What's new

JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,519
138
23,512
Country
United States
Location
United States
So various research literature that I posted here that talk about relaxed static stability are false ?
They could be since they are NOT from General Dynamics.

You see, first you asked me furnish literature pertaining to RSS being available on f16,and when I did, you're quoting my own words. Instead why not get your hands dirty and furnish similar literature regarding JFT, I'm sure you can operate google and read couple of research literature, I'm again waiting
I asked you in the sense that I was applying your own standards against the jet that set the bar for designing a relaxed stability aircraft. I know that you do not have access to such materials from GD, now MD.

Since I cannot provide the official documentation for the JF-17 and you could not for the F-16, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS AND INSISTENCE, General Dynamics lied about the F-16.
 

amardeep mishra

FULL MEMBER
Mar 8, 2012
1,315
25
2,608
Country
India
Location
India
You posted 'old news', so to speak. Those charts could be hacked up by anyone. You flunked. You get an F.
So this is an old news ?a research paper by ngyuen on post stall analysis of f16 is something that can be faked by anyone ? I'm done talking to you,
Thanks

They could be since they are NOT from General Dynamics.
So a plethora of research conducted by so many people are false? Their IEEE and AIAA journals are false as well.great

This paper has been cited by 259 researchers-

- Google Scholar
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,519
138
23,512
Country
United States
Location
United States
So this is an old news ?a research paper by ngyuen on post stall analysis of f16 is something that can be faked by anyone ? I'm done talking to you,
Thanks
And we are done with you. For a claimed PhD, you have a sorry sense of logic.

So a plethora of research conducted by so many people are false? Their IEEE and AIAA journals are false as well.great
Were they conducted under the aegis of GD ?

First...You dismissed my speculations about the JF-17.

Now...You are willing to accept third party analysis of the F-16 as valid.

This is why for a claimed PhD, you are laughable.
 

amardeep mishra

FULL MEMBER
Mar 8, 2012
1,315
25
2,608
Country
India
Location
India
First...You dismissed my speculations about the JF-17.

Now...You are willing to accept third party analysis of the F-16 as valid.

This is why for a claimed PhD, you are laughable.
I would never have dismissed your speculation had you attached a credible paper in support of claim or statements of designers etc.your speculation was also not applicable universally
Secondly,Those third party are way more credible than you or I. Again instead of personal remarks on my degree you should learn to counter arguments based on research papers.I expected a more informed comment but you stooped down to hurling low level remarks


You've not attached a single paper, instead what you've been claiming is- your speculations
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,519
138
23,512
Country
United States
Location
United States
Those third party are way more credible than you or I. Again instead of personal remarks on my degree you should learn to counter arguments based on research papers.I expected a more informed comment but you stooped down to hurling low level remarks
YOU brought on your degree, pal.

Once you claimed so-and-so status, it is open for challenge, and ridicule if necessary.

The funny part here is that I have no problems being wrong about the JF-17. I never even touched the jet, let alone sat in the cockpit and throttle up. But objectivity includes reasonable speculations based upon observations of behaviors, not just from official documentation from the manufacturer. Why do you think the US conduct EM surveillance flights of the Soviets/Russians and of China ? We sucked in those radar transmissions, analyzed them, and SPECULATE on many aspects of those stations, from designs to operations.

People like you should stay in the labs. Let those of us who actually risk lives and limbs in the real world do our jobs without your criticisms.
 

Ragnarok connection

FULL MEMBER
Sep 22, 2015
147
-1
131
Country
India
Location
India
Oh you guys are just brilliant;

who would have thought we'd see comedy on a defense thread.

Btw, if you don't mind me telling, what is your and @amardeep mishra background ?

as in what was your father's profession ?

I want to correlate that , because both of you speak the same language.
LOL, why do you ask fathers profession?I meant no insult to you bro or anyone here, I just believe that this forum is a place for us military enthusiasts to discuss defence topics and not go too deep into scientific proofs.
 

Ragnarok connection

FULL MEMBER
Sep 22, 2015
147
-1
131
Country
India
Location
India
If you don't mind,
I'd like to know,
Give me a good reason why, and I ll also tell you my grandfathers profession and even further back if required.

Dude ... you do realize the fact that you were in your nappies or lungi back when the man your addressing was flying a falcon in Op. Desert storm ... the fact that an engineer in training based on his research work or yourself as an enthusiast of sorts are challenging the authority that comes with years of experience with the best in the field, for undoubtedly the most advanced airforce in the world .... is a testament to your foolishness ... I've seen your posts and @amardeep mishra's as well ...

Funny story the same amardeep was doubting the KLJ-7 range as officially given based on that the peak power or aperture was not disclosed and that 130 Km was too big of a range that it came close to the N011M Bars's range ... what's funny is when ELM-2032 (the radar LCA's use) was mentioned and its disclosed range of 150 Km (which I suppose is the max tracking range for any airborne target) ... there was no more arguments or responses ... No going back or forth about how this claim can also be inflated because it's actually 10 Km more then the disclosed range for Bars on board MKI (since many Indian members take it as 150 Km for 5m2) ... wanna take a wild guess as to why ??

Lemme just quote an ENTIRE thread LOADED with such claims from our Indian friends including Elta's brochures ..
CONFUSION of TEJAS'S RADAR

It seems to me, "logic and proof" are only needed when the question centers around something in Pakistani service or of Chinese origin ....I will say this though, I respect only a few Indians here and Mr. Mishra owing to his work does fall under that category ... however there is a pattern that I've seen in his posts ... It goes like this

PAC/CAC claims relaxed stability for JFT, or claims 130 Km for 5m2 radar range for KLJ-7 V2... the absence of some figures etc. that can confirm this automatically translates in to it being a false claim ... For someone who claims to accept logical answers ... I haven't really heard an answer to a counter question that I've been presenting to him time and again i.e

Which foolish company would go out and intentionally falsify claims regarding it's products capabilities ... a product that its offering for export .....when it fully knows that the false claims made can be easily busted when the potential customer tries the platform out ...

and quite unsurprisingly I've yet to see a logical answer ....
Nice, a pilot...tnx for the info...You misunderstand my post... I never challenged the authority/experience/knowledge of anyone, I am on your/pilots side on this argument. I myself hate scientific papers and all that theoretical stuff.
 

amardeep mishra

FULL MEMBER
Mar 8, 2012
1,315
25
2,608
Country
India
Location
India
YOU brought on your degree, pa
I did not bring out degree as a remark to your comment, instead I was replying to one of indian posters who was referring to an engineering degree in instrumentation and control. By your standards,In spite of your speculations, never once did I ridicule your profession or your degree, but you did just opposite!

ridicule if necessary.
Don't you think it applies to you as well? But did I indulge in that- no! Because,unlike you, I'm not interested in hurling personal remarks about you or your education or your profession.
Even if we consider your speculations to be correct-
Don't you think your speculation might apply to only a certain set of jets and is not universal?
I merely wished to see a simple statement from the designer or a research paper from a very very credible third party.btw LM, during their sales pitch in India have released statement regarding RSS being available on f16, how difficult it is for you to find such statement from the designer of jft, especially if they're vigorously vying for export customers in Asia etc?

Let those of us who actually risk lives and limbs in the real world do our jobs without your criticisms.
Believe me I come from such a family, I spent my entire childhood in one or the other IAF bases.
I'm not oblivious to the workings of air force.
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,519
138
23,512
Country
United States
Location
United States
Even if we consider your speculations to be correct-
Here is what I find odd that you, a claimed PhD, did not understand...

I never asked if my speculation is correct, only that observations can yield enough information for us to make educated guesses, and that making speculations, or at least educated ones, have a valid place in an investigative process.

Have you ever done any aviation related mishap investigations ? I have assisted in a couple. Speculations are useful in that they will lead us to a possible cause or a chain of cause/effects that can shed light on why the mishap occurred.

How is it that a claimed PhD cannot follow the debate and understand ?

Here is EXACTLY what I said...

Observance of the control surfaces in flight to guess if an aircraft have at least pitch relaxed stability is difficult, but it can be done.

Source: JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF | Page 17
It mean making an educated guess is possible, not that the guess will be proven true. Which part of 'to guess' do you not understand ? I never said that observance of a single behavior would yield the desired result.

What I see in you is an Indian who want to downgrade this Pakistani-Chinese venture as much as possible. Not that making speculations is an inappropriate part of an investigation.

I merely wished to see a simple statement from the designer or a research paper from a very very credible third party.
Ahh...So now you broaden your need to 'credible third party' after you got caught in the trap of your own creation.

Sorry, pal. According to YOUR original insistence on seeing the math from the manufacturer, General Dynamics have been lying to the world all these decades about the F-16 employing relaxed stability.
 

amardeep mishra

FULL MEMBER
Mar 8, 2012
1,315
25
2,608
Country
India
Location
India
What I see in you is an Indian who want to downgrade this Pakistani-Chinese venture as much as possible. Not that making speculations is an inappropriate part of an investigation.
@gambit
Downgrade? you are indeed very intelligent,instead of showing a simple statement from the designer(i am convinced you cant read research papers) you continue to revolve around in circles and circles often hurling personal remarks! great! Very matured indeed- when you cant comprehend something- hurl personal remarks!
This is what you said-
"This is why for a claimed PhD, you are laughable."

Source: JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF | Page 22
Mind you,in spite of that i did not raise a single question on either your degree or your work.

Now,Show me a single statement,wherein i de-graded that venture?Unlike you i did not label it as not credible etc like your "third party" allegations


Ahh...So now you broaden your need to 'credible third party' after you got caught in the trap of your own creation.
I did nothing, i am merely helping you find more RESOURCES,thats all but i am convinced you can neither search inet to find the statement of designers nor read research papers from very credible third party- third party that you ridiculously laughed away by saying they mean nothing and are not credible- so what exactly counts as credible in front of you- i guess your "speculations"?
your statement-
They could be since they are NOT from General Dynamics.

Source: JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF | Page 22

Have you ever done any aviation related mishap investigations ? I have assisted in a couple. Speculations are useful in that they will lead us to a possible cause or a chain of cause/effects that can shed light on why the mishap occurred.
I never claimed i have taken part in such an exercise.I however have written algorithms that i am convinced you can not comprehend

According to YOUR original insistence on seeing the math from the manufacturer, General Dynamics have been lying to the world all these decades about the F-16 employing relaxed stability.
GD is the designer of the jet,offcourse when they "say" it has RSS,one has no reason to ask them the math behind it,for static stability is contingent upon the relative position of CG vis-a-vis neutral point which only designer can declare. On a similar note,i was also asking a similar statement from the designer i.e the CATIC that RSS is also available on JFT,how difficult it is for you to provide such a statement?
Even if you cant provide such a statement or having difficulty finding one,why cant you furnish "credible third party" research papers?Just like i did in the case of F16?

t mean making an educated guess is possible, not that the guess will be proven true. Which part of 'to guess' do you not understand ? I never said that observance of a single behavior would yield the desired result.
Ofcourse,one can make a lot of guesses sometimes intelligent sometimes not so- but one must be able to explain the logic behind making such a guess!How clear it would have been had you also provided the logic for your guess
IN your statement you clearly said-

"If the video shows the jet remains nose up but the horizontal stabs is parallel to the body, taking trim deflections into consideration, odds are very good that the jet have at least pitch relaxed stability. The jet is simply moving too fast and maneuvers too quick in execution for the human eye to discern."

seeing the math from the manufacturer
I am afraid you got it all wrong,i meant a statement from the manufacturer - this statement can be as simple as a simple publication in a magazine,manual or as complex as a research paper from either company or credible third party
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
25,519
138
23,512
Country
United States
Location
United States
Downgrade? you are indeed very intelligent,instead of showing a simple statement from the designer(i am convinced you cant read research papers) you continue to revolve around in circles and circles often hurling personal remarks! great! Very matured indeed- when you cant comprehend something- hurl personal remarks!
I took two of your posts that you tried to explain the relationship between the center of gravity to the center of lift and presented in a way that most people could understand. I reached a wider audience than you did.

Show me a single statement,wherein i de-graded that venture?
Not a statement, but I perceive the intent is there -- to cast the JF-17 in as negative a light as possible.

You do it in a sneaky way by hiding behind the math you know would go beyond the laymen. You are saying that since no one can provide the math for the JF-17's claim of relaxed stability, the J-17 does not have it.

I did nothing, i am merely helping you find more RESOURCES,thats all but i am convinced you can neither search inet to find the statement of designers nor read research papers from very credible third party
You think you brought on anything new about the F-16 that I have not seen before ?

Buddy, I was on the jet for five yrs doing things with the jet that you could only dream of. I do not need to see the math from GD to have complete trust that the F-16 was designed with relaxed stability. One of the things that I have seen were avionics test station data, the kind that GD and contractors designed for technicians to use to troubleshoot the jet's FLCC. I do not need the Internet, kid.

I never claimed i have taken part in such an exercise.
Never said you did. Stop being so defensive. I only mentioned my experience to show that speculations are necessary in any investigative process, something that you have not denied and it is telling.

First...You dismissed my post 253 as worthless speculation.

Then...When presented with situations that you know involve speculations, you avoided acknowledging them.

I however have written algorithms that i am convinced you can not comprehend
You are probably correct.

I got out of the USAF in 1992,Then I worked as a field engineer, for a company that shall remain nameless, designing radar tests to defeat 'autonomous low altitude subsonic' aircrafts. We were calling them 'drones' long before the Internet became popular. I was doing radar range equations in my head in the field while you were still learning algebra. Then I had a career change into semiconductor manufacturing.

But that does not mean I have forgotten the foundations of what I know of aviation. I do not need to know the math to recognize when someone is violating the laws of physics, like plenty have done on this forum.

GD is the designer of the jet,offcourse when they "say" it has RSS,one has no reason to ask them the math behind it,...
Then why do you insist on seeing the same from the JF-17's designers ?

...for static stability is contingent upon the relative position of CG vis-a-vis neutral point which only designer can declare.
True. And that mean GD could have lied all these yrs, correct ?

On a similar note,i was also asking a similar statement from the designer i.e the CATIC that RSS is also available on JFT,how difficult it is for you to provide such a statement?
It is difficult in the sense that I live in the US. Not Pakistan nor China.

But if you can take GD's word for the F-16, why not take PAC-CAC's word on the JF-17 ?

Even if you cant provide such a statement or having difficulty finding one,why cant you furnish "credible third party" research papers?Just like i did in the case of F16?
This is exactly what I caught you -- with your pants down.

First...You INSISTED through several posts that you will accept no less than the math from PAC-CAC. No one else.

Then...When you got caught in the trap of your own creation after I presented the F-16, you allowed third party analysis for your own argument.

I have no interests in proving the JF-17 than I do for the F-16. But what I am doing is defending the role of speculation in the investigative process. As far as I am concerned, I have no problems accepting PAC-CAC's claim that the JF-17 is pitch only relaxed stability.

Ofcourse,one can make a lot of guesses sometimes intelligent sometimes not so- but one must be able to explain the logic behind making such a guess!
And I did. By observing behaviors instead of insisting on something that probably we will never have -- the math from PAC-CAC.

How clear it would have been had you also provided the logic for your guess
IN your statement you clearly said-
How is what I posted as illogical ?

Here is what I said of those behaviors in post 253...

On a pitch stable aircraft, its CLift is behind its CGrav, so when it pitches up to climb, its horizontal tail stabs usually remains deflected, meaning away from parallel with the airframe, to keep the aircraft nose up.

On a pitch unstable aircraft, its CGrav is behind its CLift, so when it pitches up to climb, its horizontal tail stabs deflects to provide an initial nose up change, then return to parallel with the airframe, but the aircraft remains nose up to climb.

Source: JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF | Page 17
Here is a visual example of those behaviors...



Note the horizontal stabs position relative to the body on each aircraft in the pitch up maneuver. The F-15's horizontal stabs are displaced leading edge down to a greater degree to its body while the F-16's horizontal stabs is relatively parallel to its body.

The F-15 was not designed with relaxed stability, which mean it should have it CGrav in front of CLift. If the horizontal stabs returns to neutral, the F-15 should begin to pitch nose down.

The F-16 was designed with relaxed stability, which mean it should have its CGrav behind its CLift. Once the jet achieve its desired pitch nose up attitude, the horizontal stabs returns to neutral to its body. Since CGrav is behind CLift, the jet remains pitch nose up.

If the JF-17 was designed with pitch relaxed stability, it should exhibit this behavior and the best way to verify this is not only thru a photograph but thru video.

Most likely, we will never have the math from any manufacturer so behaviors are the only clues we have.

Here is what an F-16 pilot on f-16.net said...

Is the F-16 unstable? - F-16 Design & Construction
the horizontal stabs would initially move leading edge down when initiating a hard turn, then go leading edge up to keep the AOA under control.
I am not the only F-16 guy who know this behavior.

IN FACT, EVERY FUCKING PILOT SINCE THE CREATION OF THE F-16 WITH ITS RELAXED STABILITY KNOW OF THIS BEHAVIOR AND EVEN MANY TECNICIANS ON THE F-16 KNOW OF THIS BEHAVIOR.

You may know the math but it looks like you know jack-shit about the behaviors of the algorithms you produced.

I am afraid you got it all wrong,i meant a statement from the manufacturer - this statement can be as simple as a simple publication in a magazine,manual or as complex as a research paper from either company or credible third party
So effectively, you are saying that the statement from PAC-CAC to the Pakistani Air Force is not good enough.

Why the hell should the Pakistani Air Force care if PAC-CAC publish for the public ?

In your zeal to cast doubt on this Pakistani-Chinese product, you get more and more inconsistent as time and posts goes by.
 

The Eagle

SENIOR MODERATOR
Oct 15, 2015
22,217
174
41,957
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I took two of your posts that you tried to explain the relationship between the center of gravity to the center of lift and presented in a way that most people could understand. I reached a wider audience than you did.


Not a statement, but I perceive the intent is there -- to cast the JF-17 in as negative a light as possible.

You do it in a sneaky way by hiding behind the math you know would go beyond the laymen. You are saying that since no one can provide the math for the JF-17's claim of relaxed stability, the J-17 does not have it.


You think you brought on anything new about the F-16 that I have not seen before ?

Buddy, I was on the jet for five yrs doing things with the jet that you could only dream of. I do not need to see the math from GD to have complete trust that the F-16 was designed with relaxed stability. One of the things that I have seen were avionics test station data, the kind that GD and contractors designed for technicians to use to troubleshoot the jet's FLCC. I do not need the Internet, kid.


Never said you did. Stop being so defensive. I only mentioned my experience to show that speculations are necessary in any investigative process, something that you have not denied and it is telling.

First...You dismissed my post 253 as worthless speculation.

Then...When presented with situations that you know involve speculations, you avoided acknowledging them.


You are probably correct.

I got out of the USAF in 1992, probably either before you were borned or when you were still soiling your diapers. Then I worked as a field engineer, for a company that shall remain nameless, designing radar tests to defeat 'autonomous low altitude subsonic' aircrafts. We were calling them 'drones' long before the Internet became popular. I was doing radar range equations in my head in the field while you were still learning algebra. Then I had a career change into semiconductor manufacturing.

But that does not mean I have forgotten the foundations of what I know of aviation. I do not need to know the math to recognize when someone is violating the laws of physics, like plenty have done on this forum.


Then why do you insist on seeing the same from the JF-17's designers ?


True. And that mean GD could have lied all these yrs, correct ?


It is difficult in the sense that I live in the US. Not Pakistan nor China.

But if you can take GD's word for the F-16, why not take PAC-CAC's word on the JF-17 ?


This is exactly what I caught you -- with your pants down.

First...You INSISTED through several posts that you will accept no less than the math from PAC-CAC. No one else.

Then...When you got caught in the trap of your own creation after I presented the F-16, you allowed third party analysis for your own argument.

I have no interests in proving the JF-17 than I do for the F-16. But what I am doing is defending the role of speculation in the investigative process. As far as I am concerned, I have no problems accepting PAC-CAC's claim that the JF-17 is pitch only relaxed stability.


And I did. By observing behaviors instead of insisting on something that probably we will never have -- the math from PAC-CAC.


How is what I posted as illogical ?

Here is what I said of those behaviors in post 253...


Here is a visual example of those behaviors...



Note the horizontal stabs position relative to the body on each aircraft in the pitch up maneuver. The F-15's horizontal stabs are displaced leading edge down to a greater degree to its body while the F-16's horizontal stabs is relatively parallel to its body.

The F-15 was not designed with relaxed stability, which mean it should have it CGrav in front of CLift. If the horizontal stabs returns to neutral, the F-15 should begin to pitch nose down.

The F-16 was designed with relaxed stability, which mean it should have its CGrav behind its CLift. Once the jet achieve its desired pitch nose up attitude, the horizontal stabs returns to neutral to its body. Since CGrav is behind CLift, the jet remains pitch nose up.

If the JF-17 was designed with pitch relaxed stability, it should exhibit this behavior and the best way to verify this is not only thru a photograph but thru video.

Most likely, we will never have the math from any manufacturer so behaviors are the only clues we have.

Here is what an F-16 pilot on f-16.net said...

Is the F-16 unstable? - F-16 Design & Construction

I am not the only F-16 guy who know this behavior.

IN FACT, EVERY FUCKING PILOT SINCE THE CREATION OF THE F-16 WITH ITS RELAXED STABILITY KNOW OF THIS BEHAVIOR AND EVEN MANY TECNICIANS ON THE F-16 KNOW OF THIS BEHAVIOR.

You may know the math but it looks like you know jack-shit about the behaviors of the algorithms you produced.


So effectively, you are saying that the statement from PAC-CAC to the Pakistani Air Force is not good enough.

Why the hell should the Pakistani Air Force care if PAC-CAC publish for the public ?

In your zeal to cast doubt on this Pakistani-Chinese product, you get more and more inconsistent as time and posts goes by.
and mate you know what,



Congrats to all.

Pakistan Zindabad

You do it in a sneaky way by hiding behind the math you know would go beyond the laymen. You are saying that since no one can provide the math for the JF-17's claim of relaxed stability, the J-17 does not have it.


But if you can take GD's word for the F-16, why not take PAC-CAC's word on the JF-17 ?

First...You INSISTED through several posts that you will accept no less than the math from PAC-CAC. No one else.

As far as I am concerned, I have no problems accepting PAC-CAC's claim that the JF-17 is pitch only relaxed stability.

And I did. By observing behaviors instead of insisting on something that probably we will never have -- the math from PAC-CAC.

So effectively, you are saying that the statement from PAC-CAC to the Pakistani Air Force is not good enough.
.
and mate you know what, (To give it a break here and relax)



Congrats to all.

Pakistan Zindabad
 

Viper0011.

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 15, 2011
7,259
26
9,944
Country
United States
Location
United States
I took two of your posts that you tried to explain the relationship between the center of gravity to the center of lift and presented in a way that most people could understand. I reached a wider audience than you did.
Dude, you are dealing with a character who "wants to be right". I have a few of such kind working for me. I always have to "dumb it down" for our clients, otherwise, the Maths and the superior Technicalities would probably break the deal.

He started this thread with me and asked you to get involved. I got banned and just saw this thread running full steam. Sorry couldn't be the Wing-man (or vis-a-vis). I won't worry about countering him anymore. He has NO experience working on any 4th Gen or above real project. And he'll just argue for the sake of it. He thinks he is the ONLY PhD on here, who understands Static and Relaxed stability and everyone else went to a school of arts!!

Here is a visual example of those behaviors...



Note the horizontal stabs position relative to the body on each aircraft in the pitch up maneuver. The F-15's horizontal stabs are displaced leading edge down to a greater degree to its body while the F-16's horizontal stabs is relatively parallel to its body.

If the JF-17 was designed with pitch relaxed stability, it should exhibit this behavior and the best way to verify this is not only thru a photograph but thru video.

Most likely, we will never have the math from any manufacturer so behaviors are the only clues we have.

IN FACT, EVERY FUCKING PILOT SINCE THE CREATION OF THE F-16 WITH ITS RELAXED STABILITY KNOW OF THIS BEHAVIOR AND EVEN MANY TECNICIANS ON THE F-16 KNOW OF THIS BEHAVIOR..
A picture is worth a thousand words!!!! I told him the SAME stuff but he would rather run his calculator to crunch numbers, than listening to people who've actually been involved in this industry!!

@amardeep mishra : Mr. Mishra: Don't you think enough time has been wasted here? If you want me to tell you "you are right in your dreams", I said it. Let it go so that the discussion can go towards some positive end. Thank you!!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom