| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
wiltonh
Nomad
Posts: 302
Registered: 2-2-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
Flyfishingpam is correct in that I had the exact location wrong. It is just South of Puerto Lopez Mateos at a place called San Carlos on my map. So
much for doing this from memory. I had heard that there was a oil based power plant on Mag. Bay but did not know the exact location.
The copy right date on the map is 2003-2004 and I have scanned a small section which shows what they call a "Thermonuclear Power Plant".
[Edited on 6-6-2009 by wiltonh]
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
THERMONuclear ?
A Hydrogen Fusion Power Plant in Mexico ?
WOW ! A REAL First.
Jose can you see ?
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64852
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
That is sooo cool... as a BIG error on the map! LOL
It has been removed on the newer map!
Thanks for scanning it for us!
|
|
|
wiltonh
Nomad
Posts: 302
Registered: 2-2-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
If the Turtle Bust thread, did not prove that you cannot believe all that you read, then this does.
That goes for maps also.
|
|
|
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3922
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
It has to be geothermal...
|
|
|
wiltonh
Nomad
Posts: 302
Registered: 2-2-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
This discussion got me to wondering which nations had nuclear power. Here is a link to a chart and Mexico is listed:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html
|
|
|
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3922
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
Nuclear Power in Mexico
(July 2008)
* Mexico has two nuclear reactors generating almost 5% of its electricity.
* Its first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in 1989.
* There is some government support for expanding nuclear energy to reduce reliance on natural gas.
Mexico is rich in hydrocarbon resources and is a net energy exporter. The country's interest in nuclear energy is rooted in the need to reduce its
reliance on these sources of energy. In coming years Mexico will increasingly rely on natural gas.
Energy growth was very rapid in the decades to the late 1990s, but then levelled off for a few years. From about 2007 electricity demand is expected
to grow again at an average rate of almost 6% a year. In 2007, 257 billion kWh was generated. The electricity supply is quite diverse, with gas
supplying 126 TWh (49%), oil 52 TWh (20%), coal 32 TWh (12.5%) and hydroelectric dams 27 TWh (10.5%) in 2007. Per capita power use is about 1800
kWh/yr.
In 2007 Mexico got about 10 billion kWh net from nuclear, about 4.6% of the electricity used.
Of total 54 GWe capacity in 2006, nuclear was 1.37 GWe (gross), hydro 10.7 GWe, geothermal 960 MWe and the balance fossil fuels.
Nuclear industry development
Mexico's interest in nuclear energy was made official in 1956 with the establishment of the National Commission for Nuclear Energy (CNEN). That
organisation took general responsibility for all nuclear activities in the country except the use of radioisotopes and the generation of electric
power. The Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), one of the two state-owned electricity companies, was assigned the role of future nuclear generator.
Preliminary investigations to identify potential sites for nuclear power plants were begun in 1966 by CNEN and CFE and in 1969 CFE invited bids for
proven power plant designs with a capacity of around 600 MWe. In 1972 a decision to build was made, and in 1976 construction began at Laguna Verde on
two 654 MWe General Electric boiling-water reactors (BWRs).
Although Mexican industry did not supply major components for the Laguna Verde plant, Mexican companies undertook the civil engineering work and
Mexican staff maintain the reactor and train to operate it at CFE's simulator.
CNEN was later transformed into the National Institute on Nuclear Energy (INEN), which in turn was split in 1979 into the National Institute of
Nuclear Research (ININ), Mexican Uranium (Uramex) and the National Commission on Nuclear Safety and Safeguards (CNSNS). Uramex's functions were taken
over by the Ministry of Energy in 1985.
Operating Mexican power reactors
Laguna Verde 1 & 2
CFE shows 1365 MWe gross
In February 2007 CFE signed contracts with Spain's Iberdrola and also Alstom to fit new turbines and generators to the Laguna Verde plant at a cost of
US$ 605 million. They will then produce 20% more power - about 280 MWe. With approval from the CNSNS, the reactors could be uprated progressively from
2008 to 2010. Meanwhile 11.6 MWe uprates to both units were achieved in 2007 through better flow control.
High-level government support exists for an expansion of nuclear energy, primarily to reduce dependence on natural gas, but no plans exist as yet.
However, a committee has been established to recommend on new nuclear plants and the most recent proposal is for one unit to come on line by 2015 with
seven more to follow it by 2025 to bring nuclear share of electricity up to 12% then. Cost studies show nuclear being competitive with gas at about
US$ 4 cents/kWh in all scenarios considered.
In the longer term, Mexico may look to employ small reactors such as IRIS to provide power and desalinate sea water for agricultural use.
ININ have previously presented ideas for a plant consisting of three IRIS reactors sharing a stream of sea water for cooling and desalination. With
seven reverse-osmosis desalination units served by the reactors, 140,000m3 of potable water could be produced each day, as well 840 MWe.
Fuel cycle
Since its absorbtion of Uramex, the Ministry of Energy has had responsibility for uranium prospecting, which it delegates to the Mineral Resources
Board. Mexico has identified reserves of about 2000 tonnes of uranium but this has not been mined to date.
A uranium milling plant operated on an experimental basis at Villa Aldana, in the Chihuahua region at the end of the 1960s but has now been
decommissioned. Tailings were disposed of at Pena Blanca.
Under Mexican legislation, nuclear fuel is the property of the state and is under the control of the CNSNS.
Used nuclear fuel from the Laguna Verde reactors is stored underwater at the site. The storage pools have been re-racked to provide enough space for
the reactors' entire lives. About 1000 tonnes of used fuel was there as of 2003. The same strategy is employed with used fuel from research reactors.
Radioactive waste management
The government of Mexico, through the Ministry of Energy is responsible for the storage and disposal of nuclear fuels and radioactive waste
irrespective of their origin.
The Energy Ministry is beginning to take administrative and budgetary steps to create a national company to manage its radioactive waste. It is also
planning to sign the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.
An engineered near-surface disposal site for low-level waste (LLW) operated at Piedrera between 1985 and 1987. In that time, 20,858m3 of waste was
stored.
A collection, treatment and storage centre for LLW has operated at Maquixco since 1972.
Regulation and safety
The 1984 Act on Nuclear Activities states that the government, through the Ministry of Energy, is responsible for establishing the framework for the
use and development of nuclear energy and technology, in accordance with the national energy policy.
The National Commission on Nuclear Safety and Safeguards (CNSNS) is a semi-autonomous body under the authority of the Ministry of Energy which takes
the role of regulator. CNSNS is responsible for ensuring the proper application of regulations and safeguards for nuclear and radiation safety and for
physical protection of nuclear and radiological installations to ensure public safety.
CNSNS is also responsible for revising, evaluating and approving the criteria for the siting, design construction operation and decommissioning of
nuclear installations, proposing the relevant regulations. It has the power to amend of suspend the licenses of nuclear facilities, which are granted
on CNSNS approval through the Ministry of Energy.
R & D
The main nuclear research organisation in Mexico is the National Nuclear Research Institute (NNRI). NNRI have operated a 1000kW Triga Mk III research
reactor since November 1968.
The University Autonoma de Zacatecas has a subcritical Chicago Modelo 900 assembly used for training, commissioned in 1969.
A Nuclear Cooperation Agreement between Mexico and Canada was signed in 1995 for the exchange of information in R& , health, safety, emergency planning and environmental protection. It also provides
for the transfer of nuclear material, equipment and technology and the rendering of technical assistance.
Non-proliferation
The Mexican Constitution states that nuclear energy may only be used for peaceful uses and this is reiterated in the 1984 Act on Nuclear Activities.
Mexico ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1969 and the Additional Protocol in 2004. It is also party to the 1979 Convention on the
Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, ratified in 1988. Furthermore, Mexico is the depository of the 1967 Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear
Weapons in Latin America (the Tlatelolco Treaty) and has been party to the Treaty since 1967.
[Edited on 6-6-2009 by BajaGringo]
 |
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
I wonder where Mexico gets the enriched uranium for the reactor cores, from the US I would guess.
Uranium from the ground doesn't work, the U235/U238 ratio is too small.
That's the issue with the Iranians, they say all they want is power reactors but insist upon developing an enrichment process. If all they want is
power reactors they could buy the fuel from countries that make it, like most countries that have nuclear power plants do. If they build an enrichment
plant then they have the capability of highly enriching the uranium and building bombs or selling the stuff.
I also wonder how much electricity could be produced with all the fissionable material sitting in the nuclear warheads of the US and Russian arsenals.
I bet the energy in one bomb could light up a bazillion light bulbs.
But turning bombs into fuel for power plants, and solving two big problems, is too logical of thing to do, probably won't happen.
[Edited on 6-6-2009 by k-rico]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by k-rico
I wonder where Mexico gets the enriched uranium for the reactor cores, from the US I would guess.
Uranium from the ground doesn't work, the U235/U238 ratio is too small.
That's the issue with the Iranians, they say all they want is power reactors but insist upon developing an enrichment process. If all they want is
power reactors they could buy the fuel from countries that make it, like most countries that have nuclear power plants do. If they build an enrichment
plant then they have the capability of highly enriching the uranium and building bombs or selling the stuff.
[Edited on 6-6-2009 by k-rico] |
Whoa whoa K-Rico, there is no evidence to show that Iran has never developed uranium which can be utilized for Nuclear weapons.
In fact this week many articles have confirmed that Israel has admitted that they falsified the "smoking laptop" which they supposedly found
suggesting otherwise-that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. And It appears Obama is using a two-faced approach of appeasement while his covert
actions are directed toward regime change for Iran.
The info is available for anyone willing to read something besides Fox News?#@$!
http://dissentradio.com/radio/09_06_03_porter.mp3
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2009/06/03/report-ties-du...
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/06/02/war-with-iran-...
Report Ties Dubious Iran Nuclear Docs to Israel
by Gareth Porter, June 04, 2009
A report on Iran’s nuclear program issued by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month generated news stories publicizing an incendiary charge
that U.S. intelligence is underestimating Iran’s progress in designing a "nuclear warhead" before the halt in nuclear weapons-related research in
2003.
That false and misleading charge from an intelligence official of a foreign country, who was not identified but was clearly Israeli, reinforces two of
Israel’s key propaganda themes on Iran – that the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is wrong, and that Tehran is poised to build
nuclear weapons as soon as possible.
But it also provides new evidence that Israeli intelligence was the source of the collection of intelligence documents which have been used to accuse
Iran of hiding nuclear weapons research.
The Committee report, dated May 4, cited unnamed "foreign analysts" as claiming intelligence that Iran ended its nuclear weapons-related work in 2003
because it had mastered the design and tested components of a nuclear weapon and thus didn’t need to work on it further until it had produced enough
sufficient material.
That conclusion, which implies that Iran has already decided to build nuclear weapons, contradicts both the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on
Iran, and current intelligence analysis. The NIE concluded that Iran had ended nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 because of increased international
scrutiny, and that it was "less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005."
The report included what appears to be a spectacular revelation from "a senior allied intelligence official" that a collection of intelligence
documents supposedly obtained by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from an Iranian laptop computer includes "blueprints for a nuclear warhead."
It quotes the unnamed official as saying that the blueprints "precisely matched" similar blueprints the official’s own agency "had obtained from other
sources inside Iran."
No U.S. or IAEA official has ever claimed that the so-called laptop documents included designs for a "nuclear warhead." The detailed list in a May 26,
2008 IAEA report of the contents of what have been called the "alleged studies" – intelligence documents on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons work —
made no mention of any such blueprints.
In using the phrase "blueprints for a nuclear warhead," the unnamed official was evidently seeking to conflate blueprints for the reentry vehicle of
the Iranian Shehab missile, which were among the alleged Iranian documents, with blueprints for nuclear weapons.
When New York Times reporters William J. Broad and David E. Sanger used the term "nuclear warhead" to refer to a reentry vehicle in a Nov. 13, 2005
story on the intelligence documents on the Iranian nuclear program, it brought sharp criticism from David Albright, the president of the Institute for
Science and International Security.
"This distinction is not minor," Albright observed, "and Broad should understand the differences between the two objects, particularly when the
information does not contain any words such as nuclear or nuclear warhead."
The Senate report does not identify the country for which the analyst in question works, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff refused to
respond to questions about the report from IPS, including the reason why the report concealed the identity of the country for which the unidentified
"senior allied intelligence official" works.
Reached later in May, the author of the report, Douglas Frantz, told IPS he is under strict instructions not to speak with the news media.
After a briefing on the report for selected news media immediately after its release, however, the Associated Press reported May 6 that interviews
were conducted in Israel. Frantz was apparently forbidden by Israeli officials from revealing their national affiliation as a condition for the
interviews.
Frantz, a former journalist for the Los Angeles Times, had extensive contacts with high-ranking Israeli military, intelligence and foreign ministry
officials before joining the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff. He and co-author Catherine Collins conducted interviews with those Israeli
officials for The Nuclear Jihadist, published in 2007. The interviews were all conducted under rules prohibiting disclosure of their identities,
according to the book.
The unnamed Israeli intelligence officer’s statement that the "blueprints for a nuclear warhead" — meaning specifications for a missile reentry
vehicle - were identical to "designs his agency had obtained from other sources in Iran" suggests that the documents collection which the IAEA has
called "alleged studies" actually originated in Israel.
A U.S.-based nuclear weapons analyst who has followed the "alleged studies" intelligence documents closely says he understands that the documents
obtained by U.S. intelligence in 2004 were not originally stored on the laptop on which they were located when they were brought in by an unidentified
Iranian source, as U.S. officials have claimed to U.S. journalists.
The analyst, who insists on not being identified, says the documents were collected by an intelligence network and then assembled on a single laptop.
The anonymous Israeli intelligence official’s claim, cited in the Committee report, that the "blueprints" in the "alleged studies" collection matched
documents his agency had gotten from its own source seems to confirm the analyst’s finding that Israeli intelligence assembled the documents.
German officials have said that the Mujahedin-e-Khalq or MEK, the Iranian resistance organization, brought the laptop documents collection to the
attention of U.S. intelligence, as reported by IPS in February 2008. Israeli ties with the political arm of the MEK, the National Committee of
Resistance in Iran (NCRI), go back to the early 1990s and include assistance to the organization in broadcasting into Iran from Paris.
The NCRI publicly revealed the existence of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in August 2002. However, that and other intelligence apparently
came from Israeli intelligence. The Israeli co-authors of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran, Yossi Melman and Meir Javeanfar, revealed that "Western"
intelligence was "laundered" to hide its actual provenance by providing it to Iranian opposition groups, especially NCRI, in order to get it to the
IAEA.
They cite U.S., British and Israeli officials as sources for the revelation.
New Yorker writer Connie Bruck wrote in a March 2006 article that an Israeli diplomat confirmed to her that Israel had found the MEK "useful" but
declined to elaborate.
Israeli intelligence is also known to have been actively seeking to use alleged Iranian documents to prove that Iran had an active nuclear weapons
program just at the time the intelligence documents which eventually surfaced in 2004 would have been put together.
The most revealing glimpse of Israeli use of such documents to influence international opinion on Iran’s nuclear program comes from the book by Frantz
and Collins. They report that Israel’s international intelligence agency Mossad created a special unit in the summer of 2003 to carry out a campaign
to provide secret briefings on the Iranian nuclear program, which sometimes included "documents from inside Iran and elsewhere."
The "alleged studies" collection of documents has never been verified as genuine by either the IAEA or by intelligence analysts. The Senate report
said senior United Nations officials and foreign intelligence officials who had seen "many of the documents" in the collection of alleged Iranian
military documents had told committee staff "it is impossible to rule out an elaborate intelligence ruse."
(Inter Press Service)
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
gnu, yer killing me.
i guess obama has you believing that iran ONLY wants nukular energy, not weapons?
i'd prefer to err on the side of caution/carpet bombs!
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
There is no evidence to date of Iran building up technology for nuclear weapons. If you have any link it.
There is evidence of continued suggestions that Iran is building ip nuclear technology for weapons.
Pay attention to the difference between the suggestion and actual evidence.
The Administration has admitted, even this week, they didn't have evidence for the accusations about Iraq and they are admitting this week they have
no evidence for the suggestions that Iran is building nuclear weapons.
You need to pay attention. And you might consider the ramifications of not paying attention, which has cost you and me a great deal of money, lives
and seriously caused our country harm in the worldwide arena.
Its time to admit to yourself you were lied to, misled, your money has been stolen, the admin is not trustworthy and the industrial military complex
has and continues to waste our resources and kill people for no reason other than profit.
If you have any evidence otherwise I would like to see it. Please. Link evidence of a threat from Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Go ahead?
We are in Iraq based entirely on lies, similar lies about uranium from Nigeria. Do you remember? It has been admitted to be wrong intelligence
otherwise known as a lie.
I know, I know, "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Rice.
Which was all part of lie told by Condi Rice along with Cheney, Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld et al to justify an invasion of Iraq. REMEMBER? They said there
was evidence of weapons of mass distruction, evidence of purchasing uranium from nigeria, and a connection between Saddam and 911.
Now they all admit it was wrong (Lies).
They outed outed Valerie Plame the CIA agent in the process to discredit the factual evidence otherwise. Scooter Libby went to jail.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/opinion/02weds1.html
Cheney admits no connection to Iraq for 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdq7hg4dLU
Liz Cheney continues to lie
http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=3538
Iraq for sale
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155...
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
i can't deny any of it....
| Quote: |
Its time to admit to yourself you were lied to, misled, your money has been stolen, the admin is not trustworthy and the industrial military complex
has and continues to waste our resources and kill people for no reason other than profit.
|
and now onto the stimulus package, bailout, credit fiasco................ not to mention bringing our troops home!
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
It would be helpful to read carefully with skepticism beyond the fear filled headlines which justify aggression, invasions and imperialism.
I also believed much of what they said and supported the invasion until they admitted otherwise.
Obama Lines Up Behind Neo-Conservative Campaign Against Iran
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=20
Obama advisers discuss preparations for war on Iran
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/iran-n06.shtml
Obama says Iran war not off the table
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=95022§ionid=351...
Here's an example of a recent article which seeks to mislead further-pay atteention to the juxstaposition of criticism of Obama along with promotion
of war with Iran. Totally misleading. You'll see this false criticism-push for war often.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/05/obama-muslim-speech-inho...
Torturing Democracy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1003188675654300379...
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Why did Obama say we would leave Iraq in 18 months and now he says we wont.
Why did Obama say he would be open about the stimulas package and then he made it entirely secret? More than 14 trillion dollars? Do you realize that
is more money than the world GDP, and you and I are going to pay it forever?
Why did Obama say he wouldn't allow big payouts to failed banks board members and then he went directly to push legislation to allow huge payments.
Why did Obama negotiate a forced bankruptcy of GM, take their pensions, retirement and shareholders money while giving our money to certain creditors?
He overvalued GM and stole the private assets.
Why is that Obama does exactly the opposite of what he says?
And yet few pay attention?
Isn't time to possibly pay a little attention, drop the arrogance and attitude and perhaps look into these issues beyond the quick glance at Fox news
or other similar news reports.
Just look into it. It is important. Peoples lives are at stake and your money.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Last week Obama admitted a US role in the 1953 Iran Coup. Not sure if you paid attention to that, but it is significant, though easily overlooked in
his speach.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/04/obama-admits-to-us-role-i...
More
Is Our "Diplomacy President" Heading the U.S. Toward War With Iran?
http://mideast.blogs.time.com/2009/05/28/is-our-diplomacy-pr...
You can see a pattern
Iran war definite if Obama wins
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=58949
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
Obama is the anti-christ. How else can everything apocalyptic happen in the next two years before the end of the Mayan calendar in December 2012?
The end is near. He's the one... (See, I was an altar boy). Are we in ultra-secret off topic zone yet?? 
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
If I posted all this Obama stuff, boy what a ton of 'Hell' I would read!
Is it selected reading or only some conservatives get yelled at here? LOL |
DK More of your backhanded insults and threats that I should receive "Hell"?
Hmmm. Lets add that to your list of intimidation.
You've gone off on tangents repeatedly, insulted many and insinuated those who defend victims of crime would be murdered?
Your actions are more than offensive. It's in fact criminal to insinuate one would be killed for defending a victim.
You have not apologized.
If you think your insidious snide commentary is somehow cool or pro-baja you are mistaken.
I appreciate that you like Baja, and that we share a love for missions and history but your sniveling comments which add nothing are in no way on
topic or helpful to anyone.
If you persist I will use the letter of the law to demand you stop and no longer suggest people who defend victims of criminal behavior be murdered or
that posters would receive "Hell".
What you did is something I won't tolerate nor will the board and is really criminal.
Please apologize now and take it elsewhere.
[Edited on 6-9-2009 by gnukid]
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
I said I would recieve Hell if I had mentioned Obama... No killing was mentioned, what victim... huh? You got Obama mentioned dozens of times above
and he has nothing to do with Baja' developing of power.
Wow, you have some kind of scary way of interpreting light hearted conversation and humor. No insults were aimed at you...  |
DK-I agree with you that this went way into Off-Topic territory......
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64852
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Thanks ZJ, but do you know why gnukid freaked-out at me? Oh well... maybe some people are getting really nervous about the changes going on and they
are jumpy?
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
I'm pretty excited about the changes myself....
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
