Our partner

HPDs and Peak Oil

Histrionic Personality Disorder message board, open discussion, and online support group.
Forum rules
Attention Please. You are entering the Histrionic Personality Disorder forum. Please read this carefully.

Given the unique propensities of those who are faced with the issues of HPD, topics at times may be uncomfortable for non HP readers. Discussions related to HPD behavior are permitted here, within the context of deeper understanding of the commonalties shared by members. Indulging or encouraging these urges is not what this forum is intended for.

Conversations here can be triggering for those who have suffered abuse from HPDs. .
Non HPD users are welcome to post here, But their questions Must have a respectful tone.
If you are a NON and have issues with an past relationship with an HPD person, it is suggested that you Post in a Relationship forum. Here is a link to that forum: relationship/

For those who have no respect for either this illness or for those who are living with it, please do not enter this forum. Discrimination of Personality Disorders is not tolerated on this site.

Moderators are present here to ensure that members treat each other with dignity and respect. If topics become overly graphic or drift from having a healthy perspective, moderators will intervene.
Please feel free to contact a moderator if you have any questions or concerns.

Best Regards,
The Team

Postby digital.noface » Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:30 am

Her0savestheday wrote:A year ago I would have agreed with you. I'm as capitalistic as they come. I love the free-market and the ideals on which it was founded. I believe that in an enlightened society with unlimited energy to fuel it, the free market will provide unlimited innovation and opportunity for growth. Unfortunately we live in a world and society that is neither enlightened, nor do we have a cheap source of unlimited energy. What we have is an expendable source of cheap energy that has provided our race with an opportunity to grow and develop at an unrelenting pace. Take it from someone who once was the number 1 chear leader for the free-market and it's benificent role in modern society, it is blind optimism to believe this trend can continue. I say this simply because there is not a single renewable or alternative energy source that can replace oil. In fact, there is not a single renewable or alternative energy source that does not either rely on an industry that is subsidized by a cheap energy source (oil), or that does not result in a net loss of energy. Oil is a great thing, it's allowed our race to expand well beyond the solar limit's which constricted our growth prior to it's discovery. But with no alternative that is even remotely promising, I believe we're in for some extremely interesting times. My one personal hope is that we can discover how to sustain nuclear fusion and have it produce more energy than it and the supporting industries required to sustain it consume. THAT is our one hope.
Nonsense. Whilst nuclulear fusion would be nice, there is another alternative that we could theoretically move to should it come to that. It is in fact the logical thing to do.

Currently, we have a super source of energy. Oil is great. I mean, we can synthesise plenty of things like it, but that is the point. We have to synthesise them. Oil is just laying around. How awesome. Anyhow, oil also has very little to no significant role in the ecosystems of the earth, being buried far below the surface. This means we can burn it all without royally screwing entire ecosystems. Still, we are lost without it.

First lets look at alternative energy. 'Green' energy, as they call it, doesn't remain green if it is demanded in the quantities that oil is demanded in. If all of the worlds energy demands were placed upon nuclear energy, we would be out of uranium in 50 years. If it was placed of wind energy, you will find horrendous disturbances to global and regional wind currents, upon which millions of ecosystems are built around. If it was placed on solar energy, say by covering the ocean or sahara desert with panels, you would obviously destroy the local environment, but you would also rob the atmosphere of heat, lowering global temperature, and creating unusual convection currents. Geothermal energy demanded in global quantities cools the interior of the earth- who knows what that could lead to.

The problem in each instance is the same, destroying the environment upon which we depend. When you try to source such immense and vast quantities of energy from an ecosystem, you cannot avoid harming it (or at least altering it drastically). So what is the solution? Don't get the energy from earth. We can be as regardless as we please in the uninhabited sterile expanses of space and deserted celestial bodies. Consider this. What if we were to construct an orbital solar energy power station. Work out how much minimum energy we require, convert that into solar panel area, then put them into space. There are obvious hurdles and expenses, but they would easily pay for themseves.

Anyhow, ideal pipe reams aside, what I meant when I said everything would be fine, in reference to the hand of the market, is that market demand for energy will automatically co-ordinate with supply and cosequently price to restrict actual strain on resources to a perfect optimum. As there are less ridiculously cheap forms of energy available, supply will constrict, whilst demand remains more or less stable, pushing the price upward, and thus lowering consumption. It's all about opportunity cost. Right now driving to work costs less than a can of coke. After the dusk of oil driving to work will still be possible, but it might cost you more than a carton of coke cans.
...
digital.noface
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:58 am
Local time: Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


ADVERTISEMENT

Postby digital.noface » Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:40 am

Her0savestheday wrote:Yes, the desire to make a buck is indeed one of the many driving forces behind human advancement. However, the wonderfuly cheap energy source that is oil has allowed humanity to grow FAR beyond it's solar limits. Unless a sufficient alternative is found we will revert to our solar limit at some point or another. Unfortunately, sometimes the doom sayers are right. More often not, but sometimes they are.
However, whilst we still have freely available oil there is little demand for such an alternative. Once the supply dwindles, and the the price consequently goes up, through the substitution effect you will see demand for alternatives rise, directing the market staight toward one such solution, or many. There is nothing to worry about, these things resolve themselves. If anything, if you are concerned for the environment you should go and buy an SUV and do doughnuts all day. Pour as much petrol you can afford down the drain. By hastening the end of oil supplies you hasten the economic imperative to find alternatives.
...
digital.noface
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:58 am
Local time: Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby ccumm36D » Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:29 am

[/quote] Unfortunately, sometimes the doom sayers are right. More often not, but sometimes they are.[/quote]

Name one...

When were the doom sayers right?

Reminds me of the SNL skit on Weekend Update...

"World ends at ten! Film at eleven"!

The recurring theme throughout all of these posts is elementary economics...supply and demand.

It's all about making a buck.
"It's not how hard you can hit. It's how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward".
ccumm36D
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:38 pm
Local time: Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby shivers » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:39 am

Talking about making a buck and driving trucks for a living. I've been watching the series Ice Road Truckers on Fox8 channel.

Big money, big trucks and big risk. There's no way you'd get me in a big rig like those hauling across 28 inches of frozen lake, with the ice moving and cracking under the weight of the haulage.

Yellowknife Canada is where it all starts and they head north at the peak of winter across frozen lakes to reach the diamond mines, of De Beers, BHP and one other. Awesome stuff.

But, global warming cut the season short last year, by 2 weeks, the ice started to melt too soon.
shivers
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 2524
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:13 pm
Local time: Sat Aug 15, 2020 5:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Her0savestheday » Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:34 pm

ccumm36D wrote:
Unfortunately, sometimes the doom sayers are right. More often not, but sometimes they are.[/quote]

Name one...

When were the doom sayers right?

Reminds me of the SNL skit on Weekend Update...

"World ends at ten! Film at eleven"!

The recurring theme throughout all of these posts is elementary economics...supply and demand.

It's all about making a buck.[/quote]

Pearl harbor? Any one who spoke up before a major catastrophe and was ignored? I thought this was painfully obvious, apparently it's not. Oh, how about intelligence experts before 9/11? Total doomsayers, that $#%^ doesn't happen in America. I'm not saying we should buy in to every #######4 media scare that comes out, in fact rarely, if ever do I pay attention to them. I am HIGHLY sceptical about any such fear mongering tactics, usually it's just to sell advertising. Example: Global warming. Complete #######4. Not that the planets temperature isn't rising, because it is. However, this happens in cycles every 10,000 years and low and behold we're at the very end of a 10,000 year cycle. Point is, sometimes doomsayers are assholes who have misinterpreted the facts, but sometimes it's everyone else who's the asshole.

Unfortunately there is A LOT of good science out there that points towards future troubles.

As for your "alternative energy sources cited" in order for those to even function they require an oil based economy to build and maintain them. You need to factor in all the oil that goes in to running the industries involved, cost of transporting the materials, and the cost of building them. In the end they all rely on cheap oil. According to Hubbert's curve we reached peak oil in 2005. So this means the actual cost in ENERGY to build and sustain these alternatives will rise. I should also point out that not a single one of these alternatives is even remotely self-sufficient, they are all net loss scenarios where the energy that goes into creating and maintaining them is greater than the energy they actually produce. Yeah, thermo-dynamics is a bitch. The reason why we're able to use such alternative sources is because we have a very cheap widly available source of energy, that is dwindling.

I honestly don't think we can continue our way of life, at some point we're going to have to adopt a more reasoned and intellectual approach to capitalism. Right now it's just a balls-to-the-wall free-for-all, damn the consequences the market will sort it out in the end approach. At some point we're going to have to put some actual thought into our expansion as a species rather than sating the desires that are currently in front of us. The market, contrary to what some of you believe, is not god. It's a wonderful thing that has afforded us comfortable lives and previously undreamed of growth, but it's a human collective. I'm not one to get on the humans are inherently flawed band-wagon, but we do have limits. Often these limits can be over-come, some times they can't. So it would reason that the market is limited. I'd love to put full faith in the market to sort things out, but someone has to ask the question, what if it doesn't and why wouldn't it? The answer to that, as I see it, is the end of cheap oil which may be approaching us faster than some may think.

I just think you guys are wallowing around in your own self-praise of capitalism to consider that there are potential limits and forseeable problems. Capitalism is great, but don't make it out to be something it's not.
Her0savestheday
Consumer 3
Consumer 3
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:06 pm
Local time: Sat Aug 15, 2020 5:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby digital.noface » Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:34 am

Her0savestheday wrote:Pearl harbor? Any one who spoke up before a major catastrophe and was ignored? I thought this was painfully obvious, apparently it's not. Oh, how about intelligence experts before 9/11?
Both of these events were orchestrated, (indirectly), by the government and both times has stood to it's very clear benefit. They were no catastrophes.
Total doomsayers, that $#%^ doesn't happen in America. I'm not saying we should buy in to every #######4 media scare that comes out, in fact rarely, if ever do I pay attention to them. I am HIGHLY sceptical about any such fear mongering tactics, usually it's just to sell advertising. Example: Global warming. Complete #######4. Not that the planets temperature isn't rising, because it is. However, this happens in cycles every 10,000 years and low and behold we're at the very end of a 10,000 year cycle. Point is, sometimes doomsayers are assholes who have misinterpreted the facts, but sometimes it's everyone else who's the asshole.

Unfortunately there is A LOT of good science out there that points towards future troubles.
There always has been. The human race is infinitely flexible, that is why were are found in every climate and location in the world, bar the bottom of the ocean (given the need, we will go there too).

As for your "alternative energy sources cited" in order for those to even function they require an oil based economy to build and maintain them. You need to factor in all the oil that goes in to running the industries involved, cost of transporting the materials, and the cost of building them. In the end they all rely on cheap oil. According to Hubbert's curve we reached peak oil in 2005. So this means the actual cost in ENERGY to build and sustain these alternatives will rise. I should also point out that not a single one of these alternatives is even remotely self-sufficient, they are all net loss scenarios where the energy that goes into creating and maintaining them is greater than the energy they actually produce. Yeah, thermo-dynamics is a bitch. The reason why we're able to use such alternative sources is because we have a very cheap widly available source of energy, that is dwindling.
Regardless of how much energy we end up with, the decrease in supply will effect a rise in price, and thus the opportunity cost of energy use rise, and people use less. At the same time the rising demand for alternatives due to the substitution effect allows for a grander and more profitable market to rise, not only satiating demand, but innovating too. We are at a point where we are within a hair of not being confined to the fate of earth. Scientists have developed a method of actually teleporting photons. This puts us so frustratingly close to being able to mass teleport energy. Once we can do this, not only does the entire distribution of electricity become weightless (like, say, information when the internet came out), as well as losing energy to resistance, but the reality of transporting energy from extra-terrestrial enviroments becomes plausible too (currently, to harvest Solar power from the moon we would need constant ferries back and forth).

I honestly don't think we can continue our way of life, at some point we're going to have to adopt a more reasoned and intellectual approach to capitalism. Right now it's just a balls-to-the-wall free-for-all, damn the consequences the market will sort it out in the end approach. At some point we're going to have to put some actual thought into our expansion as a species rather than sating the desires that are currently in front of us. The market, contrary to what some of you believe, is not god. It's a wonderful thing that has afforded us comfortable lives and previously undreamed of growth, but it's a human collective. I'm not one to get on the humans are inherently flawed band-wagon, but we do have limits. Often these limits can be over-come, some times they can't. So it would reason that the market is limited. I'd love to put full faith in the market to sort things out, but someone has to ask the question, what if it doesn't and why wouldn't it? The answer to that, as I see it, is the end of cheap oil which may be approaching us faster than some may think.
You can't have a 'reasoned and intelligent' approach to capitalism. It is a system, not an approach. If you want to bend it to you ends, then you must modify the input (namely, demand). If you want a 'reasoned and intelligent' capitalism, you must alter what is being demanded of it. Now, it is not in blind faith that I say the market will sort it out, but 'reasoned and intelligent' analysis. As energy is less available, the opportunity cost of consuming it will rise. This simple mechanism in itself will throttle humanity's desire to kill itself. That is really it.

I just think you guys are wallowing around in your own self-praise
'wallowing' in self praise? *raises eyebrow*. 'Basking', perhaps?
of capitalism to consider that there are potential limits and forseeable problems. Capitalism is great, but don't make it out to be something it's not.
Capitalism is inert without input. What makes it great is the limitless demands of humanity and the scarcity of supply. It is a completely decentralised method of distribution and allocated, self-regulated by aggregate demand and supply. The only situation in which Capitalism 'fails' is when people find it neccesary to selectively restrict and apply it so as to achieve a 'reasoned and intelligent' approach thereof (rather than simply modifying the input, or oven the output). This is where market failure comes from.
...
digital.noface
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:58 am
Local time: Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby bereft » Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:07 am

Digi,

They were no catastrophes.


Surely you are not suggesting that the loss of 3,000 people on 9/11 was not a catastrophe?

There wasn't an economic gain from the either the expense incurred by either the US in WWII or in the subsequent military action following 9/11.

WWII was financed by using the newly funded Social Security revenues (which have yet to be repaid) and the billions of dollars that have been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq haven't produced any reduction in taxes or the price of oil.

If anyone had anything to gain from the bombing of Pearl Harbor, it was the Australians and Britains. Britain was on the verge of collapse from Germany and Japan was lining up Australia in its crosshairs. Did the US ignore some of the intelligience prior to Pearl Harbor, yes it did. But I am not prone to giving much credence to illogical consipiracy theories that the US government actively seeks to murder its own citizens.

N.
Things Fall Apart
bereft
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 1:24 am
Local time: Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby digital.noface » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:59 am

nymenche wrote:Digi,

They were no catastrophes.


Surely you are not suggesting that the loss of 3,000 people on 9/11 was not a catastrophe?
The loss of 3000 people in any event doesn't constitute a catastrophe. Obviously there is a lot of subjective scope with which one could apply there word, contradict another application, and still not be incorrect. However, in the context of our discourse, no 9/11 wasn't at all a catastrophe. It was barely an incident, except that it happened in USA. A catastrophe in the terms of our discussion would have to be something which has an economically significant, lasting, and devastating impact on the world (or any localised sphere of reference). 9/11 didn't affect more than a hiccup in the world economy, or the domestic US economy. It was strenuously extrapolated to destroy the economy of an insiginificant and unruly US puppet state, and led to a few thousand more death in that, but nothing more. The thing we have to understand is that on a global scale, or even a national scale, people are cheap. Don't let your buying into human rights trick you into thinking those in power have also done so, or at least are ignorance of how little human life is actually worth to them.

There wasn't an economic gain from the either the expense incurred by either the US in WWII or in the subsequent military action following 9/11.
As with most of the actions of government, the motivations aren't in the interest of the economy (which benefits the people, last on a long list of government interests). This is a reality in all manifestations of statism. The advancement of a special few at the expense of all.

WWII was financed by using the newly funded Social Security revenues (which have yet to be repaid) and the billions of dollars that have been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq haven't produced any reduction in taxes or the price of oil.
Thats because it wasn't done for oil consumers or taxpayers.

If anyone had anything to gain from the bombing of Pearl Harbor, it was the Australians and Britains. Britain was on the verge of collapse from Germany and Japan was lining up Australia in its crosshairs. Did the US ignore some of the intelligience prior to Pearl Harbor, yes it did. But I am not prone to giving much credence to illogical consipiracy theories that the US government actively seeks to murder its own citizens.
But you'd give creedence to the notion that it wouldn't given the motivation? Teddy roosevelt was begging for in on the war. However the idea of war was unpopular in the US because, well, life was good, the war had nothing to do with them, and Nazism wasn't even that unpopular. It was the forties, everyone was racist, nobody liked jews, and europe wasn't really USA's top priority. So, congress wouldn't allow it. For a second it seemed the political system worked. Teddy knew that he' need a direct threat to sway the public, and he had just finished reading the report about what some funny little austrian did to the Reichstag to garner mass support. There was no conspiracy, there are no secrets. All of this is directly observable to any amateur historian. President Roosevelt simply started to do everything he could to provoke Japan. Sanctions, embargoes, freezing diplomatic ties, the whole shebang. He got lucky, and Japan attacked.

There was no secret, no grim arrangement, no dark cabal of conspirators planning the deaths of US sailors. US simply observably provoked Japan, and Japan attacked, giving Ted Roosevelt the war he very publically wanted but couldn't have.
...
digital.noface
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:58 am
Local time: Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby bereft » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:19 am

Digi,

Teddy knew that he' need a direct threat to sway the public,


I know that US presidents are not quite as familiar to you as maybe myself, but Franklin Roosevelt was president when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Teddy was all for a war but they were of opposite parties.

I agree that the US supported England and others against Germany and Japan through trade embargoes and tariffs, but the US people didn't want war and the country was still recovering economically from the depression. All politicians are thinking about the next election, and continuing economic prosperity is what most voters were looking at in 1942. Roosevelt knew that the country was better off staying out of the war and passed neutrality acts for four years before 1942. Pear Harbor did, though, give him the excuse to enter into the war the he knew was inevitable.

This is a reality in all manifestations of statism. The advancement of a special few at the expense of all.


Most political parties don't fall on their sword even for their highest elected official. The 2006 election cost the Republican party its majority in both legislative branches leaving them with only an ineffective lame duck president and poor prospects for 2008. GWB, for all his faults, and most of his party truly believes that the democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq will lead to a more stable Middle East situation. Otherwise, their sense of self-preservation would have kicked in by now and forced an end to a war that is costing them in more ways than one. Again, any politician is only as powerful as his last election and power is the all engulfing siren's song.

You may lightly dismiss the loss of 3,000 lives and think that the impact of 9/11 was only a "hiccup" in the world perspective, but the recession that followed was a significant financial occurrence. Without the intervention of the US Federal Reserve, effects on the world wide markets would have been catastrophic. As much as the rest of the world may resent it, the US stock and monetary markets are still the biggest and most influential and anything that adversely affects the US is felt even stronger in other countries.

Probably the worst impact of 9/11 involves the face of war from that point on. No longer do we have armies facing other armies. The enemy is no longer recognizable or identifiable, and does not acknowledge even a modicum of "civility" established by the Geneva Convention. He/she is here amongst us all, and this will lead to heights of paranoia and xenophobia that have never been as rabid as it will be in the future.

For this I grieve not for myself or my country, but generations that follow: you, my children, and my grandchildren and yours.

N.
Things Fall Apart
bereft
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 1:24 am
Local time: Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby digital.noface » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:45 am

nymenche wrote:Digi,

Teddy knew that he' need a direct threat to sway the public,


I know that US presidents are not quite as familiar to you as maybe myself, but Franklin Roosevelt was president when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Teddy was all for a war but they were of opposite parties.
Wow, egg on my face. I wasn't too sure on 'roosevelts' spelling, I thought it was teddy roosevelt. Anyhow, egg on my face, quite graceful on your behalf.

I agree that the US supported England and others against Germany and Japan through trade embargoes and tariffs, but the US people didn't want war and the country was still recovering economically from the depression. All politicians are thinking about the next election, and continuing economic prosperity is what most voters were looking at in 1942. Roosevelt knew that the country was better off staying out of the war and passed neutrality acts for four years before 1942. Pear Harbor did, though, give him the excuse to enter into the war the he knew was inevitable.

This is a reality in all manifestations of statism. The advancement of a special few at the expense of all.


Most political parties don't fall on their sword even for their highest elected official. The 2006 election cost the Republican party its majority in both legislative branches leaving them with only an ineffective lame duck president and poor prospects for 2008. GWB, for all his faults, and most of his party truly believes that the democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq will lead to a more stable Middle East situation. Otherwise, their sense of self-preservation would have kicked in by now and forced an end to a war that is costing them in more ways than one. Again, any politician is only as powerful as his last election and power is the all engulfing siren's song.
Oh certainly I agree. However this is only when it comes to elections (and is consequently the major reason all of the hassle of democracy is worthwhile). Still, despite this threshold of accountability, governments will do whatever they can to advance their own private interests so long as it doesn't dash their position. This basically involves a lot of propagana, and very little genuine altruism.

You may lightly dismiss the loss of 3,000 lives and think that the impact of 9/11 was only a "hiccup" in the world perspective, but the recession that followed was a significant financial occurrence. Without the intervention of the US Federal Reserve, effects on the world wide markets would have been catastrophic. As much as the rest of the world may resent it, the US stock and monetary markets are still the biggest and most influential and anything that adversely affects the US is felt even stronger in other countries.
Though this is a separate matter entirely, worthy of a thread in and of itself, the US economic recession is something which has been progressively building for a good decade now, and in my opinion would be occuring right now whether 300 bankers died in NYC or not.


Probably the worst impact of 9/11 involves the face of war from that point on. No longer do we have armies facing other armies. The enemy is no longer recognizable or identifiable, and does not acknowledge even a modicum of "civility" established by the Geneva Convention. He/she is here amongst us all, and this will lead to heights of paranoia and xenophobia that have never been as rabid as it will be in the future.
Terrorism existed and flourished long before 9/11. 9/11 was just the first time it happened to you, and in that wasn't the most fatal act of all time either. Just like guerilla warfare you have suffered at it's hands, learned how to fight it (terrorism preys upon societies rich in freedoms and rights- which the terrorists can hijack for their ends. As bush demonstrated, clamping down on said rights is an effective way of limiting the effectiveness and ease of terrorism), and will ultimately take it up as a weapon yourself.

For this I grieve not for myself or my country, but generations that follow: you, my children, and my grandchildren and yours.
It's really not that new. We just didn't notice it from the perch of the first world earlier. Anyhow, worry not, Nymench. Humanity is infinitely creative in all of it's endeavours, be it commerce, invention, medicine, or carnage. Some genius will think of a more devastating way to wage war on those they align themselves against. Also remember the less you care about terrorism the less effective it is. Whenever I hear about that $#%^ I shrugg and note that trivial things like animal attacks kill more people than terrorists. It's all rather overrated.
...
digital.noface
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:58 am
Local time: Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Histrionic Personality Disorder Forum




  • Related articles
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests