Blue about Green vs Red?

Palomar · 2003-12-01 20:47:42

*The "red versus green" debate has come up again, slightly, in a different thread.

I'm wondering what peoples' thoughts/anticipations about Mars [i:]prior to[/i:] reading Zubrin's/KSR's books or joining the Mars Society or participating in this message board was, as regards what humans should or shouldn't do with the planet? Of course, I refer this in the context of people who have had an interest in space exploration and etc. for **years prior**.

Here's my (brief) background: I've always been intrigued with and fascinated by the prospect of space travel, including visiting Mars. Prior to reading _The Case for Mars_ and joining the Mars Society, I hoped (still do of course) to witness the first landing of humans on Mars, and the establishment of a handful of permanent colonies on Mars, for the study of the planet, etc.

The concept of terraforming the place never occurred to me. Why should it? Those lovely orange and burnt-umber vistas, towering volcanoes, deep craggy trenches and canyons...wow, spectacular.

I admit being almost "sold" on the concept of terraformation initially -- to create an entire world, what a challenge for humankind! But many months ago, in a different thread (which I cannot locate via board "Search" feature), someone posed some logical questions: Isn't it Mars' current appearance, features, etc., which has attracted such interest and adoration for that planet? And once you change Mars, it's changed forever, right? That really "got" me.

I remain torn by this issue, despite veering somewhat strongly in the direction of being a "Red."

Anyway, enough about me. Again, I'm primarily interested in what your expectations and desired plans for Mars was prior to wider exposure from multiple sources, especially if you (like me) have been interested in astronomy and space travel for a long time.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-12-02 11:29:00

*Sorry if this seems a "social gaffe," but I'm rather surprised no one has responded to this thread. Not that anyone has to, of course.

I'm curious for some input.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-12-02 12:53:03

what's the alternative to not terraforming Mars in any appreciable way?

A bunch of rocks you can't touch. Great.

To be so far, so close, yet never be able to interact with your environment except through gloves, or a TV screen. Why leave Earth for that?

Mars holds a special allure because for all it is, it is what it isn't that holds the most appeal. It isn't anything. It is a place empty of history and ripe with potential for an infinite number of "could-be's".

If you want to live in a can your whole life, build a storm shelter and live in your basement.

But I for one want to drink in the vistas with my lungs. Pull the red dust and grit from beneath my nails. Feel a world press in upon my body, not just my imagination.

Mars is not a zoo. Mars should not be made to be some animal in a zoo, whose preserve we maintain diligently. It should be a canvas upon which lives paint, and repaint humanities varied stories. It should become whatever it shall become when people go there, and become a part of it.

Even mountains will crumble, seas dry, and continents submerge. But the world itself still spins. So too Mars. It is a planet, not the Holy City on the Hill.

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-02 13:00:41

I've been on holidays Cindy, I would've responded sooner, but I'm just now catching up with the rest of the forum.

(Short thirty second snippits in Free Chat don't count!)

Anyway, you may already know my space background and how reading library picture books from images taken by the Viking Landers really inspired me about Mars at a pretty young age.

The first time I believe I learned of terraformation was during Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, which aired on PBS when I was young. So even before I really felt close to Mars, I think I knew about the concepts.

My inclinations are actually more Red than one would think (even though one of my first posts on this forum was attacking the idea that 'Red' was always and forever), but I do feel that as how things go, terraformation will eventaully take place.

I think I'm the right age (optimistically speaking), to actually see and live on Mars during a time where it's largely untouched, though. So thinking far ahead about how Mars might become another Earth doesn't bother me so much. But I fully accept that it might if I eventually get there and become truely attached to the place.

Byron · 2003-12-02 13:04:01

Hey, now you can say someone responded...

When I was very little, I had a "Ray Bradbury" view of Mars, with an atmosphere, living beings, etc. Then came Viking, and while it was fascinating to see actual photos of the landscape, the fact that Mars was a dry, sterile world without obvious life was a downer in my opinion. I was still fascinated with space, astronomy, etc, but my interest in Mars lessened after '76.

Then I read about terraforming and was sold on the idea almost immediately, and the idea of terraforming was the main thing that got me interested in Mars (at least from a science fictional angle). I would say reading KSR enhanced my interest in Mars and terraforming, but I was pretty much a green going in, and stayed a green even after reading Blue Mars..lol.

I just feel that once people start settling Mars in large numbers (provided that we ever get to that point,) people will have an innate desire to do some planetary gardening. How far will people take it? Hopefully just far enough to sustain a biosphere while preserving as much of the pristine, "red" Mars as possible.

Just my opinion on it, anyhow... :;):

B

jadeheart · 2003-12-02 13:26:13

funny, i came at the whole red v. green thing from the opposite direction of cindy. terraforming had been in my head for a long time and i assumed it would automatically be the way we approached mars in the long term. the idea of NOT terraforming came to me much later when i read KS Robinson's Mars trilogy. i had also become somewhat of an environmentalist by this point too so the idea made me think. now i'm still pro-terraforming, but longer-term, after we've studied mars in it's current 'natural' state. and only if it isn't going to destroy any non-microbial indigenous life with potential to evolve higher on it's own within the lifetime of Sol.

and i agree with byron that if we do terraform, preserving some of the original 'ruddy' mars should be attempted.

terraforming is not going to solve earth's population problem quickly enough to make a difference (we need to solve that locally thru our own will & ingenuity anyway), so i see no reason to try & rush it. but eventually i think we should do it. if mars is truly barren of anything but microbes, i would say it needs life, and we can (& should) be the instrument of that vivification.

maybe this should be a poll topic?

but the only way this issue can really be addressed is if we go have a look around first!

Palomar · 2003-12-03 09:17:07

Josh: "Anyway, you may already know my space background and how reading library picture books from images taken by the Viking Landers really inspired me about Mars at a pretty young age."

*Hi Josh: Yes, I remember your sharing this.

Josh: "The first time I believe I learned of terraformation was during Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, which aired on PBS when I was young. So even before I really felt close to Mars, I think I knew about the concepts."

*Wow; I didn't know terraforming was discussed there...
but I was only able to catch fragments of "Cosmos" (bad TV reception, no cable...just those flimsy TV antennae).

Byron: "When I was very little, I had a "Ray Bradbury" view of Mars, with an atmosphere, living beings, etc. Then came Viking, and while it was fascinating to see actual photos of the landscape, the fact that Mars was a dry, sterile world without obvious life was a downer in my opinion. I was still fascinated with space, astronomy, etc, but my interest in Mars lessened after '76."

*Hmmmmm, that's interesting. I didn't expect life to be found on Mars when the data began returning from Viking, but I'd been reading dry and sterile (ha ha) astronomy mags and books for a while (which cautioned repeatedly that life probably doesn't exist on Mars). Seeing those first photos, though, was a rush.

Byron: "Then I read about terraforming and was sold on the idea almost immediately, and the idea of terraforming was the main thing that got me interested in Mars (at least from a science fictional angle). I would say reading KSR enhanced my interest in Mars and terraforming, but I was pretty much a green going in, and stayed a green even after reading Blue Mars..lol.

I just feel that once people start settling Mars in large numbers (provided that we ever get to that point,) people will have an innate desire to do some planetary gardening. How far will people take it? Hopefully just far enough to sustain a biosphere while preserving as much of the pristine, "red" Mars as possible."

*Yeah, I think you're probably right. KSR sure seems to have influenced a lot of people (although I don't care for the "let's play marbles with the Solar System!" mentality his writings seems to have evoked, i.e. pushing planets around, smashing moons into other moons, on and on...but that's just me).

jadeheart: "the idea of NOT terraforming came to me much later when i read KS Robinson's Mars trilogy."

*May I ask why/how? I've not yet read that trilogy, by the way.

jadeheart: "and i agree with byron that if we do terraform, preserving some of the original 'ruddy' mars should be attempted.

terraforming is not going to solve earth's population problem quickly enough to make a difference (we need to solve that locally thru our own will & ingenuity anyway), so i see no reason to try & rush it. but eventually i think we should do it. if mars is truly barren of anything but microbes, i would say it needs life, and we can (& should) be the instrument of that vivification."

*Thanks for your comments; interesting.

jadeheart: "but the only way this issue can really be addressed is if we go have a look around first!"

*Yep.

--Cindy

jadeheart · 2003-12-03 15:00:54

cindy- in answer to your question, the r/b/g mars trilogy had a subplot dealing with the environmental impact of the terraforming that was happening. there were individuals in the main cast of characters who weren't gung-ho about it, and one in particular (i can't remember her name) embodied the extreme standpoint of no terraforming whatsoever. she was overruled/marginalized, which was certainly helpful for the plot of the story. i don't remember any of this character's arguments specifically as it's been several years since i read it. i think one was that the terraformation would screw up a lot of the science going on, which is why i think if it's (terraforming) is done it should be longer-term, like on the order of thousands of years. (the mars trilogy has it happening over several hundred years, which of course may not even be remotely possible anyway.)

Palomar · 2003-12-04 06:57:46

*After reading the responses here, coupled with general related posts elsewhere (in different threads), there's another issue presenting itself: Some folks express favor towards slow terraformation (over the period of centuries)...others (not posted in this thread) are discussing aggressive terraformation within a century.

I'm wondering how it will all unravel and, if it is decided to proceed with terraformation, by what criteria will *the pace* of terraformation be decided and who will decide it?

--Cindy

jadeheart · 2003-12-04 14:18:31

it seems to me that the martians themselves should decide how terraforming progresses. at first blush i'm thinking that anyone living there would be in favor of rapid terraformation to make life easier more quickly. but... depending on how well they adapt to mars initially, i could possibly see them appreciating mars in its natural state. this could result in a more measured approach. and then there's the relationship they will have to the 'powers that be' back on earth, which will surely try to push things in one direction or another. KSR addressed all of these issues in the mars trilogy, positing marked conflict between the martians and the metanational corporations which were controlling things back on earth.

i'd highly recommend reading this trilogy, i don't think any mars advocate is complete without having it under his/her belt. KSR's background in history & social sciences give the story an added dimension & richness far beyond just the hard science.

Palomar · 2003-12-04 15:57:34

i'd highly recommend reading this trilogy, i don't think any mars advocate is complete without having it under his/her belt. KSR's background in history & social sciences give the story an added dimension & richness far beyond just the hard science.

*Hi jadeheart:

Well, based on what many other folks "in these here parts" have also said about KSR's trilogy (concurring with you), I have little reason to doubt what you say is true.

I have seen the paperback trilogy for sale. That is a lot of reading. Each novel averages, what, 800 pages? With my 50-hour work schedule, home rennovation projects, moderating and owning 2 Yahoo! Groups, working a children's project, not to mention duties to my husband, and my intense studies of the 18th Century...I don't know where I'll fit all that additional reading into.

I have kept KSR in mind, and will continue to do so...maybe I'll get around to it when I'm not so busy.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2003-12-07 04:58:43

Blue about Red vs Green?

In fact that's a great title...

I guess i'm Red, for i think Mars is so beautiful, to begin with.

But knowing Mankind, once we settle there to stay, all discussions will be moot, there'll be a *race* to terraform, and be sure, we'll s*rew up thing big time...

By the way, all discussions about beauty etc are -sadly- just that, discussions. Mars is economically much more valuable, once terraformed, so it *will* be done. Corporations don't buy beauty- they prefer cash.

*Fast-Forward to future* So i'm red, but i'm not gonna fight the greens, but try to persuade them to be at least marginally sensible in what they do. Throwing nuclear bombs on the poles to melt ice is stupid, dangerous, non-effective, for instance.

And we'll see *a lot* of these crazy plans being concocted, some being actually implemented. Why? Because Mars is empty, most govnments, scientists etc will see nothing more than a big red playground to do some experimenting. Things you can't do on Earth.
All bright and not-so-bright white coated people will be standing in line to do some experimentng, all in the name of the holy word Terraformation.

And there'll be accidents. Company/government/agency (C/g/a) "A" is doing a test with agressive drilling techniques on a place where C/g/a "B" has secretly built an underground lab to do some tests on a controversial new bio-agent...

Results are predictable.

c/g/a "A"in another scenario, is actively ruining efforts made by c/g/a "B" because their long-time visions are incompatible...

etc... etc...

If no long-term vision is widely accepted and adhered to, Mars will be a chaotic, violent place to live.

But who will write this long-term plan?

Rxke · 2003-12-07 05:08:48

Post scriptum....

A lot of Greens are not green because that refers to nature, life, but the color of banknotes. BIG corporations will be Greens, but they couldn't care less about life itself, their ultimate goal is the economic rewards that life will deliver...

Of course, some Greens will be True Greens, but they will be a tiny minority.

Palomar · 2003-12-07 08:40:18

If no long-term vision is widely accepted and adhered to, Mars will be a chaotic, violent place to live.
But who will write this long-term plan?

*Rxke, I agree with you. I really enjoy your unique style and thought-provoking posts.

As for your question: It definitely is THE question. It would be very, very interesting to be able to see into the future, and see how it all unfolds as regards Mars colonization.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2003-12-07 09:40:15

"...your unique style and thought-provoking posts..."

Huh? Most people describe me as a rambling lunatic with a tendency to speculate too wildly I guess it all depends the way you look at it...

While i was typing the PS about "Green" being possibly two kinds of green, i realized a lot of people will categorize me as a tree hugger. Reality is a bit more complicated. I just wanted to point out that the environment or eco-sphere or whatever you want to call it, ... Can be described by our scientists as a hugely complex thermo-dynamic errr... system.

Arbitrary "let's-see-what-this-button-do" 'applied' chemistry, engineering, bioengineering... will be very tempting to do on Mars. The place is already a radiation-loaded, superoxide desert, what could be worse? (this will be the general view)
But the bigger the button you push on a machine you do not understand, the more far-reaching consequences... it *could* get worse...

I suggest somebody should do *a lot* more modeling, to get at least a minimum of insight in what will happen once we start terraforming. Maybe via the BOINC system, now underway to completion under Berkeleys wings.

(Hey, maybe an idea for the Society?)

~Eternal~ · 2003-12-07 15:33:49

I'm Ann and Sax's 'Blue'.
Mars will always be the red planet in our hearts and it will remain geologically unchanged for the most part, but we should still try to preserve some of the planet.

Aetius · 2003-12-07 16:12:16

I don't really buy KSR's premise that giant corporations will be all that interested in terraformation. Terran corporations are unlikely to fund it to any great extent. How many decades or centuries will it take for terraforming to produce a return on the investment? Earth governments have that and other reasons, like objections from the scientific community, to oppose it.

I also think it's reasonable to believe that colonists will prefer to use their surplus industrial capacity to produce luxury items, not massive amounts of terraforming infrastructure. Terraforming will have to compete with education, welfare, and some form of colonial militia for funding.

Some colonists might also be lukewarm to terraforming because of the powerful, global bureaucracy it entails. Transforming an entire world's climate will require some kind of planetary governing entity with enforcement powers. Martians who value the self-determination of their communities have reason to suspect that this will be used by the Power Elite as a backdoor to creating a global, authoritarian regime. A power grab of planetary proportions could be enabled, under the simple pretense of regulating industrial emissions and resource management.

I used to be a hardcore Green. But after reading KSR's Mars Trilogy, I see terraforming as an idea fraught with sociopolitical consequences I don't like. I would definitely find myself in an unlikely alliance with the Reds. The local militia and the educational system could better spend the Greens' slice of the budgetary pie.

jadeheart · 2003-12-07 19:48:24

all pretty keen observations there... i agree that corporations will have little interest in mars, at least early on. their pursuit of profit doesn't tolerate long-term considerations very well. at the most they will be hell-bent on resource extraction (and even this is a long shot i think, considering how expensive it is to get anything to/from mars). and, considering how little the corporate world cares about the terran environment, they certainly won't be concerned about the martian one either way.

one thing that was a big factor in KSR's vision, though, was the fact that they had space elevators both at mars and at earth. if this became a reality it could drastically change corporate interest in mars, as it would make interplanetary commerce much more economical.

and i think you're right about the colonists' priorities. it seems to me that terraforming would only be a big priority once the local population/economy/gov't reaches a critical mass. thus it could take hundreds, if not thousands, of years before they even get started on intentional terraforming. in fact i actually think it more likely that the colonists will modify themselves (genetically) to suit the environment rather than the other way around. cheaper, quicker. and this would definitely have VERY interesting implications for the red vs. green issue. i've always been curious as to why KSR totally ignored this possibility. he seemed to be going somewhere with the idea when he introduced that kid who could control his body temperature, but that plot string didn't go anywhere.

on the other hand, as a result of low corporate interest, the colonists will not have to worry about any 'power grabs' for quite some time as well. it all boils down to money: until mars can start producing material goods that earthbound entities care about, i think they will be relatively unregulated. this should give them time to prepare themselves for earthly meddling. i have a hunch the martians will be more forward-thinking than earthlings and will be able to anticipate what will be needed to safeguard their freedoms.

unfortunately i will almost surely never live to see any of this play out, but it is interesting to speculate.

~Eternal~ · 2003-12-07 20:37:53

Terraforming seems like a relatively cheap thing to do,
We've landed an object on an asteroid, surely there is a way to guide into a crash collision with the Martian south pole thats less that $3 billion.

Aetius · 2003-12-08 04:21:06

An asteroid strike might not do what you want it to do. Or, it might truly make Mars' atmosphere denser...after making the planet impossible to settle for a long, long time.

We simply don't know enough about Mars and its weather to use such a brute force technique, in my opinion.

Rxke · 2003-12-08 10:17:17

Aetius, good point about the lack of long-term vision of big corps...

Also you might be right, they could very well see Mars as some kind of strip-mining paradize... No nature to harm etc...

And the Martian civillians might get 'used' to living in a non-terraformed world, being satisfied with things the way they are.

But... So many factors 'conspire' to give the impetus to terraformation...

Not enough Nitrogen for our hothouse plants? Lets get an asteroid somewhere, orbit it around Mars, and mine it (or slam it into the ground, much simpler, but not really Red)
But if you begin with Nitrogen 'harvesting' there'll surely people going for ice-meteors, etc...
The lure to use powerful greenhouse gasses is just too big, a 'realistic' amount (by modern industrial standards) produced would carry enourmous benefits... The start of some bioengineered plant-life would be possible, an active water cycle etc...

Someone'll come up with the right cost/benefit numbers, and just start the ball rolling.

Jadeheart, not sure what you mean with bioengineering humans... We would never be able to survive in an atmosphere like Mars has one today, not enough oxygen= no way to keep our complex-multicellar bodies-brains working. There are also no Earth dwelling 'examples' that live in such an environment, so we can't cut-n-splice their genes into ours, to do it. Maybe some altering of our haemoglobin functioning to make it more oxygen carrying-exchanging, but that's about it, and that's not enough...

~Eternal~ , instead of crash-collision, let it aerobreak, no impact on the surface, but same net effect, far gentler... And indeed, a *sudden* drastic rize of pressure would have short-term immensive effects. Maybe a lot of smller ones to do it 'easy'

jadeheart · 2003-12-08 14:49:44

not sure what you mean with bioengineering humans...

well, now that i think about it, the current environment there would require some pretty drastic changes to the genome... i guess the easiest thing would be to alter the metabolic side of things to deal with the cold. but the atmosphere (constituents & pressure) would be hard to 'gene' for. and people probably would not want to change at such a basic level. but, a thousand years in the future, who knows what might be possible. (and i'm convinced it would take at least this long to get the terraforming ball rolling.) biotech is much more established and progressing much more quickly.

but i'm inclined to retract that somewhat glib statement about bioengineering. mech tech, at least at this point (spacesuits, domes, etc.), is much more reliable and less invasive than a biotechnical solution would be.

as for terraforming, all this talk about moving asteroids like marbles... much easier said than done. the expense will be enormous and the payoff too distant. i just can't see big-scheme terraforming like this happening until far in the future. i'm thinking any efforts in the near term will involve 'polluting' the atmosphere-- intentionally or not-- but this will probably result in a much slower rate of change. (we do seem to be doing a pretty good job of it here on earth though.)

maybe a hybrid approach will develop; adjusting the genome a bit in order to meet the terraforming efforts part way.

Rxke · 2003-12-09 01:52:01

Jadeheart... About your thousand years. I tend to think too, with current tech it would take that long. But some time ago i read Kurzweil's book on the 'hyperbolic' speed at wich technology is accelerating, don't remember the title, but... Well, it totallly changed my views. About near-midlle time future. He makes some unbelievably wild predictions... But after reading his reasoning... I have to admit, I'm now totally convinced the future will be all and more than we can possibly imagine, right now. Genetic engineering, computer power.. will change everthing, very, very fast. We're on the brink of something very big, if we survive the next 10-20 years. Only yesterday IBM announced true nanotechnology used for computer memory, thechnology derived from bioengineering... Even Kurzweill's predictions seem to be on the safe side, in hindsight.
(Ramble, ramble...)

Bioengineering will bring us nano-sized computers, automated, self-replicating assemblers... At a speed and scale, almost unimaginable, in the next 10-15 years. I'm reasonably convinced this is *not* science-fiction; there are no 'show-stoppers' to make all this impossible, the theories are sound, the 'tools' to actually implement the ideas are getting better every day. The computer you are working on is more powerful than the fastest multi-million supercomputer that was state-of-the-art, barely 15 years ago. sit back and think about that... Now there are millions of these things in use, everyday... And some of hese are being used to work on things that were "foolish science-fiction" only years ago... I have programs here that let me build molecules, in 3D. Right now seti@home is crunching numbers in the background... I'm working with a program that's free, but widely being used in medical imaging labs, I'm trying to coax it into my studies... (involving image-restoration-examination) And that's only computers... Imagiine the things we don't know about that well, because we don't use it on a daily base. Like the bio-engineering-molecular studies. 25 years ago, only people in white coats used computers, now virtually everybody does... In less than 25 years we'll be using biotech suff on a regular basis too, and don't wonder about it...
Such technological leaps make us more powerful in controlling materials every year. I saw a 'Micro-raman' in action two days ago, it's a suitcase-sized electron microscope (!!!), basically you can just switch it on and point it to some object, get the data immediatly on a monitor.... Amazing, 10 years ago these were towering devices, you had to do a lot of iffy work to prepare the samples you wanted examined... Now you can hire one to use it wherever you fancy.

These are very powerful tools, speeding up-again our grasp of the material world around us...

When you pause for a second, and realise how fast our 'tools' evolve... Yes, i'm convinced nano-factories are coming, sooner rather than later. and it will change *everything*
Terraformation in a hundred year, cheap space-flight, cheap solar energy, ... life-extending treatments... The scope for long-time planning. The mind staggers. Will we be able to cope?

(Sorry for the wild prophesies, i'm afraid i have a fever... The flu has hit Europe, too.)

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-09 07:11:47

Great post, Rxke!
That's fascinating stuff. It confirms what I've read in other contexts, that we really are on the brink of so many stunning advances which have the potential to change everything.
Josh and I have even agreed on this particular point! If we can avoid self-destruction or the re-emergence of totalitarianism during the next 20 years, we might just enter a new age of plentiful energy and resources for all, based on a new super-technology which makes today look like 1890!

I don't find you to be a 'rambling lunatic' at all. Or, if you are, maybe we should all be just as crazy!!
:laugh:

Keep up the good work!

Rxke · 2003-12-09 13:23:58

*blush* Thanks, though i still think i'm a bit over-enthousiastic.

Not wanting to be a doom-prophet, but the biggest challenge will indeed be in our heads... Are we mentally mature enough to wield these awesome tools... for the 'good cause?'

Will this ever speeding up pace leave the majorrity of humankind dumbfounded, with a very small techno-elite at the steering wheel? a lot of questions that are (almost) nowhere being taken very seriously... Because we are talking 'stupid science fiction'

Be prepared. But how? Time is running out. Already moderately smart people erroneously created a deadly variant of a common virus in a 'normal' lab, proving it is getting easier by the day for 'lunatics' to do the same.... Intentionally. It doesn't take billions or a genius to figure this stuff out. Not anymore.

Non-proliferation accords on proliferation-based technology sounds a bit weird, neh?

(BTW This is the IBM thing i referred to: Smalltimes)

... And we're getting wildly off-topic on this thread (Wel... I am!)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-01 20:47:42

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#2 2003-12-02 11:29:00

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#3 2003-12-02 12:53:03

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#4 2003-12-02 13:00:41

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#5 2003-12-02 13:04:01

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#6 2003-12-02 13:26:13

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#7 2003-12-03 09:17:07

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#8 2003-12-03 15:00:54

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#9 2003-12-04 06:57:46

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#10 2003-12-04 14:18:31

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#11 2003-12-04 15:57:34

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#12 2003-12-07 04:58:43

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#13 2003-12-07 05:08:48

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#14 2003-12-07 08:40:18

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#15 2003-12-07 09:40:15

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#16 2003-12-07 15:33:49

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#17 2003-12-07 16:12:16

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#18 2003-12-07 19:48:24

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#19 2003-12-07 20:37:53

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#20 2003-12-08 04:21:06

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#21 2003-12-08 10:17:17

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#22 2003-12-08 14:49:44

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#23 2003-12-09 01:52:01

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#24 2003-12-09 07:11:47

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

#25 2003-12-09 13:23:58

Re: Blue about Green vs Red?

Board footer