nakhonsi sean

As some of you know, my wife's restaurant has a small collection of books for people to borrow. We rely on donations for our stock. However, the number of books being ''borrowed'' far exceeds the number donated! The collection is rapidly dwindling and I have moved the books upstairs until can create some book shelves and a management system.

I, like many others in Nakhon, find it hard to come by books, I rarely go out of the place and shun the tourist destinations where one can obtain English books. I have been giving the problem some thought and have an idea for a ''Foreign Language Community Library". The number of books in the restaurant at present is not great and relying only on donations will never amount to much. I feel something must be done to expand the library. Here are my thoughts.

I would like to issue a card entitling the holder to withdraw one book. A deposit of B150 would be charged, returnable on the return of the card and any book withdrawn on the card. Anyone donating 5 books would get a free card. If one did not return the card the deposit would be lost.

A charge of B15-25 would be made on each withdrawel. This would pay for the materials needed to run the system.

I would expect some to lose or keep the books they have borrowed. I would also expect there to be a profit for the library on the withdrawel charge. These profits would then be used to buy more seconhand books for the library.

With this system in place, with donations and purchases of books I think we could expect the library to grow.

Your thoughts please

Sean

I think the idea has always been to lend them to friends and share the word, so to speak, rather than try to make a profit from it. Sean's little library is great as it is (bring a book and swap it), and you can always have a cup of tea there...

Up to know people have been free to borrow books when they wish on trust that they will return them. This has not been happening and the selection of books has dwindled remarkably. I would like to keep this little 'library' going for the community, however there will soon be no books as people are not returning them. While I make no claim on the books themselves, I am going to insist in future that people leave a book for each book they take out.

Any donations would be most welcome to re-stock the shelves. Should, in the future, I leave Nakhon I will pass on the books to someone else interested in running this service.

I believe Snowflake was an army cook in his past life

My problem with doing xmas dinner in the restaurant is that I will be on a school trip to Chiang Mai that week. I had thought of doing it but they brought forward the trip by six weeks! If Snowflake or someone else is interested in helping/teaching my wife I am sure it could be arranged. Have been thinking of sorting out a new years dinner but need to know others thoughts on that.

I'm selling my 95 octane burner, and thinking about getting a diesel Mercedes.

The last time I saw one at a used car lot I was told the car burned "oil", not diesel. Only newer ones here are diesel, said the salesman.

So, I'm wondering which models and years to start with in my search. For the purposes of this question, the older the better, all Merc models.

Thanks!

Any experience with biodiesel here in Thailand?

Depends on what your definition of older is? Diesel mercs from the mid eighties to late nineties are extremely rare. You either find the newer crop of diesels or the older with of course a massive price differential! I have a 1977 W123 300D (early model). Fantastic car, has over 600,000 on the clock and still going strong. The way this car has stood up to 30 years of abuse is amazing. Would highly recommend one if you are not a sporty driver. Also been very economical. They can be bought from 120,000 - 200,000 depending on condition.

I'm selling my 95 octane burner, and thinking about getting a diesel Mercedes.

The last time I saw one at a used car lot I was told the car burned "oil", not diesel. Only newer ones here are diesel, said the salesman.

So, I'm wondering which models and years to start with in my search. For the purposes of this question, the older the better, all Merc models.

Thanks!

Any experience with biodiesel here in Thailand?

Depends on what your definition of older is? Diesel mercs from the mid eighties to late nineties are extremely rare. You either find the newer crop of diesels or the older with of course a massive price differential! I have a 1977 W123 300D (early model). Fantastic car, has over 600,000 on the clock and still going strong. The way this car has stood up to 30 years of abuse is amazing. Would highly recommend one if you are not a sporty driver. Also been very economical. They can be bought from 120,000 - 200,000 depending on condition.

Spee Posted Today, 2007-11-14 15:13:28

Please forgive me. I didn't know that the Ice Age coming and going due to massive global cooling and massive global warming before the age of men was inaccurate, unintelligent, ignorant conspiratorial propaganda. Perhaps you have a more accurate explanation.

Here is a paper backing your claim with an explanation of one of the causes.

Shaviv & Veizer

From realclimate:

"Shaviv and Veizer (2003) published a paper in the journal GSA Today, where the authors claimed to establish a correlation between cosmic ray flux (CRF) and temperature evolution over hundreds of millions of years, concluding that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide was much smaller than currently accepted. The paper was accompanied by a press release entitled “Global Warming not a Man-made Phenomenon", in which Shaviv was quoted as stating,“The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man”. However, in the paper the authors actually stated that "our conclusion about the dominance of the CRF over climate variability is valid only on multimillion-year time scales". Unsurprisingly, there was a public relations offensive using the seriously flawed conclusions expressed in the press release to once again try to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are influencing climate. These claims were subsequently disputed in an article in Eos (Rahmstorf et al, 2004) by an international team of scientists and geologists (these scientists came from the Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Department of Earth and Planetary Science, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, USA; Department of Space Research and Planetology, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Pierre Simon Laplace Institute, University of Versailles, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France; Institute of Physics, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany; Swiss Forum for Climate and Global Change, Swiss Academy of Sciences, Bern, Switzerland; NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York, New York, USA; Geoscience Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, USA; School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; Center for the study of the Dynamics and Evolution of the Land-Sea Interface, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, USA), who suggested that Shaviv and Veizer's analyses were based on unreliable and poorly replicated estimates, selective adjustments of the data (shifting the data, in one case by 40 million years) and drew untenable conclusions, particularly with regard to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations on recent warming (see for example the exchange between the two sets of authors). However, by the time this came out the misleading conclusions had already been publicized widely."

The paper can be found at http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publicat...l_eos_2004.html

The conclusion states:

“Two main conclusions result from our analysis of [shaviv and Veizer, 2003]. The first is that the correlation of cosmic ray flux (CRF) and climate over the past 520 m.y. appears to not hold up under scrutiny. Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated.

Our second conclusion is independent of the first. Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, the authors’ estimate of the effect of a CO2-doubling on climate is highly questionable. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis which implicitly assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years, for different configurations of continents and ocean currents, for much higher CO2 levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors, can give direct quantitative information about the effect of rapid CO2 doubling from pre-industrial climate. The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that [shaviv and Veizer, 2003] provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide."

The paper holds up. The attacks on it and on cosmoclimatology have been rebutted, if you can be bothered, check out the following links

Shaviv's blog with his rebuttals

Danish National Space Centre (Cosmoclimatology)

Climate Audit

The attacks on both Shaviv and Svensmark have been rather wild and dubious, they have also been personal, a real sign of the desperation of the AGW proponents. The SKY experiment will now be run at CERN in 2010. I doubt CERN would be giving up time on its multi billion dollar large hedron collider to discredited theories!

Spee Posted Today, 2007-11-14 15:13:28

Please forgive me. I didn't know that the Ice Age coming and going due to massive global cooling and massive global warming before the age of men was inaccurate, unintelligent, ignorant conspiratorial propaganda. Perhaps you have a more accurate explanation.

Here is a paper backing your claim with an explanation of one of the causes.

Shaviv & Veizer

HS Mauberley Posted Yesterday, 2007-11-13 23:04:44

^^ Great isn't it. Five years ago, deniers like you were saying that climate change was wrong because it was a fringe belief. Now you're saying it's wrong because it isn't. Make your mind up. Oh, and any chance of a link to Christy and Spencer saying, explicitly, that their research shows that it is false that human activities are causing climate change? Thanks.

I would be glad to post the link tomorrow, it is on my computer at work. No they do not say they are false. Again from your lack of reading the scientific papers you mistakenly believe that sceptics all say that humans are having no affect on the climate. Almost all believe we are. However, in general they believe we are having but a small to medium affect on the climate. There are only a few who, I believe are mistaken, say human produced Co2 has no affect. We just believe that the affect is to small to worry about, is swamped by natural cycles or that there is little that can be done about it when one looks at the political or economic situation. Further more, the paper is not about AGW as such, the hypothesis in question is to do with high altitude clouds which have a warming affect. But if the hypothesis is shown to be true it would mitigate the affects of increasing levels of Co2. This is just one of the many hypothesis and theories that when added up stand against anthropogenic global warming. There is ample research by serious scientists to cast doubt on the AGW hypothesis, despite what you may have read in the mass media.

By the way, if you wish to show any understanding of how science works, I would suggest you be more civil, more respectful of others opinions and less abusive in your posts.

QUOTE (nakhonsi sean @ 2007-11-13 17:41:01)

Are you implying MIT, Berkley, Woods Hole, Harvard Smithsonian, Cambridge, Oxford, Max Planck Institute, USC, University of London, Alabama Huntsville, Danish National Space Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, etc, are right wing think tanks and employ pseudo-scientists?

This is interesting because I thought you were implying these institutions were among those that dispute man made global warming but after a quick search this is what I found:

Max Planck

http://www.maxplanck.de/english/illustrati...9301/index.html

In addition to the findings about the complex interplay between atmosphere and ocean, the current climate models from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology also include new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of the earth's carbon cycle. The results confirm speculations over recent years that humans are having a large and unprecedented influence on the climate and are fuelling global warming.

Woods Hole

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publi...th/culprits.htm

Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history.

While it is impossible to establish a direct causal link between greenhouse gas accumulation and individual, relatively short-term climatic events, it is certain that we have been experiencing increasing numbers of climatic events unprecedented in the human experience. It is also certain that many of the greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, have lengthy residence times in the atmosphere and that we will continue to be affected for years or even centuries to come by the atmospheric burden we are creating today.

While the concentrations of almost all greenhouse gases have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide has had the greatest effect on changing the climate.

University of Cambridge

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007020201

Professor Nigel Weiss, an expert in solar magnetic fields, has rebutted claims that a fall in solar activity could somehow compensate for the man-made causes of global warming.

“Although solar activity has an effect on the climate, these changes are small compared to those associated with global warming,” he said. “Any global cooling associated with a fall in solar activity would not significantly affect the global warming caused by greenhouse gases.

“This is of course a controversial issue and there is a vocal lobby arguing against the link between anthropogenic gas emissions and climatic change. However I share the view of the majority of the scientific community that the evidence for such a link and thus the occurrence of man-made global warming is significant and a matter of grave concern.”

MIT

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/co2.html

carbon dioxide, the gas that has been a primary driver of global climate change in recent decades, according to a team of scientists that includes a professor from MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/connorsr/www/docs/Incon..._Journalist.pdf

COMMUNICATING COMPLEXITY is one of the largest challenges facing both

scientists and journalists. Alex Beam dodges this challenge in his column by

suggesting that there isn't a scientific consensus on whether climate change exists.

The journal Science laid that debate to rest in December 2004 by showing that of

nearly a thousand peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, none concluded by

suggesting that human activities were not influencing the world's climate.

University of Oxford

http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/main/faq/climatechange.html

What causes the climate to change?

The solar energy that comes to Earth from the sun drives the Earth's climate. To balance this influx of energy, heat escapes from the Earth back into space as infrared radiation. Certain gases are transparent to the incoming solar energy, and let it pass through on its way to the Earth's surface. However, when this radiation is reemitted from the Earth at longer wavelengths, these same gases absorb a large proportion of it, and prevent it from escaping. Ultimately this has the same effect as a glass greenhouse, and raises the Earth's surface temperature.

Life on Earth relies upon this process occurring, keeping the Earth much warmer than planets with no atmospheric greenhouse gases, so a natural amount of these gases is essential. However, we have gradually been adding too much of these gases artificially, causing the Earth's climate to change.

The chief greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide which contributes 60% to the 'enhanced greenhouse effect'.

EDIT - Although it does appear the Danish Space Institute's research points more towards the sun but bascially you have experts who say one thing and experts who say the other. Its my understanding there are a whole lot more experts pointing to man made climate change. I believe it - the greenhouse effect is well documented and not denied, and I believe a build up of GHGs lead to the advanced greenhouse effect. Those GHGs are coming from us. Simple.

Yes, all of those institutions have eminent scientists putting forward both views. Whether more point to one side or the other in science is irrelevant, it only takes one scientist to upset the apple cart and prove the others were mistaken. Consensus in science is meaningless. Look at Galileo and Wegener, if the consensus had won we would still have the sun orbiting the Earth and would have no plate tectonic theory!

Funny how people ridicule scientists until they are proven correct. Lindzen (MIT) has been lambasted for over five years now by AGW proponents over his Adaptive Infrared Iris hypothesis (would tend to reduce temperature rises). The AGW brigade seem to have gone very quiet over this in the last month. Might have something to do with the recent paper by Christy and Spencer and their observational data proving the hypothesis!

One should never ridicule scientist and their ideas, even if the majority believe them to be wrong. The lone maverick is often proven correct in the end leaving egg on many faces!

plachon Posted Today, 2007-11-13 16:51:51

"The AGW hypothesis is mainly concerned with CO2 which is not a pollutant" - of course it's a pollutant!!!!! You try going in a room filled with CO2 and see how long you last.

Also, if you can, try removing all the Co2 from the atmosphere and see how quickly everything on the planet dies! The American court case has already been ridiculed in the scientific press. At present Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere are around 380 ppm, they would have to go to 15,000-25,000 before we need to start to worry! Up to about 4000 ppm they are beneficial to the Earth's biomass.

Yes, there are other GHGs, however, the increase in Co2 is the main concern, the others forcing of the climate is minor in comparison. Even Co2 is logarithmic, we would need to put in vastly more than we are to achieve another 1 degree warming.

Right-wing think tanks and pseudo-scientists ready to plant misinfromation are favoured recipients of its largesse.

Are you implying MIT, Berkley, Woods Hole, Harvard Smithsonian, Cambridge, Oxford, Max Planck Institute, USC, University of London, Alabama Huntsville, Danish National Space Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, etc, are right wing think tanks and employ pseudo-scientists?

Chloe82 seems to be well read on the subject. I would suggest people flaming here educate themselves by reading the literature from both sides, not the media reports but the academic papers. There is nothing that she has said that I have not read in scientific papers. If you have the time and do so you would see her arguments are valid and backed up by papers from eminent scientist at leading research centres/universities around the world.

All you do by flaming her is to show your ignorance of climate change science and the workings of science itself!

DirkGently Posted Today, 2007-11-13 15:16:43

To the people that DON'T CARE. I agree that climate change has not been proven and that change will continue due to forces of nature, but pollution has a very negative impact on our lives. Yours too!

The filth in the air that comes from burning plastic, dirty beaches, contaminated drinking water etc are really down to us. I know buying a cotton bag won't save dolphins or whatever, but it can't hurt.

Pollution is another topic. The AGW hypothesis is mainly concerned with Co2 which is not a pollutant. Of course pollution must be tackled as it is doing immense damage to the planet and peoples health but this is another issue often confused with AGW.

Chloe82 Posted Today, 2007-11-13 14:49:37

Wilko, don't just take as fact, the words of politicized scientists who present a one-sided opinion specificaly taylor made for policymakers where all the “but’s” are removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people in the Western world and clearly here on this forum.

The media, politicians, Royal Society etc., are basically regurgitating the IPCC's mantra. This is as much a political organisation as scientific. All material emanating from them must first be passed through a political process and approved by member governments, this is quit clear if you take the time to read their 4AR report, the latest. (Very tedious, It took me 2 weeks to get through the roughly 1000 pages!)

I had been waiting for the publication and was somewhat miffed that the first released the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) first with a statement that the full scientific report would follow three months later. The reason for the delay, they stated, was to ''facilitate editing to suit the summary''!! This is a scientific outrage!

However, quite understandable when one reads the IPCC rules for publishing

''Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after the acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistancy with the Summary for Policy Makers or the Overview chapter.''

(IPCC -PROCEDURE FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS)

This is one reason why I strongly urge people to ignore the mass media, IPCC, Royal Society etc. and read the actual research papers pertaining to global warming/climate change.

As Chloe 82 says, one does not have to be a climate scientist to read the scientific papers, one just has to spend a lot of time and energy to do so!

mogoso Posted Today, 2007-11-13 12:47:25

Like you I believe in the conservation of earths resources, but many things trouble me. A huge area of land where the zinc is smelted to make the batteries to power the dual fuel vehicles, is a lifeless area in Canada. where is ecofriendliness in that, where is the outcry. (actually there more to this story, but I'm too lazy to type it)

There are I believe many more pressing problems in the world today that could be tackled with the money earmarked for combating Co2 and climate change. The cost of the Kyoto Protocol is staggering! Some sources have put the cost as high as half a trillion dollars a year, though I suspect this is a bit over the top. That is going to make a very serious dent in the world economy for little benefit. Any plan to reduce Co2 outputs that would have a reasonable effect, if you believe it has a serious effect, are going to be far more severe than the Kyoto Protocol. This then would have a major impact on the development of China and India. Are they really going to go along with these plans? The money, I suspect, would be far better spent adapting to a warmer world and helping poor nations to develop.

Captain Chaos Posted Today, 2007-11-13 13:06:00

I agree with this ... I care but I am not convinced that we really know what is going on. There is a distinct media frenzy about this subject and the non-stop constant lecturing by - in particular - the BBC is causing me to become irritated and somewhat blase about it.

The BBC is, like most of the mass media, taking a very one-sided and alarmist stance. They happily report rebuttals of the opposing science but do not report the rebuttals of the rebuttals even though some have been devastating to the AGW cause. I used to have great respect for the BBC but now I see how they one-sidedly treat a topic in which I am well versed I am quickly losing that respect.

Pepe' Posted Today, 2007-11-13 09:16:33

So then I gather that is the long version of the opinion that we should not respect and conserve natural resources... cool.gif

No, what ever side of the AGW argument you are on, the conservation of natural resources is important. This is a mistake that AGW proponents often make when talking about ''sceptics'', they assume we are not environmentally aware. I trained as an ecologist and am very concerned about the environment, I just think the Co2 - temperature link is seriously overstated.

Having posted comments on my sceptical views of anthropogenic global warming and seeing others do so, it is a shame that proponents of the theory have to denigrate others with terms such as flat-earthers, deniers etc.. Is this because the science behind Co2 and GW is so shaky?

Chloe82 Posted Today, 2007-11-12 17:32:37

Over the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods that were distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred around 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but still remain below the 3,000-year average.

Absolutely. Also for the last 10,000 years of the holocene the temperature has shown a small but steady decline. Those five warm periods were also caused by something other than anthropogenic GHGs. None of the past warming events over the last 500 million years can be attributed to Co2. There have also been periods when Co2 levels have been up to 17 times higher than present but temperatures have been 5-10 C lower.

Doza posted Today, 2007-11-12 14:55:15

Your English seems somewhat ill educated I'm afraid.

There is enough evidence to point to anthropological warming (the link between the rise in GHGs and temperatures). I have never stated its an absolute fact - please show me where I have. But the possible impacts of global warming are so catastrophic its prudent to take action (provided its not to the detrement of development etc etc) by reducing the build up of GHGs, principally CO2, which contribute to the worsening greenhouse effect. Even big oil says as much!

Yes, I am no grammar expert. However, the evidence for anthropogenic warming is very tenuous to say the least. Catastrophic impacts from global warming come from very dubious GCMs. I have yet to read a convincing paper that espouses any events depicted in Gore's seriously flawed Oscar winner. GHGs and the temperature record have a very poor link this century and a link the wrong way round for the long term record, temp. goes up, Co2 follows on average about 800 years later!

Tim207 Posted Today, 2007-11-12 13:55:14

So in the absense of a provable alternative, the loudest theory should be assumed correct? That doesn't make much sense. There are many weather and climate phenonenom that can't be explained/predicted as of yet. Just because someone thinks they know the answer and I can not prove another explaination does not mean I should accept their theory as fact. What we thought we knew as fact has been proven to be wrong repeatedly over the centurys. The funny thing is that every generation is so arrogant that they assume they are immune from making the same mistakes of the past and that their guesses are more astute because they know so much more than the previous guessers. There is still a lot that we don't know about how the earth works. If we just take for granted every new theory we will just be messing around with processes we don't understand.

Well Said

chiang mai Posted Today, 2007-11-12 07:08:27

I've read Coleman's paper. He does a good job of saying Global Warming is a manufactured news event but fails to provide an alternative cause for the symptoms we currently attribute to Global Warming. Sorry Jon, it's not enough to merely say it isn't real, you have to say what it is also.

There are several alternative hypothesis, and a new theory backed by experimental data. Look up Svensmark as well as Shaviv.

There have been rebuttals but many rebuttals of the rebuttals. Most of the attacks by the AGW believers centre on personal attacks, hardly scientific!

Shaviv's webpage

Another good link from a physicist

and another

Doza Posted Today, 2007-11-12 10:23:13

If you believe that mankind can have no impact on the environment (and therefore climate) you are just plain ignorant.

If you simply prefer to put your head in the sand, say there are worse that *could* happen, then so be it - just hope you don't have kids/grandkids/nephews or nieces who are going to have to live with the effects of planetary pollution and destruction the likes of you and your like have left on this planet for future generations to deal with long after you're gone.

Your reply seems somewhat ill educated. I doubt anyone would say we have no impact on the environment. However, this post is about global warming. To state, or imply, that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, as you do, shows a lack of understanding behind the science. The idea that it has been proven is incorrect. It is an as yet unproven hypothesis that has some data showing a marginal corellation between Co2 and temperature over the past 30 years but nothing prior to that.

Generally none, even if one is offered. Was speaking to a big used car dealer a while back and he said even if the engine fell out as you were pulling away he would do nothing!

Eff1n2ret Posted Yesterday, 2007-10-18 20:31:39

They sure do. But did anyone else in the UK notice as I did during this last wretched non-existent summer, that whilst we were all shivering and watching the floods on the telly, these same "inquisitionists" moved the goalposts and started banging on about "climate change" instead?

Yes they have, they have been inconvenienced by the latest data showing global warming effectively stopped in 1998! The trend has been flat or slightly down since, despite increasing Co2 levels. This year looks like it is going to be one of the coolest in the last decade!

My wife got back this evening, through the same storm. Also comes from Krabi just over the Nakhon border, Lam Tap. Took them four hours! She said they had to stop the car for almost an hour, just could not see anything.

Every one in Nakhon seems to be very quiet. No posts for a long time!

For myself, had my wedding party and have been enjoying some decent farang food cooked by my mother!

Anything exciting going on????????

snowflake Posted Today, 2007-09-04 08:45:16

Hitman or a hitwoman or a hit from Brittney Spears, which would be the worse?

Brittney Spears without a doubt.