Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #721   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Gort" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:



Nope. The president should lead by example, and be an icon for others
to follow. If that's the case, then murder is legal.

Just exactly whom did the President murder, and when did he do it?
Also need to know the results of the trial, and which judge presided.


Others will refer to dead Iraqis, but that's too obvious. Your president
used American lives to achieve:

- One goal which he failed at: Finding the WMDs

- One goal which smart people in the region agree is nonsensical:
Jamming democracy down the throat of a country that might not be ready
for it

- One goal which was hypocritical: Saving the Iraqi people from a bad
leader. Hypocritical because in other places, like Africa, we sent a
handful of Marines to "evaluate" situations.

Your president could have used covert means to eat away at Iraq from the
inside, like termites do to a house. Why didn't he do that? In an
interview before his first election, he was asked about his leisure
activities. He said he spent about an hour a day playing video games. He
also said he didn't read much - maybe just newspapers. Invading Iraq was
the only method which fit his view of the world. If the head of the CIA
had presented a perfect plan for eliminating Saddam quietly, it would
not have given your president the erection he craved. Instead, he wasted
American lives for his own personal thrills.

And any other action would have brought out the lawyers. Which happened
anyway. No matter what he does/does not, they crawl out from under their
rocks.



There's a reason it's called "covert", especially if it's done right.



BTW, what do YOU do for a living? Are you bar certified yet?



Grocery wholesale. I specialize is handling those clients who will only
interact with suppliers via computer (pretty much). Why do you ask?


Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.


I'm sure that if you needed a lawyer to twist things in your favor at some
point, you'd be happy to have someone very talented. But, at the same time,
I realize it's stylish for many of the sheep to pretend to have a problem
with lawyers.


  #722   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Gort
wrote:


Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.


You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner".


Is that how you squirm out of a debate you cannot win?


  #723   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Gort" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
0.85...




We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL
Bush,
i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some people
are
so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob is in that
category.




Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the
USofA,become
some other country's citizen.


If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your
job?

You're convinced that the boss is incompetent and dangerous.
Only a fool would stay there.


Not if you love the company, which you obviously do not.

No, I could never love bloodsucking leeches.



Leeches? All companies? Or just one with a bad boss? If the latter, why
do you assume that a bad boss makes a bad company?


The bad boss (CEO) absconded with my, and others,pension funds.
Also, I've never had a boss that worked for anything that didn't enrich
him personally, regardless of what it did to the company.
Think about a Ken Lay type of boss.


Half the companies I've worked for have been that way. The others, including
the current one, have been the exact opposite. Keep looking.


  #724   Report Post  
Gort
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Gort" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:


"Gort" wrote in message
...



Doug Kanter wrote:



"Gort" wrote in message
...




Doug Kanter wrote:




"Gort" wrote in message
...





Doug Kanter wrote:





"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.prodigy.com...






In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:






wrote in message
news:1121533745.714099.305050@g43g200 0cwa.googlegroups.com...






"I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in
the
period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed
not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past
day or
two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety
during
those
years. "


LOL And once again it's Doug Kanter doesn't have a clue as to
what
he's talking about. He seems to equate age with knowledge, yet
at 52 he
doesn't even know geography. The two borders that are the
biggest
problem in Iraq are the borders with Syria and Iran. The US
never had
any control over those.


Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be
possible he was
still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first
half of the
1990s.

So what's *your* excuse for being so ignorant?


I take it you do not work in a profession which involves trying
new things, or you wouldn't have such doubts about what's possible
and what's not. You simply choose not to entertain the ideas to
start with. Stop some weapons from moving to the exact place we
knew they'd go? Not possible.


I'm curious as to what your Politically Correct justification for
interfering with trade between two sovereign nations would be.
The job of enforcing U.N. sanctions is the responsibility of the
U.N. , not the U.S. They had, at least fleetingly, access.
That they failed to do anything at all is obvious.


You must've been busy or sleeping when we were flying missions into
Iraqi territory to enforce the no-fly zone. That was YEARS before
the invasion. Once we went that far, do you think the idea of
"sovereign nation" meant jack **** to anyone in Washington?

And, if we'd occupied a chunk of desert, stopped vehicles, and
actually found some with weapons which violated U.N. sanctions, we
probably would've looked golden to the rest of the world.

And you'd have been among the very first to bitch about "Empire
Building".
At that time it was a U.N. problem. Remember the Sanctions?
Now you bitch that the U.S. didn't move, but just recently you
bitched that it DID.


Apparently, the subtleties of timing are something you don't
understand. Tell me: Did you hear much public complaining about the
way we handled the no-fly zones around Iraq for several years? No. You
didn't. Why do you suppose that is?

Timing? So it's a good thing to do on Tuesday, but not on Thursday?
What the action does isn't important; WHEN that action is taken is?


Holy ****...I really *do* need to explain everything, don't I? :-)

Timing: Your president began waving his dick and making threats against
Iraq 6-8 months before invading. Remember? Within days of 9/11? For that
entire period of time, he did nothing, thereby allowing the weapons to
leave the country.

To "move" is not enough. To "move" correctly is what's important. Your
president was more concerned with preaching than achieving the correct
goals. He preached about how WMDs would eventually make their way out of
Iraq and be used by terrorists elsewhere. \

He, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell said they knew exactly where the WMDs
were, remember? Powell showed satellite photos of the weapons sites to
the U.N., remember?

Then, your president did nothing. Remember?

And what did YOUR president do ?


Sorry. The "what about the previous president" excuse has been eliminated
from the list of sensible responses for people who are unable or
unwilling to answer the real question. It's like telling your mommy you
broke somebody's car window because all your friends were doing it.
Totally irrelevant.

The CURRENT president is the important issue, since he's still in a
position to do more damage. With that in mind, why did he allow the
weapons to vanish?


The question is totally relevant as you claim Pres. Bush is NOT your
President.
Now... what did YOUR (present) President do ?



Are you telling me that because you think Clinton didn't do enough, no
subsequent president can ever be judged on his own actions? Time stopped
with Clinton? If Bush is clearly shown to make mistakes, it's fiction
because someone before him made mistakes?

Be careful with your anwer. You're already up to your waist in ****. You
don't want to get much deeper without a snorkel.



Now we know... you believe that Clinton is your (present) President.
Reality isn't your long suit at all.
As to waist deep, "go ahead; make my day".
And the deepest waste in here is you.




--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.
  #725   Report Post  
Gort
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Gort" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:


"Gort" wrote in message
...



Doug Kanter wrote:




Nope. The president should lead by example, and be an icon for others
to follow. If that's the case, then murder is legal.

Just exactly whom did the President murder, and when did he do it?
Also need to know the results of the trial, and which judge presided.


Others will refer to dead Iraqis, but that's too obvious. Your president
used American lives to achieve:

- One goal which he failed at: Finding the WMDs

- One goal which smart people in the region agree is nonsensical:
Jamming democracy down the throat of a country that might not be ready
for it

- One goal which was hypocritical: Saving the Iraqi people from a bad
leader. Hypocritical because in other places, like Africa, we sent a
handful of Marines to "evaluate" situations.

Your president could have used covert means to eat away at Iraq from the
inside, like termites do to a house. Why didn't he do that? In an
interview before his first election, he was asked about his leisure
activities. He said he spent about an hour a day playing video games. He
also said he didn't read much - maybe just newspapers. Invading Iraq was
the only method which fit his view of the world. If the head of the CIA
had presented a perfect plan for eliminating Saddam quietly, it would
not have given your president the erection he craved. Instead, he wasted
American lives for his own personal thrills.

And any other action would have brought out the lawyers. Which happened
anyway. No matter what he does/does not, they crawl out from under their
rocks.


There's a reason it's called "covert", especially if it's done right.




BTW, what do YOU do for a living? Are you bar certified yet?


Grocery wholesale. I specialize is handling those clients who will only
interact with suppliers via computer (pretty much). Why do you ask?


Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.



I'm sure that if you needed a lawyer to twist things in your favor at some
point, you'd be happy to have someone very talented. But, at the same time,
I realize it's stylish for many of the sheep to pretend to have a problem
with lawyers.


Wm. Shakespeare had the solution to the lawyer problem.


--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.


  #726   Report Post  
Gort
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Gort" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:


"Gort" wrote in message
...



Doug Kanter wrote:



"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
70.85...





We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL
Bush,
i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some people
are
so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob is in that
category.




Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the
USofA,become
some other country's citizen.


If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your
job?

You're convinced that the boss is incompetent and dangerous.
Only a fool would stay there.


Not if you love the company, which you obviously do not.

No, I could never love bloodsucking leeches.


Leeches? All companies? Or just one with a bad boss? If the latter, why
do you assume that a bad boss makes a bad company?


The bad boss (CEO) absconded with my, and others,pension funds.
Also, I've never had a boss that worked for anything that didn't enrich
him personally, regardless of what it did to the company.
Think about a Ken Lay type of boss.



Half the companies I've worked for have been that way. The others, including
the current one, have been the exact opposite. Keep looking.



No thanks, I managed to retire anyway, and am much happier for it.
But I am wondering how you manage to love a company that treats you that
way.


--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.
  #727   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gort" wrote in message
...


Sorry. The "what about the previous president" excuse has been
eliminated from the list of sensible responses for people who are unable
or unwilling to answer the real question. It's like telling your mommy
you broke somebody's car window because all your friends were doing it.
Totally irrelevant.

The CURRENT president is the important issue, since he's still in a
position to do more damage. With that in mind, why did he allow the
weapons to vanish?

The question is totally relevant as you claim Pres. Bush is NOT your
President.
Now... what did YOUR (present) President do ?



Are you telling me that because you think Clinton didn't do enough, no
subsequent president can ever be judged on his own actions? Time stopped
with Clinton? If Bush is clearly shown to make mistakes, it's fiction
because someone before him made mistakes?

Be careful with your anwer. You're already up to your waist in ****. You
don't want to get much deeper without a snorkel.


Now we know... you believe that Clinton is your (present) President.
Reality isn't your long suit at all.
As to waist deep, "go ahead; make my day".
And the deepest waste in here is you.


Don't get upset. I'm trying to learn from you. You have a really interesting
view of the world.

So:
You take your car for an oil change. The mechanic forgets to put a pad over
the fender. He gouges the bejeezus out of the paint with his belt buckle.
Naturally, you rip him a new asshole and his shop pays to have the fender
repainted.

5000 miles later, you try another mechanic. The guy installs the new filter,
puts in a quart of oil, and gets interrupted by a phonecall. Comes back to
the car, thinks he's put in all the oil, starts it up, and goodbye engine.
Burns hole in seat with cigarette ashes.

Based on the way you evaluate Bush, it sounds like you'd let the second
mechanic slide because the first one was also a slob.


  #728   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Gort" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:


"Gort" wrote in message
...



Doug Kanter wrote:




Nope. The president should lead by example, and be an icon for
others to follow. If that's the case, then murder is legal.

Just exactly whom did the President murder, and when did he do it?
Also need to know the results of the trial, and which judge presided.


Others will refer to dead Iraqis, but that's too obvious. Your
president used American lives to achieve:

- One goal which he failed at: Finding the WMDs

- One goal which smart people in the region agree is nonsensical:
Jamming democracy down the throat of a country that might not be ready
for it

- One goal which was hypocritical: Saving the Iraqi people from a bad
leader. Hypocritical because in other places, like Africa, we sent a
handful of Marines to "evaluate" situations.

Your president could have used covert means to eat away at Iraq from
the inside, like termites do to a house. Why didn't he do that? In an
interview before his first election, he was asked about his leisure
activities. He said he spent about an hour a day playing video games.
He also said he didn't read much - maybe just newspapers. Invading
Iraq was the only method which fit his view of the world. If the head
of the CIA had presented a perfect plan for eliminating Saddam
quietly, it would not have given your president the erection he
craved. Instead, he wasted American lives for his own personal
thrills.

And any other action would have brought out the lawyers. Which
happened anyway. No matter what he does/does not, they crawl out from
under their rocks.


There's a reason it's called "covert", especially if it's done right.




BTW, what do YOU do for a living? Are you bar certified yet?


Grocery wholesale. I specialize is handling those clients who will only
interact with suppliers via computer (pretty much). Why do you ask?

Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.



I'm sure that if you needed a lawyer to twist things in your favor at
some point, you'd be happy to have someone very talented. But, at the
same time, I realize it's stylish for many of the sheep to pretend to
have a problem with lawyers.

Wm. Shakespeare had the solution to the lawyer problem.


In the future, try not to sound like one of your sources when you comment on
certain professions. Remember that although George and Rush *want* you to
repeat what they say, they really don't care if it makes you look foolish.
Pick your own wording to disguise your priests.


  #729   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gort" wrote in message
...


If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your
job?

You're convinced that the boss is incompetent and dangerous.
Only a fool would stay there.


Not if you love the company, which you obviously do not.

No, I could never love bloodsucking leeches.


Leeches? All companies? Or just one with a bad boss? If the latter, why
do you assume that a bad boss makes a bad company?

The bad boss (CEO) absconded with my, and others,pension funds.
Also, I've never had a boss that worked for anything that didn't enrich
him personally, regardless of what it did to the company.
Think about a Ken Lay type of boss.



Half the companies I've worked for have been that way. The others,
including the current one, have been the exact opposite. Keep looking.


No thanks, I managed to retire anyway, and am much happier for it.
But I am wondering how you manage to love a company that treats you that
way.


What way? I have no problem with my company.


  #730   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , Gort
wrote:


Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.


You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner".


Is that how you squirm out of a debate you cannot win?


I hadn't observed myself being on the losing end of any debates with you;
quite the reverse, actually. You keep changing your position every time your
baloney is exposed for what it is.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.




  #731   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , Gort
wrote:


Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.

You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner".


Is that how you squirm out of a debate you cannot win?


I hadn't observed myself being on the losing end of any debates with you;
quite the reverse, actually. You keep changing your position every time
your
baloney is exposed for what it is.


Nonsense. I've given you plenty of good reasons why George Bush is unable to
modify an SUV, even with the help of his lawyer. You simply cannot
comprehend.


  #732   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , Gort
wrote:


Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.

You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner".

Is that how you squirm out of a debate you cannot win?


I hadn't observed myself being on the losing end of any debates with you;
quite the reverse, actually. You keep changing your position every time
your
baloney is exposed for what it is.


Nonsense. I've given you plenty of good reasons why George Bush is unable to
modify an SUV, even with the help of his lawyer. You simply cannot
comprehend.


Like I said... stoner.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.


  #733   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Gort
wrote:


Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.


You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner".


Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins
hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"?


  #734   Report Post  
Gort
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..

In article , Gort
wrote:


Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.


You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner".



Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins
hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"?



I take it that you have firsthand knowledge and experience as "an
alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning."



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.
  #735   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..

In article , Gort
wrote:


Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.

You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner".



Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins
hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"?


I take it that you have firsthand knowledge and experience as "an
alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning."


About as much as Miller does with "stoners". Happy now?




  #736   Report Post  
Gort
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...


In article , Gort
wrote:



Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer"
came to mind.

You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner".


Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins
hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"?


I take it that you have firsthand knowledge and experience as "an
alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning."



About as much as Miller does with "stoners". Happy now?



Sure. I've been happy since the day I retired :-)
And I don't need/use "sauce" to be this way.


--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.
  #737   Report Post  
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...


In article , Gort
wrote:



Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so
"lawyer"
came to mind.

You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner".


Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins
hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"?

I take it that you have firsthand knowledge and experience as "an
alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning."



About as much as Miller does with "stoners". Happy now?


Sure. I've been happy since the day I retired :-)
And I don't need/use "sauce" to be this way.


Keep in mind that you were responding to a situation in which Miller ran out
of fuel, and so he reverted to stupid assumptions about drugs. Then, you and
I joined in. This has nothing to do with your retirement.


  #738   Report Post  
Gort
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Gort" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...



In article , Gort
wrote:




Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so
"lawyer"
came to mind.

You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner".


Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins
hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"?

I take it that you have firsthand knowledge and experience as "an
alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning."


About as much as Miller does with "stoners". Happy now?


Sure. I've been happy since the day I retired :-)
And I don't need/use "sauce" to be this way.



Keep in mind that you were responding to a situation in which Miller ran out
of fuel, and so he reverted to stupid assumptions about drugs. Then, you and
I joined in. This has nothing to do with your retirement.



Thanks, I did realize that, but I wanted to rub his face in the fact
that I'm happy. It would seem that he isn't, and never will be.



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Heading to London first of June Steve Koschmann Metalworking 12 May 16th 05 03:05 AM
Source for quality DG units - SE London? Daniel UK diy 1 February 21st 05 04:52 AM
**** Thames Valley or London Group meet on March 17th ***** Andy Hall UK diy 29 March 8th 04 04:36 PM
Kitchen Worktops London Clive Long,UK UK diy 4 December 3rd 03 12:22 PM
Rewiring cost + any recommended sparkies? (South London, Croydon Area) Seri UK diy 7 November 29th 03 01:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"