posted
I have an idea formed for a short story, but I need to do some research for it. I need to know what modern cities will look like in 10,000 years assuming that humans are unable to perform the necessary upkeep due to some sort of worldwide cataclysm (I haven't decided what that will be yet).
Will they be just piles of rust and concrete with ten millinia of plant growth, indistinguishable from the Mayan ruins we see today? I wouldn't think so because they are far more expansive and urbanized, but that's what I need to discover.
I'm hoping that there is an academic website or a book I can use. I'm not asking anyone here to do my research, just for help on finding some sources.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean you are not going to assume, as every bad post-apocalyptic story does, that the highways will still be run, cars will be able to be started, batteries and radios work and the Statue of Liberty, while a bit sunken in the mud, will still be visible?
posted
Right, I want to go with actual degradation, even if that means having nothing more than jumbled mounds of dirt. That's what I intend to build the story around.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a program on NPR once where they talked about what would happen to human civilization's remnants were people to vanish off the globe.
A startling amount of degridation occurs in ten years, let alone a hundred, let alone a thousand, let alone ten thousand. Given that the structures that we build today have far less permanency than raw stone structures, our ruins would probably be far less identifiable than Mayan ruins given the same amount of time for rot.
But ten thousand years is far longer than the Mayan ruins sat for. Any city that did not exist with any infrastructure regrowth would simply not exist anymore, and it would take a sharp eye and probably lots of digging to uncover even evidence of cities which would have already been rendered mostly uninhabitable in a short amount of decades. Jumbled mounds of dirt sounds about right.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that you mention it, Samprimary, I remember a Discover Magazine article that was about the same thing. I'll have to dig that issue out.
I still wonder what would happen to skyscapers though. They are are different from anything that has appeared in human history.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of stuff would be gone. Consider that over 10,000 years, several feet of dust and dirt will be on top of what we now live on. I imagine most houses will have either crumbled to nothingness, or would be buried under it.
But a lot of stuff would still be around. The footings of major skyscrapers, and especially large bridges would still be around. Those things are giant steel pylons suck dozens of feet into the ground and secured with concrete. They might be underwater or dirt, but they will be there, intact. Judging by how sturdy today's structures are built, I think that even in 10,000 years, barring any major worldwide cataclysms, a lot of skyscrapers will still be around. Subways would probably still be around too, but buried deep down. You wouldn't be able to easily access them.
Things that were overengineered or made of special materials might still be around, but most everything else will be swept away by the winds of time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still wonder what would happen to skyscapers though. They are are different from anything that has appeared in human history.
That is true, but ten thousand years is longer than almost any human structure has weathered time. Ten thousand years ago from now was .. heck, I think that was the Neolithic Revolution. It's a long time.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'll have to shorten the length of time. I want remnants in the story, but not nothing.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ten thousand years is a LONG time. If you made it two or three thousand years, some large non-wooden structures would still be around, and it's conceivably possible that some heavily paved areas might still show signs -- but only signs -- of paving.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ten thousand years is a LONG time. If you made it two or three thousand years, some large non-wooden structures would still be around, and it's conceivably possible that some heavily paved areas might still show signs -- but only signs -- of paving.
That's the kind of thing I was looking for. I'll just study the world's current ruins for accuracy.
10,000 years is a bad time. I set that because I wanted a really long time to occur between now and the time of the story. If I set the right kind of circumstances, I could easily have a length of time of 2,000 to 4,000 years.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't been able to find an all-encompassing reference for this, but I remember one of my professors telling the class that the designed useful life-span of most structures is between 5 and 200 years (5 years being something like a heavily used highway that must be regularly repaved, and 200 years being the target life-span for large concrete dams and similar structures where failure would be catastrophic).
You may want to investigate the area around Chernobyl for an idea as to how fast formerly urban areas decay once abandoned.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll look at the DMZ in Korea too. I remember from the Discover article about how this was another example of decay and a return to a natural state.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Reader - check out photos of the city of Chernobyl. It's only ben 21 years since the reactor accident, and the town was abandoned, but it's interesting to see just how quickly nature returns.
posted
Another thing to consider is that repairs don't get made, and interiors will quickly become exposed to the weather. Add that no one will be around to suppress fires, and epiphytes will rapidly colonize tall buildings.
Inclement weather penentrating skyscraper interiors also means rusting beams and joists, and flooded basements. One of the major limiting factors in plant growth is the lack of iron. And plants produce acids to break down rock, soil...and steel beams and rebar to extract that iron, including iron within foundations and support columns. So between weather, fires, and plant colonization, those office towers and apartment blocks are gonna fall a LOT sooner than might be expected. In places like Miami or NewYorkCity, most of them will probably fall within the time span of a single human lifetime.
quote:I remember one of my professors telling the class that the designed useful life-span of most structures is between 5 and 200 years (5 years being something like a heavily used highway that must be regularly repaved, and 200 years being the target life-span for large concrete dams and similar structures where failure would be catastrophic).
Please keep in mind that those time frames are for a failure that could be dangerous or could just prevent use in the case of a highway. Those time frames in no way predict when the structure would actually collapse. Bridges are typically designed for a 75 to 100-year design life and I would expect to see their remains for much longer. Probably not 10,000 years though.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we underestimate mother nature a lot of times. At the end of the presentation from “the collapse of ID” thread, the presenter said they have found a new bacteria that breaks down nylon, which means it has to have evolved in the last 65 years since there was no nylon before that. Nature may find a way to wipe a lot of the proof of our society way in a much shorter time than we think. Some new things may evolve to speed up the process.
Most large cities have huge under ground networks: Sewage, pipes, subways ect. Some are almost as elaborate as the cities above. Tunnels built on top of and under other tunnels. What happens to them in a couple hundred years or a couple thousand with no one to maintain them? If they fill with water do they corrode the base of our large building? What if a Hudson floods all the subways in NY and starts washing them away?
I don’t think our Skyscrapers last all that long. They are mostly hollow. No 3ft thick stone walls or almost solid pyramids. Unfortunately we have seen that if anywhere the internal structure fails the whole things comes down. Granted the newer buildings are built to higher standards they may last longer.
Given how fast plants take over asphalt I would believe almost all you roads would be long gone in 1000 years, Maybe some of the larger highways with many layers of asphalt and concrete may still be visible, but even they will be covered with dirt if they aren’t being used.
Don’t forget climate has a huge determining factor in how fast things decompose. In the extremely dry desserts in South America they have found fabric that is over a thousand years old, but in a rainforest it wouldn’t last more than a few years. Phoenix, AZ may last a really long time, but it would be a good place to live because of the lack of water. In colder regions the freeze/thaw cycle breaks down anything water can get into.
I had an archeology professor who said we will be known by our coffee mugs. Ceramics are one of few things that survive for thousands years and coffee mugs are the most ubiquitous ceramics in today’s society. We no longer really use them to cook or store food or water.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also remember the Discover article. It's "Earth Without People", from 2005. It's a good read, with lots of info.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Here in the real desert (twice as dry as Phoenix) anything above ground would eventually abrade with the dust in the wind. But, underground construction would last for thousands of years. They have been looking for some kind of structure that would serve as a "permanent" warning for nucular waste which might be stored at Yucca MT. A sign in English just wouldn't do the job for the life of the radioactivity. You might want to put something like that in your story. Some of the proposals look a lot like the thorns on Sleeping Beauty's castle. I would hope they would work better.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yucca Mountain was part of how I got the idea for the story. I also started wondering what our current cities would like like should they be excavated in an archeological dig.
Considering what even the largest settlements from several millinia ago look like, It's obvious that modern cities wouldn't look any different thousands of years from now.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's only IF they conclude that sinks and bathtubs weren't intended to hold the blood of those we sacrificed to our dark gods.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Climate and environment will play a huge part in your setting, I think. The main reason I'm thinking this is because of the work I did this past weekend. My parents live out in a rural area, and the house sits in a field of (mostly) native prairie grasses. While eye-pleasing to a naturalist, and relatively easy to maintain, it's also the bane of any gardener. Those prairie grasses are tough. They spread via seed and rhizome, and the underground root clumps require some extra elbow grease to dislodge. The only maintenance required is the removal of weeds (Kansas has at least three 'noxious weeds'), and an annual mowing (performed by our neighbor). But I digress...
After digging clumps of wheat grass that were intruding on the driveway, I have rekindled my understanding of why settlers built sod houses. You ever wonder why bindweed is incredibly tough to eradicate? I can visualize it competing with these prairie grasses...a green battle over millenia and eons. Inevitably, these plants will swallow up everything.
I'm under no illusions that we would have any rural roads left in Kansas after a hundred years without humanity. Oh sure, you'd be able to see the general shape of the road bed, and perhaps a periodic pavement patch. But in a thousand years, even those vestiges will be swept away by the green tide. Like the Oregon trail of our pioneers, the ruts and markings will vanish under the grass.
"Our grass will grow in the streets of your towns." -- Native American prophecy Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That's only IF they conclude that sinks and bathtubs weren't intended to hold the blood of those we sacrificed to our dark gods.
Yes it would be interesting to see how a future society who had very few of our records would interpret our debris. What about the plastic resin and porcelain collectables of Star Wars, LOTR, and Spiderman. Surely we must have worshiped these strange gods.
What about the fasted growing religion at the turn of the millennium, the worshipers of Harry Potter. The future archeologist would find the "sacred" books all over the world, printed in all major languages.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That and the vast majority of men were impotent as manifest by the hidden stores of porn in most households. Why else would anybody choose to watch somebody else have sex rather then engage in the act themselves?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mel, that looks like a good book. This scene seems funny, from the second spotlight review at the Amazon link: **POSSIBLE SPOILERS***
quote:My favorite parts of Motel were Archaeologist Carson's interpretation of the hotel bathroom as the inner sanctum of a religious structure and the subsequent depiction of his assistant--ala Heinrich Schliemann with the Trojan treasure and Leonard Wooley with the Ur III treasure--wearing bathroom accouterments as religious paraphernalia.
The author also pokes fun at museums and at all of us, when he includes a collection of "Souvenirs and Quality Reproductions" available for sale at the end of the book. My favorite is the coffee set based on the "sacred urn" (toilet). Goodness knows I've purchased my fair share of quality reproductions on my travels throughout the world!
posted
I'm reminded of Asimov's "Foundation and Earth" in which the travelers visit Earth's early colonies, long since abandoned, to find what is left of the worlds. IIRC, one of the colonies had very mild weather, so the outlines of some stone structures were still recognizeable. Another planet had almost no remaining atmosphere, so many of the structures were still standing because of low corrosion.
You might check out these sections to make sure you don't rip Asimov off too much (though, you could easily pick worse authors to emulate).
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: These sorts of conversations always remind me of this book.
--Mel
Wow, that takes me back. My fifth-grade classroom had a copy of that book, and I must have read it dozens of times.
My favorite part- the Usans' ritual cry during their sacrifices to the porcelain god. "San-i-tized-for-your-pro-tec-tion!"
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are a few things you might want to consider.
We are about 15,000 years into a typically 20,000 year Hot Age. Since global warming is accelerating, I expect in the next 1,000 to 2,000 years we will be at the peak of the Hot Age. Which means all coastal cities will be under water. In a sense, Florida won't exist.
Once the climate peaks, that forces a sharp decent into the next Ice Age which typically last 150,000 years. So, 10,000 years from now we will be about 5,000 to 7,000 years into the next Ice Age, though the temperatures will not have bottomed out yet.
Here is a link to ICE AGE at Wikipedia, which has 450,000 year temperature charts. Notice the span of time as the climate descends into the Ice Age, usually several thousand years, then roughly another 75,000 year to bottom out, before rising back into a Hot Age (Interglacial Period).
Since, in 1,000 to 5,000 years, we will still be recovering from the Peak of the Hot Age, you need to consider that the Great Plains will probably be desert. The southern states will be unbearably hot. All coastal cities (New York, Los Angeles, San Franscico, etc...) will all be under water. Our energy consumption, thanks to air conditioning, will be astronomical both in volume of consumption and cost unless we find some near unlimited source of energy in the mean time. Extreme energy costs affect the economy and limit travel; all kinds of travel, car, train, plane, bus, etc....
One of the great problems is predicting the course of technology over any span of time even as short as 50 years. If you look back 10,000 years, you are looking at the beginnings of modern humans on the face of the earth. 10,000 years into the future is anyone's guess. Even going back 1,000 years. 1,000 years ago the average life expectancy of someone living in London was about age 30. 2,000 years ago, humans were barely one notch above cave men. Now project that into the future and it is almost impossible to predict.
If we find nearly free non-polluting easily renewable sources of energy, things could be rosy. If we don't, things could be bleak.
If we invent the Star Trek Replicator so anything can be created by a simple energy to matter transfer, and waste is simply converted back into pure energy, things would indeed be rose. No more strain on the environment. The only reason to grow your own food would be as a hobby. Structures could be built for merely the cost of labor; food and material object would essentially be free.
If we don't invents the Replicator, then the strain on our greatly shrunken agricultural land would be enormous; unsustainable.
That probably doesn't help, but perhaps it offers some food for thought. If you are planning to predict the future, I suggest you go back to predictions made in the 1950 (remember flying cars?) as see how accurate predictions can be.
posted
Steve, I think you missed the cataclysm part of my OP. I am essentially writing about how humanity will be back to square one with no cultural memory of our current era. There will be very few people and they will be agrarian. Technology won't march along, it will stop.
I'm not assuming that the climate won't change though, whether or not the change is man-made. That will be in my story, now that you reminded me.
But how do you know I'll set it in the United States or Canada? Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that looking at excavations of, say, Mesopotamian cities could teach you a lot about what things look like after a long time.
I don't know if it will help you but there is an excellent book that's well-written and does some of this re-construction based on ruins. It's Women's Work: The First 20,000 Years: Women, Cloth, and Society in Early Times. The author, Elizabeth Wayland Barber, is an archaeologist and a weaver, and looks at daily life and women's parts in it in ancient lands using archaeological evidence. I found the writing engaging and accessible for someone who doesn't know a lot of technical archaeological terms and such. And her explanations of the huge amounts of information we can get by taking tiny pieces of a ruined civilization and thinking about what they mean really enlightened me as to what archeology is all about. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Reader: Steve, I think you missed the cataclysm part of my OP. I am essentially writing about how humanity will be back to square one...
Steve:
Sorry, I wasn't actually ignoring that aspect, simply making general observations of the various ways that society could go. The only thing that could possibly save the world from going back to square one is some amazing technology like the Star Trek Replicator.
I believe the Star Trek storyline, follows yours, that society was on the verge of collapse when the Replicator was developed, that was about the only thing that kept the world from sliding back to the stone age.
Note that the peak of the Hot Age will be just as disastrous and the fall into the Ice Age. Huge tracts of once agricultural land will become unusable. The Sahara Desert will expand to cover virtually all of north Africa; actually about 2/3rds of Africa. The central Great Plains of the USA will not be rich fertile prairies as they are now, they will be desert. Most people don't know that another name for the Great Plains is the Great American Desert. Only very tiny section of Australia's coastline will be usable, and that will be the part that is not currently under water.
The Peak of the Hot Age will be a world wide disaster. Likely Britain will be reduced from one big island to several very small islands in the north. The only remnants of Florida will be some small marshes in the very north, beyond that, it will be under water. It will be HOT HOT HOT and arid. Think of the air conditioning needs alone; that is enough to bankrupt the world. Now some places will actually become better to live in, but they will not be enough to offset the loss of prime farm land, great coastal cities, and huge population displacement.
Then once the Hot Age peaks we begin the slide into the Ice Age, something that will just be getting started in earnest in 10,000 years. Though it will get very very very bad before that and much much worse after. Then keep in mind that the Ice Age will last about 150,000 years. Huge tracts of land will be under ice sheets. Minnesota will be like the North Pole. Arkansas will be like Minnesota. Texas will be like Missouri. And it will never let up.
Unless mankind has some unlimited free source of easily transmittable non-polluting energy by then, there won't be much left of mankind.
I'm not ignoring when and where your story will take place, I am trying to give you the broader picture of life on earth in both the near and long term future in hopes that you can somehow apply that to your needs. I'm not dictating location or outcome, just discussing the possibilities.
It is a fascinating story concept especially if you look at it from a historical perspective. There will be one small window as we come off the Hot Age and slide into the Ice Age. A period when the world will finally feel that things are getting back to normal, but the temperature will keep sliding downward, and it won't take long before mankind realizes that it is sliding from one disaster to another.
Look at the charts I linked to and you can get a good idea of what is in store for us.
posted
Now I understand what you are trying to do, Steve. I still will do my own homework, but thanks to you I have more things to consider. That's not a bad thing, either.
BTW, I got lost in the Wikipedia links on purpose. That is so easy to do. I ended up looking at a list of the supercontinents through Earth's history.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The central Great Plains of the USA will not be rich fertile prairies as they are now, they will be desert. Most people don't know that another name for the Great Plains is the Great American Desert.
Actually, most people in Kansas are aware of that, I'm sure. The required Kansas History course in 6th grade includes that little tidbit. It's taught alongside such failed prophecies as "rain follows the plow" and that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian. That nickname isn't even used except as a bad joke.
I saw some climatalogical information for Kirwin Reservoir, in northern Kansas, recently. According to climate data, the climate in this area of Kansas oscillates on a 30 year cycle. For every 30 year time period, there are usually 23 dry years and 7 wet years.
I can also tell you, anecdotally, that we have more dry years than wet years. But, our average rate of rainfall exceeds the definition for desert.
Did you know that most of our (here, in Kansas) moisture originates from the Gulf of Mexico? That rich tropical airmass flows northward into the Great Plains, and clashes with other airmasses to create precipitation across the region. The other huge geographical influence is the Rocky Mountains. The mountains cast a long rain shadow across the Great Plains. But the mountains also act as a catalyst for the formation of low pressure systems, which move east to menace the eastern half of this continent. Those low pressure systems draw moisture northward as fuel.
It's because of these two factors that I have some issues with that description you posted. (I have no issue with the climate data, global warming or cooling, or even the timelines you posted. Just your description of the Great Plains.)
If you're going to come up with a scenario where the Great Plains becomes a desert, find a way to cut off the supply of moisture. Why would the Great Plains become a desert just because global temperatures rose a few degrees?
I'm leaning toward, "A drastic change in wind patterns, such that gulf moisture no longer flows north across the Great Plains on any regular basis." But if this happens, then Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, and Iowa, among others, would fall prey to the same pattern.
Barring an extreme change in the global wind pattern, I think the dry and wet cycle will probably continue, and the definition of desert will never be met.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
TStorm, look at it this way, if you look at the temperature charts I reference previously, you will see that it only takes an 8-degree-F drop in average temperature to bring on an Ice Age. Actually, that is the peak of the Ice Age, it only takes a 3-degree drop to bring on the Ice Age. Think how extreme that is?
Now, it seems that the Hot Ages peak at about a 6-degree-F rise in temp. That will have nearly as dramatic a climate change as the Ice Age. Again, think how extreme that small drop in temperature of the Ice Age is.
Six degree rise in temp will mean it will be extremely hot and dry, beyond anything in recorded history. Beyond anything we can or have imagined. Drought, at least in my view, will be of epidemic proportions. The only thing that will keep the central state from blowing away will be bits of scrub grass hanging on. No water means no food, no food means the Great Plains just grow wild, but not wild prairie grass like you are used to seeing now, thick and lush. It will be dry and barren with marginal scrub grass that is hardly adequate to graze a few measly cattle.
Consider an Ice Age, but in the opposite direction, instead of a cold barren ice desert, it will be a hot dry scrubby patch of dusty barren soil. You need to view this in the extremes.
In my previous example of the Ice Age, I said Arkansas will have the climate of Minnesota. At the peak of the Hot Age, you can move southern Texas and Northern Mexico up to Iowa and Nebraska to get an idea of how the climate will change.
Just speculation, but I think pretty solid speculation.
posted
Steve, just how high do you think the water will rise during the Hot Age? I ask because, while Florida is pretty low, it's not like it's all just a few feet above sea level. Downtown Orlando is at about +100 feet and my hometown of Lake Wales is over +200 feet.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Six degree rise in temp will mean it will be extremely hot and dry, beyond anything in recorded history. Beyond anything we can or have imagined. Drought, at least in my view, will be of epidemic proportions.
Oh, I'm sure there will be extremes, and I understand you're just speculating. I'm speculating slightly differently, just based on some knowledge of wind and climate patterns. Like I said, the temperature rise would have to completely change those patterns to cause the situation you're describing.
I remember a chart of the world from one of my high school classes, which showed expanding deserts. It was quite interesting, I remember. Unfortunately, that's all I remember about it. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it doesn't. Even IF prevailing wind conditions were to remain the same -- which it won't -- the amount of moisture picked up by air per unit of time increases by the square of the increase in temperature, while the amount of moisture that the air can hold increases by the cube of the increase in air temperature. ie Even though the air might hold more water vapor per given volume, the relative humidity of that volume will still be drier.....and thus less likely precipitate the water vapor as rain or snow.
Beyond a certain point that "more water but still drier" can lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, in which the increase in water vapor alone increases atmospheric heating, which in turn increases the water vapor content of the air, which in turn increases atmospheric heating, which in turn... Not a likely scenario* but nonetheless one that must be contemplated.
* At least not for the Earth of this Age. However it will happen eventually as the Sun heats up over the next billion or so years. But then it ain't all that hard to move the Earth into a more distant orbit well before then.
posted
This book, The World Without Us, by Alan Weisman, seems to be answering the exact question you posed. It also seems like a really interesting read.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Google Gunkanjima. It's a small island in Japan that was abandoned in the 70's. I hope that's some help. DesertComet
Posts: 2 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the collapse of the World Trade Center. Regardless of the terrorism aspect, those towers collapsed as a result of a structural failure of one level. The floor below couldn't support the floor above as it fell, and so each floor below collapsed in succession. Take a look at photos of the remains of the towers before clean up, and that will give you a fair idea of what a skyscraper will look like after a structural failure.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it was the failure of several floors at once, but I'd be splitting hairs if I pressed on. Progressive collapse would be easy once steel and concrete have been sufficiently weakened due to exposure. I believe aspectre mentioned something similar early in the thread.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, though the WTC towers were able to tolerate slightly less loss of support than many skyscrapers, partly because they were so tall.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
