Terra Pass -- CO2 credits

Clutch

<---Pass
I was joking with Alice today. I should write Al Gore a letter, seeing if he'll buy me some solar panels. It's only going to be $15-20K for what I want. A mere drop in the bucket for a guy like Gore. ;)

After Labor Day sounds good.

Alright, I'm getting to the dilemma. Finally. This group - which includes some of the best conservation biologists in the world, several on my board of directors - wants African Conservation Fund to help develop a way people in the First World can support direct on-the-ground conservation in East Africa by making contributions - which would be linked to an actual, calculated carbon-offset. Because using their formula for MVCA, they will be able to calculate how much natural carbon is preserved in-situ in the East African savannahs we are working to protect (turns out this region has even more longterm carbon in the plants and soil and animals than anywhere else on earth).

Now this is not the same as "trading carbon credits" but it's close. What it would mean is that I could say to you: Kermit, you care about your impact on the planet. You love your lifestyle, you love to explore by truck and motorcycle. And you also want to make a difference on the planet. So by investing $100 or $500 or $1000 in preserving XYZ Conservation Area in the East African savannahs, you are helping to save XXX tons of carbon - the equivalent of XX years (or XXX miles of trips) or whatever.

So my question is: would that totally make you crazy against what we're doing?


Nice twist on saving the wildlands, it does need to be set aside. I believe there should be pure wilderness areas...no humans what so ever.

Am I against it? I think it is good plan, from I can tell you and Johnathan are sincere about your actions. Those other carbon credit fly by nights, seems fishy to me.
 

DesertRose

Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
Kermit said:
I believe there should be pure wilderness areas...no humans what so ever.

Hmm, interesting take. We'll have to debate over beer or bourbon.

What we're doing is helping preserve the original wilderness . . . which is where humans came from - the Great Rift Valley. Humans and wilderness aren't mutually exclusive in a landscape where things are still relatively wild. Here in North America, pesky humans haven't been here long (evolutionarily), what's left of our wildlife has never forgiven us for the early evils done, and our landscapes are out of whack. It ain't natural.

In Africa, and in some remoter parts of the Americas even, there are "working wildernesses" where people and wild thing do just great. In my book, those are the best places.
 

Clutch

<---Pass
DesertRose said:
Hmm, interesting take. We'll have to debate over beer or bourbon.

In a tribal sense, I could see humans sharing the land. Maybe if the human is raised by wolves...then maybe...we should be allowed the wilderness. :D

When I think about wilderness in the states, some user groups are allowed in others are turned away. My belief is, to have pure wilderness..."Wild" is the first part of wilderness. No human should be allowed in.

My ex-wife was a cross country runner, she was allowed to use the trails in wilderness, me being a mountain biker was not. Since technically I use a "machine" to explore trails.(If you want to get real technical humans are an organic machine) I think that is unfair. Why are certain groups ok, and others not? Equestrians are allowed in too, boggles my mind, since a shoed horse does more damage than a cyclist. So, it got me thinking, what wilderness should really be. I even thought of starting a movement to kick all humans out of the wilderness areas in the US, but, I would only be doing that because I am discrimanted against. I am not that big of an **************. ;) Wouldn't win any popularity votes either.

Animals have learned to fear humans, why not let them have their wilderness to themselves?

From Webster's

Main Entry: wil·der·ness
Pronunciation: \ˈwil-dər-nəs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from wildern wild, from Old English wilddēoren of wild beasts
Date: 13th century
1 a (1): a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2): an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community b: an empty or pathless area or region <in remote wildernesses of space groups of nebulae are found — G. W. Gray died 1960> c: a part of a garden devoted to wild growth
2obsolete : wild or uncultivated state
3 a: a confusing multitude or mass : an indefinitely great number or quantity <I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys — Shakespeare> b: a bewildering situation <those moral wildernesses of civilized life — Norman Mailer>
 
Last edited:

DesertRose

Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
Kermit said:
In a tribal sense, I could see humans sharing the land. Maybe if the human is raised by wolves...then maybe...we should be allowed the wilderness. :D

That's funny, but it makes me crazy to remember that movie. Ack!

Kermit said:
When I think about wilderness in the states, some user groups are allowed in others are turned away. My belief is, to have pure wilderness..."Wild" is the first part of wilderness. No human should be allowed in.

My ex-wife was a cross country runner, she was allowed to use the trails in wilderness, me being a mountain biker was not. Since technically I use a "machine" to explore trails.(If you want to get real technical humans are an organic machine) I think that is unfair. Why are certain groups ok, and others not? Equestrians are allowed in too, boggles my mind, since a shoed horse does more damage than a cyclist. So, it got me thinking, what wilderness should really be. I even thought of starting a movement to kick all humans out of the wilderness areas in the US, but, I would only be doing that because I am discrimanted against. I am not that big of an **************. ;) Wouldn't win any popularity votes either.

Animals have learned to fear humans, why not let them have their wilderness to themselves?

From Webster's

Main Entry: wil·der·ness
Pronunciation: \ˈwil-dər-nəs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from wildern wild, from Old English wilddēoren of wild beasts
Date: 13th century
1 a (1): a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2): an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community b: an empty or pathless area or region <in remote wildernesses of space groups of nebulae are found — G. W. Gray died 1960> c: a part of a garden devoted to wild growth
2obsolete : wild or uncultivated state
3 a: a confusing multitude or mass : an indefinitely great number or quantity <I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys — Shakespeare> b: a bewildering situation <those moral wildernesses of civilized life — Norman Mailer>

Ha, me thinks you might have dug your own metaphorical grave here and jumped in!

If it's exclusionary stuff that makes you crazy - and the environmentalists who are labelling you as "bad" because you ride a machine (pedalled or gas-powered) and want you out of Wildernesses, then aren't you joining them by saying there should be no humans in Wilderness?

I think excluding people from Wilderness was the first step in destroying them. Granted, I DO think there should be no vehicles, but I think humans should be out there in the wild places, back in the kind of relationship with nature that was more like the beginning.

In African the animals have been with people since the beginning, and their behavior is so different than here. It's cool to see. People, their cattle, their homes, are right out there in the Wilderness and they are more or less existing right along side each other just fine.

So I disagree with Webster:) Their definition is too narrow - there's no place, really, on earth that hasn't had people at some point or another (Antarctica, maybe). In the 13th Century when wildeoren was invented as a word, maybe there weren't humans at that time in those wild places, but rest assured 1000 or 5000 years before then there was . . .

If people are excluded from a place, particularly by rules, they won't care about it. It's human nature. If we live and breathe it, if it's part of our everyday existence, we care about it.

I guess that's why so many people care about the last episode of The Sopranos and most really don't give a hoot about conservation. :shakin:
 

Clutch

<---Pass
DesertRose said:
Ha, me thinks you might have dug your own metaphorical grave here and jumped in!

If it's exclusionary stuff that makes you crazy - and the environmentalists who are labelling you as "bad" because you ride a machine (pedalled or gas-powered) and want you out of Wildernesses, then aren't you joining them by saying there should be no humans in Wilderness?

The way the wilderness is designated here, the way I look at it, we either learn to share it, or nobody should be allowed in. Kinda like when mum would say "You either place nice, or nobody plays at all"....it is more a political reasoning than anything. I do believe no internal combustion mehcanized vehicles should be allowed in...only human powered machines. Bicycles, boats, hand gliders, etc....hmmm, you ever wonder why rock climbers don't catch heat for being off trail, to get to their climbing routes? I think boats (human powered) are allowed in, not sure I'll have to check. It is the politics around wilderness that drives me nuts. Trail politics makes me want to pull my hair out. What is happening, more and more people are getting outside and using the outdoors for recreation. But, some are very selfish and think their means of enjoying it is the only way. Example are hikers. (I like to hike too), I have been called names, gun jesters pointed at me, stuff thrown at me, just because my way is different. So this hiker wants to kill me, because I am different? So how does that make them better? Hmmm...back to my other thought. Either play nice or close the whole damn thing down. Which I don't want it closing down. Why am I arguing about wilderness? I can't take the KTM or the mountain bike in there anyway.... I don't like that they are trying to turn places that already have organized trail systems into wilderness, just more politics...

The thing that drives me nuts about the global warming/green people, is that they don't practice what they preach. So, I don't think I should have to jump in that metaphorical grave, since what I think wilderness should be deffined as. I don't use wilderness, me not being there is one less human on those lands. I am practicing what I preach.

DesertRose said:
I think excluding people from Wilderness was the first step in destroying them. Granted, I DO think there should be no vehicles, but I think humans should be out there in the wild places, back in the kind of relationship with nature that was more like the beginning.

I see in a tribal sense, humans co-existing along side. Hunter gatherer types...no farms, or grazing cattle, sheep, goats...what ever. Use what only they need. The "raised by wolves" was a bit of sarcasm. :D Should I join the people I hate? Nah, these are just thoughts what I think wilderness "should" be, that's all. It is what it is my mind what pure wilderness should be, is it reality and will it work, I dunno. It is not saying I wouldn't support your efforts. :)

I think people should quit watching sports and actually get off their asses and do something....do I really want that? Ahh...no....the trails would be over crowded then....<<<I hope that helps with my reasoning. ;)

DesertRose said:
In African the animals have been with people since the beginning, and their behavior is so different than here. It's cool to see. People, their cattle, their homes, are right out there in the Wilderness and they are more or less existing right along side each other just fine.

I am assuming you mean the beginning of the human species.

Yeah, I still believe in a true wilderness, humans should be allowed only in a hunter gatherer or nomadic following the heard, sense. Will that ever happen? Probably not...but, I am ok with that. Can you save the wilds without human intervention? I say the answer would be no.

Are we both right? Are we both wrong?....Heck, I don't know Roseann... All I know the we are trying to protect what we are passionate about. Better than sitting on the couch watching shows about crime. ;)

That standing on the edge of the coin is a pain sometimes...:D...all about balance isn't it!?
 
Last edited:

Ursidae69

Traveller
I'm glad my thread spurred some interesting conversation. :) Nice posts. My views are somewhere in the midst of what you both were talking about. We'll all discuss it over some beers and a campfire one of these days.
 

Ruffin' It

Explorer
I don't mind people questioning, or disagreeing with Global Warming - as long as they are truely educated about it in a systemic way and not getting their information from the latest doomsdayer or nay-sayer. Not to point fingers or get holier than thou, but I feel anyone who wants to hold a strong opinion either way on the issue should at least understand basic principles like the Thermal Haline Cycle and it's effects on Northern European climates as well as cocolith populations and the effects of their potential decline, predicted trends of warming AND cooling, as well the predicted northern shift of the American grain belt into Canadian soils (big problem). I'm not singleing anyone out or saying people expressing their opinions here are not educated on the subject. I'm not even saying anyone here is wrong, but just as many people are sick of hearing about it, I am a little sick of people (thinking of a former co-worker right now) who go on and on about how it is all crap but don't really understand it at all (this guy thought that New York having one of the biggest cold-snaps in a really long time was direct evidence against the theory). I have studied it for about 15 years now (including work done while getting an Environmental Science degree) and, from the studies I trust, things are playing out pretty close to predictions (actually a little faster).

I kind of look at it this way; this is all like auto insurance. No one really knows for sure if they are going to be in an accident. There is a chance we will, but there is also a chance we will never be in even so much as a fender bender. But, we buy insurance anway. Why? Because we know that it makes sense to spend a little now to midigate potential disaster in the future. Except in this case, instead of loosing a car or a life, it is possible (I'm not saying certain) that the lack of insurance could result in leaving our children with a world that is difficult to live on.

I will be the first to admit that I am a "better safe than sorry" type of guy though.

I am now exiting my Soapbox and will shutup
 

DesertRose

Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
Ruffin' It said:
I don't mind people questioning, or disagreeing with Global Warming - as long as they are truely educated about it in a systemic way and not getting their information from the latest doomsdayer or nay-sayer. Not to point fingers or get holier than thou, but I feel anyone who wants to hold a strong opinion either way on the issue should at least understand basic principles like the Thermal Haline Cycle and it's effects on Northern European climates as well as cocolith populations and the effects of their potential decline, predicted trends of warming AND cooling, as well the predicted northern shift of the American grain belt into Canadian soils (big problem). I'm not singleing anyone out or saying people expressing their opinions here are not educated on the subject. I'm not even saying anyone here is wrong, but just as many people are sick of hearing about it, I am a little sick of people (thinking of a former co-worker right now) who go on and on about how it is all crap but don't really understand it at all (this guy thought that New York having one of the biggest cold-snaps in a really long time was direct evidence against the theory). I have studied it for about 15 years now (including work done while getting an Environmental Science degree) and, from the studies I trust, things are playing out pretty close to predictions (actually a little faster).

I kind of look at it this way; this is all like auto insurance. No one really knows for sure if they are going to be in an accident. There is a chance we will, but there is also a chance we will never be in even so much as a fender bender. But, we buy insurance anway. Why? Because we know that it makes sense to spend a little now to midigate potential disaster in the future. Except in this case, instead of loosing a car or a life, it is possible (I'm not saying certain) that the lack of insurance could result in leaving our children with a world that is difficult to live on.

I will be the first to admit that I am a "better safe than sorry" type of guy though.

I am now exiting my Soapbox and will shutup

Great soapboxing, thank you!

I agree - I've read a lot, on the science end - and heard lots of the junk, too. Change is happening, that is for sure. I agree we should be safe - that's why I think looking at creative options for financing conservation is worth looking into. I'm not sold on carbon credits by a long shot - but I trust the scientists I work with, and look forward to learning more in the months to come as we research potential ways to link landscape and wildlife conservation with offsetting first-world lifestyle resource use.
 

Ursidae69

Traveller
I came across another carbon offsettng company. This thread was originally about Terra Pass and it spurred some interesting comments.

This company, Sustainable Travel International, has some pretty hefty sponsorship including Continental Airlines and they have vigorous 3rd party verification to ensure that the carbon offset dollars collected are meeting the green agendas set by the United Nations.

http://www.sustainabletravelinternational.org/documents/op_carbonoffsets.html

If someone is well off (unlike me!) and want to feel better about their travel, they can buy these credits which will be used in projects that will directly offset their trip's carbon footprint.

Is it feel-good? Yes, but if the money is used to further greener technologies, it can't be all that bad.
 

DesertRose

Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
Ursidae69 said:
Is it feel-good? Yes, but if the money is used to further greener technologies, it can't be all that bad.

Thank you for the information, Chuck. I agree - I, too, struggle with this but in the end have to try to be practical. The world isn't perfect. We shouldn't expect things to be. We can only try to make a difference in some small way, and not sweat the big stuff too much.
 

windy

Observer
After being buried in my mid-term exam preparations for the last several days, I've come up for some coffee and a little EP Forum air.:peepwall: This thread is wonderfully juicy and I'm delighted by such educated and well reasoned insights.:clapsmile

There's a word I'm frequently noshing on and I would your thoughts on it.

Anthropocentrism

Whether it is intentional or not, it has quite a bit of baring on the approach of our culture toward life and everything in it. The "Green" issue is really about anthropocentrism for most people. For those of us involved in conservation or sustainability, it might not be, indeed probably isn't. But either way, it seems to shade everyone's approach to life in some way.
 
Last edited:

DesertRose

Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
windy said:
After being buried in my mid-term exam preparations for the last several days, I've come up for some coffee and a little EP Forum air.:peepwall: This thread is wonderfully juicy and I'm delighted by such educated and well reasoned insights.:clapsmile

There's a word I'm frequently noshing on and I would your thoughts on it.

Anthropocentrism

Whether it is intentional or not, it has quite a bit of baring on the approach of our culture toward life and everything in it. The "Green" issue is really about anthropocentrism for most people. For those of us involved in conservation or sustainability, it might not be, indeed probably isn't. But either way, it seems to shade everyone's approach to life in some way.

Hmm, good subject to nosh on, Windy.

The textbook definition means regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, over God or animals.

But in generalities, it can mean putting humans first.

Some musings here . . . sort of themed on anthropentrism . . .

One of the things that has driven me to community-based, sustainable conservation is what I think of as the urban-view of conservation. So many "pure environmentalists" I've worked with over the past 20 years have what amounts to a well-meaning but ultimately selfish approach to conservation: that Nature (capitalization intended) is some sort of pure place that they nearly worship . . . in doing so they perpetuate the myth of "balance of Nature" and that man's interactions with nature can only be bad. That we are separate from nature, and should only "take only photographs, leave only footprints."

I find this view to be dangerous. It removes us from where we came from - humans came from Wilderness. I believe that's why so many of us love nature and crave wide open, quiet spaces and feel revived when we visit them. Why we're drawn to places such as Africa or the jungles of South America or the Arctic.

Pragmatic people want to do something to help . . . TerraPass and carbon credits are one way, and I don't think that's bad. In fact, I think it's better than the "lock it up" approach to conservation - creating more parks where humans are merely visitors and animals are in a confined area ringed with urban development . . . amounting to vast zoos, really.

To me the best approach is a compromise - encouraging "working wilderness" approach to conservation, where people are part of the landscape ad conservation can happen at a sustainable level. Parks do play a part as "core" areas for refuge and breeding . . . but they are not the only way.

Perhaps this is ego-centric rather than anthropocentric - but it's in the same vein. Anthropocentric can be at both extremes: putting humans first meaning we dominate over everything no matter what cost to the environment, or putting humans first to the benefit of the environment.

I went way off and around topic, but it's a good thing to mull over.
 

DesertRose

Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
More views on athropocentrism

Windy's post about anthropocentrism got me to thinking more on this . . . and I just found this interesting essay from a Mennonite cookbook (not only great recipes, but lots of stories and essays from around the world). This suggests that culture, land, and people are inextricably tied together, rather than one holding dominion over another.

I find the quote on Christian views of anthropocentric nature to be very thought-provoking!

Caring for the Earth . . . Caring for One Another

An essay from Extending the Table (by Joetta Handrich Schalbach, Mennonite Central Committee , 1991)

"I was brought up to respect everything that was on the earth, "to the smallest grain of sand," my mom used to say, to those trees there, to the smallest insect, to the big bears that we have here.

My first lesson in life was respect for those things; to be thankful when I got any food from the sea, to thank the sea and the fish for giving me life, to never take for granted anything that I received.

But when logging companies look at trees, they see only dollar signs. Many of them do clear-cut logging-not one tree left on top of the mountain. So with the rain we get here, there is flood after flood, taking all the soil. So what's left is going to be bare rock.

We were put here as caretakers of this land. Our forefathers took good care of this land for thousands of years, without harming it. Now in less than 150 years, there's been so much irreparable damage that Telanzuin Island will never be revived. And if there is nothing left on this island, there's going to be nothing left of us. If you don't have a land, you don't have a culture and you don't have a people."

- Diane Brown, Haida Indian

Land, culture, and people -- they are intimately connected. If you respect one, you will nurture all three. But remove, change, or destroy any one, and the others will change in like manner.

Grave social problems facing many North American native communities today stem directly from nation-building activities that forced native peoples onto reserves, stripped away their traditional occupations, and restricted their hunting activities and access to sacred lands.

Current consequences of actions a century earlier provide strong evidence of the ecological, or interrelated, nature of life.

Despite enormous cultural loss, voices from within the native communities continue to express the deep philosophical understanding of their ancestors: The earth is sacred. All living things are interrelated.

In recent years interest in environmental issues has mushroomed on every continent. Members of quiet farm communities in Canada and the United States work to solve the problem of groundwater contamination while urban counterparts seek alternatives to overflowing landfills. Citizens in newly autonomous countries in Central Europe want to clean the air and rivers of their industrial cities. Brazilian rubber-tappers are organizing themselves against encroaching development schemes that threaten the life of the rainforests. In Africa, many people are working to slow the growth of the deserts.

To heal the scars of a raped earth, and to permanently restore and protect it, requires that we stop and examine the values and lifestyles that led to the environmental crisis. Why did we abuse creation in the first place?

Wesley Granberg-Michaelson attempts to answer this question in his book, A Worldly Spirituality. 2 He quotes from the letter of a friend living on the Lakota Indian reservation in South Dakota:

When most Christians talk about being good stewards of the earth, what they have in mind is something like this: We conserve resources so we can use them in the future, and we conserve some wildlife areas so we can admire and enjoy their beauty. I don't think this is biblically sound because both of these ideas are still caught up in human idolatry.

. . . The creation exists for the welfare of the human race is this thinking. I don't believe that. I think we all are part of the entire creation, with our own unique roles, and we exist for God.

. . . We are all in relationship with one another because we are all in relationship with God . . . The Lakota people have an elaborate kinship system (including) the earth, who is your grandmother, the sky and eagle, who are your brothers. When you think circular like this, you place prime importance on right and proper relationships. You don't abuse or use your relatives, human or otherwise."

Despite expanded systems of knowledge, communication, and transportation, many individuals and communities run the risk of losing their personal connections to the earth and to their global neighbors. Too busy to garden and too transient to tend an orchard, most of us buy fruits and vegetables from the supermarket. The colorful displays of produce represent various countries and geographical regions, but we have little way of knowing who cultivated and harvested the produce, or what their working and living conditions ate.

The stories in this section highlight our important relationships with the earth and with neighbors. We will meet people who suffer because of destructive forces in those relationships. We will find others working to develop more constructive partnerships with the earth, and to reinforce community relationships. They encourage us to redouble our efforts at caring for the earth and caring for one another.




Notes:
1 - From a discussion with Leona Dueck Penner during the Jan-Feb 1986 blockade against logging companies on Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, from Mennonite Reporter (Jan 1990), p. 12.

2 - Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, A Worldly Spirituality: The Call to Take Care of the Earth (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), p. 28.​
 

Photog

Explorer
CO2, CO2. Hmmm. Our green plants seem to like this stuff. It is heavier than air, and settles to the ground (good thing, since that is where the plants are). I don't see how it could climb into the upper atmosphere, and cause a greenhouse problem. Explain how this happens, and I will get over this point.

Now, on to CO2 credits and liberty thieves.

If we really want to make a dent in the worldwide CO2 pollution problem, we need to start with the areas that would be easiest to curtail. It is possible that the USA is the country that produces the most CO2 (not sure), but there are also 350 million people here, scattered far and wide. We also have the EPA and CARB to keep our emissions to a minimum. If we could get the rest of the folks on the planet, to control their emissions as well as we do (known technologies), we would be able to make the single largest impact on the overall CO2 emissions.

When the rest of the world has their poop-in-a-group, then come back and see if we can or need to make more improvements.

The USA is not the only CO2 producer on the planet. And by the way, we are not evil either, just because we drive a car or FJ80 or ???

Wow, that rant felt soooo good. :) :wings:
I think I need to BBQ some steaks, while I still can!!:chowtime:
 
Last edited:

Ursidae69

Traveller
Nice off topic rant......

This thread isn't about saying our country is evil or FJ80s are bad. The point of the thread was to ask opinions on carbon credits. People can do 3 things to help reduce CO2 worldwide 1) nothing 2) reduce their impacts 3) do not reduce their impacts, but instead offset their impacts by funding clean initiatives.

So what is your opinion on number 3 Photog? If you worked for a company developing cutting edge solar technologies, would you turn down funding from places like Terra Pass or STI because it is a form of liberty thievery???



Photog said:
CO2, CO2. Hmmm. Our green plants seem to like this stuff. It is heavier than air, and settles to the ground (good thing, since that is where the plants are). I don't see how it could climb into the upper atmosphere, and cause a greenhouse problem. Explain how this happens, and I will get over this point.

Now, on to CO2 credits and liberty thieves.

If we really want to make a dent in the worldwide CO2 pollution problem, we need to start with the areas that would be easiest to curtail. It is possible that the USA is the country that produces the most CO2 (not sure), but there are also 350 million people here, scattered far and wide. We also have the EPA and CARB to keep our emissions to a minimum. If we could get the rest of the folks on the planet, to control their emissions as well as we do (known technologies), we would be able to make the single largest impact on the overall CO2 emissions.

When the rest of the world has their poop-in-a-group, then come back and see if we can or need to make more improvements.

The USA is not the only CO2 producer on the planet. And by the way, we are not evil either, just because we drive a car or FJ80 or ???

Wow, that rant felt soooo good. :) :wings:
I think I need to BBQ some steaks, while I still can!!:chowtime:
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
188,421
Messages
2,904,560
Members
230,348
Latest member
11r514x4
Top