make now in terms of lessening negative impact of humans on their environment would be to eliminate fossil fuels and control population growth. I have hope for the former.
Actually it seems meat production trumps all bad things us humans are doing to the world. as I understand it's effects, it's number 1 in what is considered the worst thing we do...

Last edited by 350htrr; 05-04-17 at 10:32 PM.
350htrr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 02:46 AM
  #114  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7922 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
The automobile has long been seen as a symbol of personal freedom and like the computer, a symbol of modernity; and, like other aspects of modernity, the automobile also has become the subject of the dogmatic prophecy from witchdoctors on the Left (typified by the LCF movement) who point to soccer moms as killing polar bears because of the CO2 that their SUVs emit.
So your point is that soccer moms aren't contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, or that their contribution isn't significant because it is one small demographic among all the other demographics that cause CO2 emissions?

Are you also implying that it's stupid to care about polar bears, or all non-human life in general? What about human life? Is it stupid to care about that? What exactly is not stupid to care about, iyo?

And when you talk about symbolism, do you not consider symbolic thinking dogmatic? What exactly do you think 'dogma' means? Does it have an actual meaning to you or is it just a word you like using as ammunition in your vitriolic rhetoric?
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 05:58 AM
  #115  
jon c. 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 3,585
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 911 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
Again, this is not about you. Thought experiment: If all those people currently crammed into your nearby city spread out at your density, do you see that lessening their impact on the environment?

Consider the opposite. What happens if most of the rural population moves to the city. This tends to happen when rural economies collapse and the results are not pretty. I think in a moderately well functioning society, human population distribution works itself out pretty well.
jon c. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 06:17 AM
  #116  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,762

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3409 Post(s)
Originally Posted by jon c. View Post
Consider the opposite. What happens if most of the rural population moves to the city. This tends to happen when rural economies collapse and the results are not pretty. I think in a moderately well functioning society, human population distribution works itself out pretty well.
If there's sudden migration due to a crisis that's a different thing.

What I meant is that if your region had evolved differently so that all of the 200,000 or whatever people living in Tallahassee instead lived on rural lots, they would need a lot more resources than they do now. They would need a lot more buildings - a separate house for every family with no apartment blocks or row houses to reduce land or materials. They'd need a lot more roads - instead of 10 houses sharing 300 feet of frontage, each house might have 300 feet of frontage. They'd need a lot of schoolbuses. They'd have to use a lot more of the existing farm or wildlands. None of them would walk to work or the store and fewer would bike, and those who already drive would drive farther. They'd need to own more cars. You'd have a lot more neighbours and would have a harder time finding a place where you didn't have to see them or deal with them, if that is what you like about your current location, and the spring air would smell a tiny bit less fresh.

Now apply the same logic to the millions currently packed into Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. That's a lot of lost idyllic rural solitude.

Last edited by cooker; 05-05-17 at 07:04 AM.
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 08:31 AM
  #117  
kickstart
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,422

Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of considering people and/or communities to be a inherent problem that needs to be solved biased on a theoretical and subjective sustainability index. It's too judgmental.
kickstart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 08:42 AM
  #118  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,762

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3409 Post(s)
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of considering people and/or communities to be a inherent problem that needs to be solved biased on a theoretical and subjective sustainability index. It's too judgmental.
You mentioned that we needed "solutions". What do you think needs to be solved?

Last edited by cooker; 05-05-17 at 09:08 AM.
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 09:17 AM
  #119  
kickstart
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,422

Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
You mentioned that we needed "solutions". What do you think needs to be solved?
Yes, but specifically in the context of when it''s not harmful to people and communities.
kickstart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 09:34 AM
  #120  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,762

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3409 Post(s)
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
Yes, but specifically in the context of when it''s not harmful to people and communities.
Harm is going on all the time. Limiting or reversing it is already in order. We're just debating how to do it. Oslo thinks the way to do it is to have more cycling and public transit downtown, and fewer cars. That's a great idea. However you said you are also in favour of
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
making the suburban and rural options equally possible, viable, and sustainable for everyone of every income level who wants them.
and you also said
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
I think the solutions should meet the people.
Fine - how are you going to make rural living more sustainable, for the majority of rural residents who aren't actually farmers or whatever? Not all of them are going to have nearby rural jobs they can bike to like you.

Last edited by cooker; 05-05-17 at 10:11 AM.
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 10:12 AM
  #121  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,653

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1430 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
So your point is that soccer moms aren't contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, or that their contribution isn't significant because it is one small demographic among all the other demographics that cause CO2 emissions?

Are you also implying that it's stupid to care about polar bears, or all non-human life in general? What about human life? Is it stupid to care about that? What exactly is not stupid to care about, iyo?

And when you talk about symbolism, do you not consider symbolic thinking dogmatic? What exactly do you think 'dogma' means? Does it have an actual meaning to you or is it just a word you like using as ammunition in your vitriolic rhetoric?

Belief that global warming during the last half of the 20th century is caused by humanity's release of CO2 -- and by extension, is caused by soccer moms driving SUVs instead of LCF, which in turn is killing polar bears is an example of dogma --i.e., belief based on emotions that must be taken on faith, like religious beliefs that cannot be verified by the scientific method.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 12:20 PM
  #122  
kickstart
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,422

Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
Harm is going on all the time. Limiting or reversing it is already in order. We're just debating how to do it. Oslo thinks the way to do it is to have more cycling and public transit downtown, and fewer cars. That's a great idea. However you said you are also in favour of
and you also saidFine - how are you going to make rural living more sustainable, for the majority of rural residents who aren't actually farmers or whatever? Not all of them are going to have nearby rural jobs they can bike to like you.
I can't suggest specific examples because every community is unique, but when issues can be addressed without harm to the community, do so.
The other part of that is simply accepting that every community and lifestyle can't match the sustainability of ideal communities and lifestyles.
kickstart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 12:43 PM
  #123  
kickstart
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,422

Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
It's kinda sad LCF is like today's politics which has degraded into one side against the other, rather than trying to identify what each has in common and concentrating on that.

Two glasses half empty equals an empty glass.
kickstart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 03:09 PM
  #124  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7922 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
Belief that global warming during the last half of the 20th century is caused by humanity's release of CO2 -- and by extension, is caused by soccer moms driving SUVs instead of LCF, which in turn is killing polar bears is an example of dogma --i.e., belief based on emotions that must be taken on faith, like religious beliefs that cannot be verified by the scientific method.
First of all, dogma isn't directly defined by emotions but by rhetorical/superficial knowledge divorced from deeper understanding. It is possible to believe the things you're saying in a dogmatic way, which is what you and others like you promote by talking about these things as if they're random events that otherwise have nothing to do with each other.

In reality, it is perfectly logical to look at the amount of fossil fuel burned throughout the 20th century for all sorts of reasons, and believe that polar ice melting is at least partially caused by that. What's more, it is perfectly reasonable to break down large-scale phenomena, such as 'fossil-fuel burning,' into narrower categories, such as soccer moms, who burn relatively large amount of fuel if they drive around a lot to shuttle kids to all sorts of different activities.

So, no, claiming that soccer moms are contributing to polar bear habitat loss is not dogmatic unless you don't understand the logic behind the claim. What is dogmatic is believing that driving is a necessary fact of life when you've never actually considered what it would take to LCF. In many ways dogmatism is nothing more than just 'going with the flows' of culture without critically thinking about why culture is the way it is, how it could be different, and/or what freedom you have as an individual to make your own choices independently of cultural norms and prescriptions.
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-17, 03:20 PM
  #125  
350htrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,637

Bikes: 27 speed oryx with over 39,000Km on it, 11,000Km with a BionX assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
First of all, dogma isn't directly defined by emotions but by rhetorical/superficial knowledge divorced from deeper understanding. It is possible to believe the things you're saying in a dogmatic way, which is what you and others like you promote by talking about these things as if they're random events that otherwise have nothing to do with each other.

In reality, it is perfectly logical to look at the amount of fossil fuel burned throughout the 20th century for all sorts of reasons, and believe that polar ice melting is at least partially caused by that. What's more, it is perfectly reasonable to break down large-scale phenomena, such as 'fossil-fuel burning,' into narrower categories, such as soccer moms, who burn relatively large amount of fuel if they drive around a lot to shuttle kids to all sorts of different activities.

So, no, claiming that soccer moms are contributing to polar bear habitat loss is not dogmatic unless you don't understand the logic behind the claim. What is dogmatic is believing that driving is a necessary fact of life when you've never actually considered what it would take to LCF. In many ways dogmatism is nothing more than just 'going with the flows' of culture without critically thinking about why culture is the way it is, how it could be different, and/or what freedom you have as an individual to make your own choices independently of cultural norms and prescriptions.
+1, well said.
350htrr is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service