If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Oil/location report...
There are now a few very small signs of the oil on the MS beaches (but nothing
like what the media seems to be suggesting) and it is in some areas of the Louisiana marshes, with some small areas having some pretty thick slop. Most of the "national" coverage I've seen is incredibly misleading as the scope. While there is a lot of "federal" water closed in the Gulf immediately south of LA-MS-AL, the fishing in state waters for specs, reds, etc. has been good. MS opened the shrimp up Thursday, and with a friend's Lafitte skiff, we got about 400 pounds of what we call "boilers" - ranging from about 40-50s to about 26-30s. There were no signs of the spill of any kind seen by anyone we spoke with, but the boats were all in the Sound, not in the Gulf. For those that don't know the area, there really aren't what most would call "bathing beaches" in any of the area of La. that are currently in the "spill effect zone." The "beach" basically starts on the Mississippi barrier islands and on the coast of the MS Sound (at about Waveland/Bay St. Louis). Because of the Sound, there is no "clear green" water in MS, except for on the Gulf sides of the barrier islands. That begins at about Dauphin Island, AL and continues to east into Florida. Thus far, while there is no way to determine what the full effects will be, even once they manage to stop the output, it doesn't appear to be as bad as it could be. Folks down here are split pretty evenly between those who are cautiously optimistic and those who have watched a lil' too much CNN and are panic-stricken. One of the guys on the shrimping trip is a knowledgeable fisherman who has lived all his life down here and is convinced that life as "we" know it down here is finished forever. OTOH, another, also a life-long resident, is among the cautiously optimistic. I've heard from NOAA people that assuming the worst (reasonable) case, the bulk of the practical effects upon marine life should be healed within 3-6 years, but that there is, thankfully, no real danger at this point of any permanent species damage. One analogy I've heard is comparing it to a highly-localized deadly-disease epidemic - it's a really bad thing for those species members directly infected, but for humans as a species, it isn't threatening. Thus far, there is little to no visual effects on the MS, AL and FL beaches to speak of. A few "tar balls" have washed up, but some are from natural seepage. Thankfully, the reports on wildlife have been fairly good. The latest report indicated that something like 300 birds have found with "visible oiling." About 250 alive and 50 dead, but there were something 150 found dead with no signs of oiling, and IIRC, all but just a VERY few were natural deaths. The turtles have faired at least as well. Of course, the "downrange" effects of this are unknown and from I've heard, aren't even really predictable. The lawyer advertising has gotten beyond ridiculous - full page ads, commercials around the clock on every channel, etc. and unfortunately, a fair number of folks seem ready to latch on to any loose teet, ala the Katrina aftermath. One of the topics of conversation is what this will cost the taxpayers, separate and apart from the actual clean-up and actual damage cost. For example, if tourists don't come to this area because of fears "stoked" by the media rather than actual effects of the spill, who pays, if anyone? And some of the requests to BP are beyond the pale - one local tourism board asked BP for 7.5 mil USD _a month_, to last until 3 years after the spill is fully cleaned up, for advertising (with a projection that it would be at least 350 mil). I'd also heard that certain members had suggested a straight "trust" setup with BP paying a flat 250 mil. The organization's budget before the spill was something like 500k a month. Anyway, for those that are interested, there are lots of maps, reports, etc. collected and consolidated he www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com And if anyone was planning a trip anywhere down this way, or know anyone who is, I'd offer that they need to ignore sources like CNN, etc. and find out exactly what effects, if any, the area of the visit is actually experiencing. Thus far, about the only thing "tourist-y" truly affected is any fishing plans in federal waters. The local coverage is almost surreal - teams in Tyvek suits scouring the beaches while folks swim and frolic in the background: http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/top_s...vid_8800.shtml TC, R |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Oil/location report...
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Oil/location report...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: don't worry, be happy snipped This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill on your location to give you a better sense of the scale. http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ While it is interesting, it gives a completely distorted picture of the actual conditions. For example, most of the "Exxon Valdez" type pictures shown in the media are _for the most part_ concentrated in the area around Grand Isle, LA (including the oft-published bird pics from Grand Terre linked to at the above site) whereas the beach in the videos I've posted are Dauphin Island and the Pensacola-Orange Beach-Gulf Shores areas, yet the "overlay" includes both areas with no readily-visible effects and those that do have "oil spill" on/at shore (thankfully, small areas thus far). My issue with the bulk of the "non-local" reporting is that it totally distorts the conditions, and in doing so, causes decisions to be made on HIGHLY inaccurate information, which then causes "damage" where none would have existed. For example, if someone had planned to bring their family for a week at Orange Beach last week and cancelled thinking they would be covered in oil, that "damaged" the local economy. And it wasn't BP's "fault" because there was no oil there (although if there hadn't been a spill, there would have been no such reporting, however inaccurate, so...). This type of thing went on after Katrina, and it cost the US taxpayers billions, much of it wasted. And it created a mindset, both here and in the world from which it will be hard to recover, esp. if the spill reenforces it. And I hold both major US parties to partial (and equal) account for politicizing it. Obama doesn't need "to get angry," in fact, just the opposite. He needs to tend to other matters - this isn't his fault, there is nothing he can personally do "on the ground," and so, he should calmly wait to see what is what. If he needs to flex some POTUS muscle in the future, fine, but now it should be "calm and rational analysis" of the situation as it develops. If he does somehow get blamed for some alleged "mis-response" in the immediate aftermath, it'll be just as wrong as having blamed Bush for the same post-Katrina. And I'll say this for the record - any pol (or surrogate thereof) blaming him personally for any of this _thus far_ is plain, flat-out wrong and is, IMO, being dishonest. Thus far, I'd defend him just as strongly as I defended Bush post-Katrina. Obviously, this is a very complex issue on many fronts, from ecological impact to legal aspects, but unless utmost accuracy in reporting prevails, the impact could and likely will be artificially "enhanced" exponentially. TC, R |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Oil/location report...
On Jun 7, 5:03*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: don't worry, be happy snipped This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill on your location to give you a better sense of the scale. http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ -- Ken Fortenberry Oh well. Will you wake me when Mr Predictable gets to that point where he "blames the Black Guy" OK? Or maybe when he starts up with the "Special Secret Sauce Sources" known only to the Skull and Bones wannabees, and the "Three drinks over the line" right-wing whack job men's chorus line? Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Oil/location report...
DaveS wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: don't worry, be happy snipped This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill on your location to give you a better sense of the scale. http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ Oh well. Will you wake me when Mr Predictable gets to that point where he "blames the Black Guy" OK? Or maybe when he starts up with the "Special Secret Sauce Sources" known only to the Skull and Bones wannabees, and the "Three drinks over the line" right-wing whack job men's chorus line? LOL ! Yeah, if anybody was going to post an "oil spill, what oil spill ?" to roff you had to figure it was gonna be rdean. -- Ken Fortenberry |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Oil/location report...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: don't worry, be happy snipped This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill on your location to give you a better sense of the scale. http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ I played around with the "Move the spill" at the site, and here's something, well, "mildly interesting." If you put New York in the text box and center it there, the area with the real effects would be the portion along the line from Scranton to Altoona, but little, if any, anywhere else _on the coastal areas_ down here. But what we are seeing thus far, for example, would be like if there were oil washing up from Coney Island to maybe JFK, but little to none on the rest of Long Island (or say, if it were the Chesapeake, it would be from about Annapolis to Baltimore, but little else). Of course, there is still more "at sea" but some portion of that is being collected as well as treated, so it's impossible to say what the final results will be. The bottom line is that sites like this one give an _COMPLETELY_ inaccurate picture of the situation - again, from looking at this, one might believe that Dauphin Island and Grand Isle are being equally affected, whereas in fact, Grand Isle is seeing some areas of fairly heavy oiling and Dauphin Island relatively none. Moreover, according to map there, there is oil some 10 miles inland (the southern edge of Foley, AL, is supposedly "oiled."). And there is other misleading info contained the From the site: "...29 dolphins have been found dead within the spill area..." The facts from NOAA: "From April 30 to June 5, 31 dead dolphins have stranded within the designated spill area and two live dolphins have stranded. One died on the beach and another that stranded in Florida was euthanized. So far, one of the 33 stranded dolphins had evidence of external oil. Because it was found on an oiled beach, we are unable at this time to determine whether the animal was covered in oil prior to its death or after its death. The other 32 dolphins have had no visible evidence of external oil. Since April 30, the stranding rate for dolphins in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama has been higher than the historic numbers for the same time period in previous years. In part, this may be due to increased detection and reporting and the lingering effects of an earlier observed spike in strandings for the winter of 2010. A stranding is defined as a dead or debilitated animal that washes ashore or is found in the water." For those that don't know, dead dolphins "in the spill area" this time of the year are found every year and as the report notes, there was a spike prior to the spill (there were something like 60 found in the "spill area" in March). Also, since there are a exponentially larger number of people in the area, the recovery rate of dead wildlife has increased, but some number of natural mortality is expected - whether the increased number of folks looking and finding is skewing the numbers is thus far unknown. Again, I'm not now nor have I ever suggested that this is a good thing, but if reason and rationality is lost, it will be _made_ all the worse. I've heard folks, mainly on the right, but some on the left, suggest that this will be "Obama's Katrina." While I don't agree with that, I do think it would be a great time for him to not "get angry," but rather, use the calm, rational, reasonable intellect he is alleged to possess and make a wide public call for rational and above all, extremely accurate reporting, publicly denouncing any attempts at, um, "skewing." A good, solid Presidential bitch-slapping to anyone in his party who attempts to politicize this, along with a call upon the GOP to do the same, would also be in order. TC, R |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Oil/location report...
On Jun 6, 10:37*pm, wrote:
There are now a few very small signs of the oil on the MS beaches (but nothing like what the media seems to be suggesting) and it is in some areas of the Louisiana marshes, with some small areas having some pretty thick slop. *Most of the "national" coverage I've seen is incredibly misleading as the scope. While there is a lot of "federal" water closed in the Gulf immediately south of LA-MS-AL, the fishing in state waters for specs, reds, etc. has been good.. *MS opened the shrimp up Thursday, and with a friend's Lafitte skiff, we got about 400 pounds of what we call "boilers" - ranging from about 40-50s to about 26-30s. *There were no signs of the spill of any kind seen by anyone we spoke with, but the boats were all in the Sound, not in the Gulf. For those that don't know the area, there really aren't what most would call "bathing beaches" in any of the area of La. that are currently in the "spill effect zone." The "beach" basically starts on the Mississippi barrier islands and on the coast of the MS Sound (at about Waveland/Bay St. Louis). *Because of the Sound, there is no "clear green" water in MS, except for on the Gulf sides of the barrier islands. *That begins at about Dauphin Island, AL and continues to east into Florida. * Thus far, while there is no way to determine what the full effects will be, even once they manage to stop the output, it doesn't appear to be as bad as it could be. *Folks down here are split pretty evenly between those who are cautiously optimistic and those who have watched a lil' too much CNN and are panic-stricken. *One of the guys on the shrimping trip is a knowledgeable fisherman who has lived all his life down here and is convinced that life as "we" know it down here is finished forever. *OTOH, another, also a life-long resident, is among the cautiously optimistic. *I've heard from NOAA people that assuming the worst (reasonable) case, the bulk of the practical effects upon marine life should be healed within 3-6 years, but that there is, thankfully, no real danger at this point of any permanent species damage. *One analogy I've heard is comparing it to a highly-localized deadly-disease epidemic - it's a really bad thing for those species members directly infected, but for humans as a species, it isn't threatening. Thus far, there is little to no visual effects on the MS, AL and FL beaches to speak of. *A few "tar balls" have washed up, but some are from natural seepage. Thankfully, the reports on wildlife have been fairly good. *The latest report indicated that something like 300 birds have found with "visible oiling." *About 250 alive and 50 dead, but there were something 150 found dead with no signs of oiling, and IIRC, all but just a VERY few were natural deaths. *The turtles have faired at least as well. *Of course, the "downrange" effects of this are unknown and from I've heard, aren't even really predictable. * The lawyer advertising has gotten beyond ridiculous - full page ads, commercials around the clock on every channel, etc. and unfortunately, a fair number of folks seem ready to latch on to any loose teet, ala the Katrina aftermath.. *One of the topics of conversation is what this will cost the taxpayers, separate and apart from the actual clean-up and actual damage cost. *For example, if tourists don't come to this area because of fears "stoked" by the media rather than actual effects of the spill, who pays, if anyone? *And some of the requests to BP are beyond the pale - one local tourism board asked BP for 7.5 mil USD _a month_, to last until 3 years after the spill is fully cleaned up, for advertising (with a projection that it would be at least 350 mil). *I'd also heard that certain members had suggested a straight "trust" setup with BP paying a flat 250 mil. *The organization's budget before the spill was something like 500k a month. Anyway, for those that are interested, there are lots of maps, reports, etc. collected and consolidated he www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com And if anyone was planning a trip anywhere down this way, or know anyone who is, I'd offer that they need to ignore sources like CNN, etc. and find out exactly what effects, if any, the area of the visit is actually experiencing. *Thus far, about the only thing "tourist-y" truly affected is any fishing plans in federal waters. *The local coverage is almost surreal - teams in Tyvek suits scouring the beaches while folks swim and frolic in the background: http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/top_s...vid_8800.shtml TC, R JUST when you think the absolute depths of abject stupidity have been plumbed........ g. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Oil/location report...
On Jun 7, 5:49*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: don't worry, be happy snipped This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill on your location to give you a better sense of the scale. http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ I played around with the "Move the spill" at the site, and here's something, well, "mildly interesting." *If you put New York in the text box and center it there, the area with the real effects would be the portion along the line from Scranton to Altoona, but little, if any, anywhere else _on the coastal areas_ down here. *But what we are seeing thus far, for example, would be like if there were oil washing up from Coney Island to maybe JFK, but little to none on the rest of Long Island (or say, if it were the Chesapeake, it would be from about Annapolis to Baltimore, but little else). *Of course, there is still more "at sea" but some portion of that is being collected as well as treated, so it's impossible to say what the final results will be. The bottom line is that sites like this one give an _COMPLETELY_ inaccurate picture of the situation - again, from looking at this, one might believe that Dauphin Island and Grand Isle are being equally affected, whereas in fact, Grand Isle is seeing some areas of fairly heavy oiling and Dauphin Island relatively none. *Moreover, according to map there, there is oil some 10 miles inland (the southern edge of Foley, AL, is supposedly "oiled."). *And there is other misleading info contained the From the site: "...29 dolphins have been found dead within the spill area..." The facts from NOAA: "From April 30 to June 5, 31 dead dolphins have stranded within the designated spill area and two live dolphins have stranded. One died on the beach and another that stranded in Florida was euthanized. So far, one of the 33 stranded dolphins had evidence of external oil. Because it was found on an oiled beach, we are unable at this time to determine whether the animal was covered in oil prior to its death or after its death. The other 32 dolphins have had no visible evidence of external oil. Since April 30, the stranding rate for dolphins in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama has been higher than the historic numbers for the same time period in previous years. In part, this may be due to increased detection and reporting and the lingering effects of an earlier observed spike in strandings for the winter of 2010. A stranding is defined as a dead or debilitated animal that washes ashore or is found in the water." For those that don't know, dead dolphins "in the spill area" this time of the year are found every year and as the report notes, there was a spike prior to the spill (there were something like 60 found in the "spill area" in March). Also, since there are a exponentially larger number of people in the area, the recovery rate of dead wildlife has increased, but some number of natural mortality is expected - whether the increased number of folks looking and finding is skewing the numbers is thus far unknown. Again, I'm not now nor have I ever suggested that this is a good thing, but if reason and rationality is lost, it will be _made_ all the worse. *I've heard folks, mainly on the right, but some on the left, suggest that this will be "Obama's Katrina." *While I don't agree with that, I do think it would be a great time for him to not "get angry," but rather, use the calm, rational, reasonable intellect he is alleged to possess and make a wide public call for rational and above all, extremely accurate reporting, publicly denouncing any attempts at, um, "skewing." *A good, solid Presidential bitch-slapping to anyone in his party who attempts to politicize this, along with a call upon the GOP to do the same, would also be in order. * TC, R It's a gift to be simple. g. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Oil/location report...
On Jun 7, 3:49*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: don't worry, be happy snipped This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill on your location to give you a better sense of the scale. http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ I played around with the "Move the spill" at the site, and here's something, well, "mildly interesting." *If you put New York in the text box and center it there, the area with the real effects would be the portion along the line from Scranton to Altoona, but little, if any, anywhere else _on the coastal areas_ down here. *But what we are seeing thus far, for example, would be like if there were oil washing up from Coney Island to maybe JFK, but little to none on the rest of Long Island (or say, if it were the Chesapeake, it would be from about Annapolis to Baltimore, but little else). *Of course, there is still more "at sea" but some portion of that is being collected as well as treated, so it's impossible to say what the final results will be. The bottom line is that sites like this one give an _COMPLETELY_ inaccurate picture of the situation - again, from looking at this, one might believe that Dauphin Island and Grand Isle are being equally affected, whereas in fact, Grand Isle is seeing some areas of fairly heavy oiling and Dauphin Island relatively none. *Moreover, according to map there, there is oil some 10 miles inland (the southern edge of Foley, AL, is supposedly "oiled."). *And there is other misleading info contained the From the site: "...29 dolphins have been found dead within the spill area..." The facts from NOAA: "From April 30 to June 5, 31 dead dolphins have stranded within the designated spill area and two live dolphins have stranded. One died on the beach and another that stranded in Florida was euthanized. So far, one of the 33 stranded dolphins had evidence of external oil. Because it was found on an oiled beach, we are unable at this time to determine whether the animal was covered in oil prior to its death or after its death. The other 32 dolphins have had no visible evidence of external oil. Since April 30, the stranding rate for dolphins in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama has been higher than the historic numbers for the same time period in previous years. In part, this may be due to increased detection and reporting and the lingering effects of an earlier observed spike in strandings for the winter of 2010. A stranding is defined as a dead or debilitated animal that washes ashore or is found in the water." For those that don't know, dead dolphins "in the spill area" this time of the year are found every year and as the report notes, there was a spike prior to the spill (there were something like 60 found in the "spill area" in March). Also, since there are a exponentially larger number of people in the area, the recovery rate of dead wildlife has increased, but some number of natural mortality is expected - whether the increased number of folks looking and finding is skewing the numbers is thus far unknown. Again, I'm not now nor have I ever suggested that this is a good thing, but if reason and rationality is lost, it will be _made_ all the worse. *I've heard folks, mainly on the right, but some on the left, suggest that this will be "Obama's Katrina." *While I don't agree with that, I do think it would be a great time for him to not "get angry," but rather, use the calm, rational, reasonable intellect he is alleged to possess and make a wide public call for rational and above all, extremely accurate reporting, publicly denouncing any attempts at, um, "skewing." *A good, solid Presidential bitch-slapping to anyone in his party who attempts to politicize this, along with a call upon the GOP to do the same, would also be in order. * TC, R Oh bull****. All the asshole/irresponsible Southern rich-clown money that has been poured into wrecking the Republican moderates has left the Gulf Coast with a Congressional representation of mental midgets. ALL of them are blaming Obama and they are exactly the radical whackjob crowd you've supported. And now, the beneficent Richard, self assessed master manipulator of Orwell speak, offers up his denial/media conspiracy theory, wrapped in an un-needed "pardon" for Obama. Right. More ****en into the wind. How's that horse pucky about the bio-safe dispersants worken for ya? Given up on that canard have ya? Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Oil/location report...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:09:58 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:49*pm, wrote: On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: don't worry, be happy snipped This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill on your location to give you a better sense of the scale. http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ I played around with the "Move the spill" at the site, and here's something, well, "mildly interesting." *If you put New York in the text box and center it there, the area with the real effects would be the portion along the line from Scranton to Altoona, but little, if any, anywhere else _on the coastal areas_ down here. *But what we are seeing thus far, for example, would be like if there were oil washing up from Coney Island to maybe JFK, but little to none on the rest of Long Island (or say, if it were the Chesapeake, it would be from about Annapolis to Baltimore, but little else). *Of course, there is still more "at sea" but some portion of that is being collected as well as treated, so it's impossible to say what the final results will be. The bottom line is that sites like this one give an _COMPLETELY_ inaccurate picture of the situation - again, from looking at this, one might believe that Dauphin Island and Grand Isle are being equally affected, whereas in fact, Grand Isle is seeing some areas of fairly heavy oiling and Dauphin Island relatively none. *Moreover, according to map there, there is oil some 10 miles inland (the southern edge of Foley, AL, is supposedly "oiled."). *And there is other misleading info contained the From the site: "...29 dolphins have been found dead within the spill area..." The facts from NOAA: "From April 30 to June 5, 31 dead dolphins have stranded within the designated spill area and two live dolphins have stranded. One died on the beach and another that stranded in Florida was euthanized. So far, one of the 33 stranded dolphins had evidence of external oil. Because it was found on an oiled beach, we are unable at this time to determine whether the animal was covered in oil prior to its death or after its death. The other 32 dolphins have had no visible evidence of external oil. Since April 30, the stranding rate for dolphins in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama has been higher than the historic numbers for the same time period in previous years. In part, this may be due to increased detection and reporting and the lingering effects of an earlier observed spike in strandings for the winter of 2010. A stranding is defined as a dead or debilitated animal that washes ashore or is found in the water." For those that don't know, dead dolphins "in the spill area" this time of the year are found every year and as the report notes, there was a spike prior to the spill (there were something like 60 found in the "spill area" in March). Also, since there are a exponentially larger number of people in the area, the recovery rate of dead wildlife has increased, but some number of natural mortality is expected - whether the increased number of folks looking and finding is skewing the numbers is thus far unknown. Again, I'm not now nor have I ever suggested that this is a good thing, but if reason and rationality is lost, it will be _made_ all the worse. *I've heard folks, mainly on the right, but some on the left, suggest that this will be "Obama's Katrina." *While I don't agree with that, I do think it would be a great time for him to not "get angry," but rather, use the calm, rational, reasonable intellect he is alleged to possess and make a wide public call for rational and above all, extremely accurate reporting, publicly denouncing any attempts at, um, "skewing." *A good, solid Presidential bitch-slapping to anyone in his party who attempts to politicize this, along with a call upon the GOP to do the same, would also be in order. * TC, R Oh bull****. All the asshole/irresponsible Southern rich-clown money that has been poured into wrecking the Republican moderates has left the Gulf Coast with a Congressional representation of mental midgets. ALL of them are blaming Obama and they are exactly the radical whackjob crowd you've supported. And now, the beneficent Richard, self assessed master manipulator of Orwell speak, offers up his denial/media conspiracy theory, wrapped in an un-needed "pardon" for Obama. Right. More ****en into the wind. How's that horse pucky about the bio-safe dispersants worken for ya? Given up on that canard have ya? Dave Well, he might need it now, after making an ass of himself on "Today" this morning...he looked like Fred Armisen trying to do a Damon Wayans' bit...or you doing someone who knows what they are talking about... HTH, R ....I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Location of Humminbird GPS | Knot@Work | Bass Fishing | 1 | June 3rd, 2008 02:07 AM |
Charter & FAQ Location | Dan, danl, Redbeard uh Greybeard now | Bass Fishing | 8 | July 27th, 2006 04:10 AM |
Subject: Location, location, location!!! Remote (near "Rapid River") Maine Fly-fishing/Hunting camp for... | Mike | Fly Fishing | 0 | March 27th, 2004 09:44 PM |
Location, location, location!!! Remote Maine Fly-fishing/Hunting camp for... | Mike | Marketplace | 0 | March 27th, 2004 09:18 PM |
LOCATION | Rabbi | Fishing in Canada | 1 | February 17th, 2004 04:17 PM |