Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Phillies Beat Lowe, Dodgers Bar-right-arrows

League Park Society

For The Indians history nuts out there like myself, you should check these guys out. They are all about restoring League Park--a portion of it still stands. I've exchanged a coupe e-mails with them, and so far they seem to have their stuff together. Bob Feller is even listed as an "Historical Consultant." Restoring this gem isn't going to be an easy task, but I think a worthwhile one.

Link 2 months ago Pbh_tiny PatBordersHelmet Comment 119 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Pretty cool stuff. I was just looking at what pictures were on flickr to see what was still standing there.

Based on the postcard on the wiki page, it looked like a pretty cool place, though it did have that odd shape.

Wedge: [letting go of Casey's hand] I'll never let go, Casey. I promise.

by cclemens31 on Jul 23, 2008 4:41 PM EDT   0 recs

My Dad took me to the remnants of League Park 15 years ago or so; there wasn’t much left. I recall a chunk of the grandstand and a barren field. It would be fantastic if the park could be restored.

Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.

by jdudas on Jul 23, 2008 10:14 PM EDT   0 recs

The website is not as clear as it could be. What do they even want to do with it? Play youth baseball on it or something?

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 12:06 AM EDT   0 recs

I think ideally they want to restore it to original specs, but I understand that would be extremely expensive and likely too big. The current plan is for a 5,000 seat park that closely reflects the original design in the original footprint. It would be available to college teams, high schools, youth leagues, exhibition games and other community functions. There also would be a museum in the facility.

I agree they may need a redesign of the web site. Any volunteers would likely be welcomed.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 9:14 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i would donate money to this cause. cancer research gets all the cash these days.

by Brick. on Jul 24, 2008 10:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I can certainly appreciate the nostalgia and, I guess, more power.

But I’m really inclined to say, “What’s the point?”

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 11:17 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Power? Not sure I follow.

You ever been to Europe, or South America? There’s really cool historic stuff everywhere. In Uruguay, they still have beautiful bullrings, even though bullfighting’s been illegal for decades. Shoot, even closer, in downtown Mexico city you can visit an Aztec temple that’s butted up against massive colonial cathedrals. Montreal has cobbled streets and people live in 300 year old homes. Unfortunately, in the US we tend to tear things down or pave over them too quickly. We lose our history for “progress” to easily. Currently we’ve got big box store and parking lots everywhere. A good number of our city centers lack the historical context the could have because preservation has never really been an American priority.

A portion of League Park still stands. The brickwork and architecture are actually quite beautiful. Ten years ago I wouldn’t have had an eye for that,but now that I do I think it would be a shame to loose. If you love baseball and its history, you have to love the idea of the amazing things that happened on that spot—too many to mention in one post. To me, I can’t really find an argument not to restore it. Obviously it will come at great cost, but is it worth it? Of course. It’s not like it’s some kind of get-rich sceme. It’s community enrichment.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 11:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

“More power to them.”

That’s all I meant.

The argument is that there’s a limited amount of money, energy, and other resources in the world and we’ve allowed this, admittedly interesting, site to fall into such disrepair that it’s no longer worth the investment.

If you identify things to be saved sometime before they’re nearly totally deteriorated, upkeep is feasible. Complete rebuilding? It’s hard for me to justify that in an area that is being hit so hard economically. The money could be better spent.

I agree that saving historic places is worthwhile but rebuilding a park that no one outside of Cleveland remembers at great cost doesn’t totally fall into that category for me. Many people might have great memories of this place but that doesn’t mean it’s comparable to anything the Aztecs built.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 12:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

the Aztecs are like the Derek Jeter of ancient architecture.

by Brick. on Jul 24, 2008 12:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Adam Miller is a good example of this.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 12:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It’s hard for me to justify that in an area that is being hit so hard economically. The money could be better spent.

Whose money are you speaking for? If you can’t justify it, then don’t. No one asked for your cash.

by joeee on Jul 24, 2008 12:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Hey, I said more power to them.

That doesn’t preclude me from having an opinion on what constitutes a good use of someone else’s money or energy. I’m not saying Jerry Seinfeld isn’t allowed to fill a plane hangar with cars. I’m just saying it’s dumb.

And actually, they did ask me for my money. They’re asking everyone who visits for the website for money. Not that they’re pushy or anything but I did have to make a choice, no matter how split second it was, that this was not something I would support financially.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 12:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

My understanding is that the remnants of the park are in a particularly hard-hit area of the city; one could make the argument that there is a kind of urban renewal here.

Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.

by jdudas on Jul 24, 2008 1:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I would say that it would be extremely difficult to argue that restoring a dilapidated 5,000 seat ballpark is the best thing for an urban area in crisis.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 1:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

For once you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Of course it’s difficult. It’s difficult to argue that anything should be done. That’s why nothing is ever done. This neighborhood-really the entire area from the center of this block, miles in every direction-has been on life-support for over 40 years. Occasionally a house burns down, clearing another lot. Every so often a sewer is relined and a single street gets repaved. In the late 80s or early 90s Playhouse Square was built in a parking lot (one of these kinds of things gets done about every other decade). A handful of houses started going up in the late 90s because the builders were granted long-term tax abatements. That is all that ever happens.

What kinds of remedies, if any, do you propose?

The problem of what to do about large-scale blight is much bigger than you think.

Just to be clear, this is not just a ballpark. It is a park with a small stadium. This is a park. One more time: this is a park.

by jhon on Jul 24, 2008 2:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You work in architecture.

I work in education.

I suspect that’s where our opinions on this diverge.

Everyone’s intentions in this are good; I hope it succeeds. I remain more than skeptical.

I’m not going to get any further into it because we don’t talk about politics here and that’s a good thing. I’m sure you and I can have a great talk about it one day.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 3:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think where you might both agree is that the expense would make little sense as a project in isolation. If it’s going to be justified, it’s going to be as part of a larger plan to renew the community.

5000 seats is an enormous ballpark for any purpose other than a major-league club, If you’re not hosting a minor league team, it almost can’t be justified at all. Having said that, they don’t have to restore it just that way.

To be honest, putting a minor league team there doesn’t seem like such a bad idea, and this also could get tied into the RBI program.

by Jay on Jul 24, 2008 3:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I was fooling around with that in my head after somebody mentioned Akron.

Are there any affiliates in major league towns? I just glanced through the list and didn’t see any.

I think I could safely say a lot of my problem with it is the fact that it’s 5,000 seats and the emphasis being placed on preserving it for history’s sake. I disagree pretty strongly with both of those things. I could come around on the size if there was a ballclub going there but that seems pretty unlikely.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 3:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m pretty sure Cleveland Sate, Case, John Carrol, St. Ignatius, Glenville, Rhodes and a few others would love to play there.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 3:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m sure those teams would love to play in the Jake, too.

I don’t really see what that offers to the community nor do I suspect that those teams need anywhere near 5,000 seats.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 4:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Cleveland State and Case both have new-ish stadiums, I think. Plus, regarding Case, I doubt they’d get 5,000 spectators over the course of an entires season.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 24, 2008 4:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, they’re a football school now!

by CBusSteve on Jul 24, 2008 4:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

10-0, baby!

by Voltaire on Jul 25, 2008 4:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

CSU didn’t build a stadium. Pipe Yard Stadium - in Lorain, 30+ minutes from campus - was built by the city of Lorain and some private investors to attract a minor league team. I can’t imagine the team wouldn’t want to trade in the commute.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 11:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I thought I remembered there being a field right on Euclid…

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 25, 2008 9:51 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Soccer field? Near campus? They used to play at Tri-C West before Pipe Yard.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 25, 2008 10:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It depends on how you define “major league towns”. The Nats’ Carolina League franchise is in Woodbridge, VA, which by most definitions is part of metro DC, and about 20 miles or so as the crow flies. It’s been big news around here that the Braves are relocating their AAA franchise from Richmond to Gwinnett County, also about 20 miles from the big club. They’re the same town in a way that Cleveland and Akron are not. An better example might be the Kansas City T-Bones, a Northern League team in Kansas City, KS (19 miles to Kauffman Stadium), which plays in a 5,000 seat stadium.

by FredOx on Jul 24, 2008 4:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The T-Bones also feature former Texas Rangers prospect Jim Fasano who, unfortunately, is not related to Sal.

by FredOx on Jul 24, 2008 4:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i think it’s safe to say 19 miles is different from 54 city blocks.

Not saying it couldn’t happen and I don’t know the rules, but I doubt we’d ever see a minor league team, of any level, in Cleveland proper.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jul 25, 2008 10:21 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

San Jose has an A ball team. San Jose is technically in San Francisco mlb territory even though it is shorter to drive from SF to Oakland.

ALSO!! San Jose itself is larger demographically than either San Francisco and Oakland.

The A’s would love to move to San Jose, but I don’t think the Giants will be giving up that locale without a fight.

by talonk on Jul 24, 2008 4:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So I stand corrected from you and from below in thread – there is a MiL team in Staten Island. So is the territory thing just applicable to other Major league teams?

by ganatz on Jul 24, 2008 5:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Don’t the Indians have territorial rights to veto any minor league franchise? I think this came up when they tried to put a minor league team on Staten Island.

I think it’s a great idea, but I don’t think the team would stand for it.

by ganatz on Jul 24, 2008 3:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

They would stand for it if it were the Kinston Indians, or the Mahoning Valley Scrappers.

by Jay on Jul 24, 2008 4:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I doubt that. I think the fear is that families looking for a ” professional baseball experience” would tend to go for the 5-10 dollar tickets of a minor league team and parking/concessions for a fraction of the major league cost.

Especially in a season like this. The Indians gate receipts would be completely cannibalized.

by ganatz on Jul 24, 2008 4:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t have numbers, but I doubt that’s true at all. In a season like this, people are a lot less willing to pay $25+ to see a bad ML product than they would be to pay $10 to see any type of minor league product. And in good years, nothing can compare to the experience of watching a good ML product. In fact, if the Prog were to sell out, you’d probably even get spillover into the minor league team. Also, you could use the park to host big-screen showings of away playoff games or sold-out home playoff games.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 24, 2008 4:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Are we agreeing or disagreeing? What I’m trying to say is that there of course will always be a draw for the ML product (and its associated costs), but there will also be a lot of appeal for young families for a cheaper option.

As an example, I recently took my 5 year old to a game at Wrigley. He had a blast, especially for the 4 innings where I let him run up and down the ramps from the 100 level to the 500 level. I think he would have been just as impressed if I saved $25-30 on each ticket and went to a Scrappers game, but I could be mistaken. I’m also only going to do that once a year.

Unfortunately, a ML team is going to look at every ticket that is sold to a minor league game 3 miles from their gate as a loss for them. They’re probably right – it’s a zero sum game for these entertainment dollars.

by ganatz on Jul 24, 2008 4:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t think that’s necessarily true — and the proof is that the Indians invested in both the Aeros and Captains and helped them move closer to Cleveland.

Minor league games are not the same product as major league games. The major league games are about the fan experience, the minor league games more about the atmosphere.

Many families cannot afford to go to more than one or two major league games a year, but they might go to 10-12 minor league games. At the same time, you build a new cadre of fans … Lake County folks who’ve been rooting for Fausto for years, Akron folks who feel the same about Grady.

It isn’t cannibalizing any more than an iPhone is cannibalizing an iMac. It’s promoting baseball to new generations of fans — as a sport to follow in general and going to the game as an entertainment option in particular — and it’s promoting the hometown club.

by Jay on Jul 24, 2008 9:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree with you for the most part – especially concerning the economics and they are differnt products. But I can’t help but feel that the FO has a different feeling about a team like Akron which is 30-40 miles away vs. a stadium 3 miles from your front door.

by ganatz on Jul 24, 2008 9:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Fellas, the exploration of the competition minor league dollars versus major league dollars is worthwhile, continue, but keep in mind this park renovation does not hinge on, or even mention, the residence of a future minor league team .

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 10:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think the people who would have the greater objection to moving say, Kinston, to Cleveland would be investors in the Akron and, especially, Lake County teams.

I can’t speculate as to the relationship between Cleveland’s FO and those teams, but it strikes me that neither team would be particularly thrilled to welcome another minor league team in largely the same market, competing for the same entertainment dollar (minor league baseball, esp. Indians affiliates).

by DaveE on Jul 24, 2008 11:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The company I work for is building a stadium out in Avon. I think it’s rookie ball.

by joeee on Jul 25, 2008 8:59 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

They want to host a Frontier League team, if my info is correct.

by Voltaire on Jul 25, 2008 4:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

There are minor league teams in Staten Island and Coney island (same league, both play against Mahoning Valley) which are both in NYC.

I don’t think League Park idea is to get a minor league team. The city of does not have a baseball park with seating beyond 100 or so.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 4:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

But there is a huge difference in maintenance costs between a stadium that can seat perhaps 800 and a stadium that can seat 5000. Few college teams draw anything like 800, so it can’t really be justified to go up to 5000 if it won’t get significant use for other purposes.

Is there a market for another major outdoor concert venue?

by Jay on Jul 24, 2008 4:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Sure, it would seem like a good the stadium for concerts, special events, exhibitions and any level of playoff or regular season baseball.

Ever been to the renovated Firestone Park softball field in, again, Akron?

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 4:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Whose money are you speaking for? If you can’t justify it, then don’t. No one asked for your cash.

I doubt I have as comprehensive knowledge of the venues around Cleveland as someone else here but, generally, I’d have to think that’s another tough sell.

The lack of discretionary money available to the average American is a key factor here.

I’m interested in the whole logistics of this thing. Do they even own the land at this point? If not, who does?

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 4:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Uhh that block quote is not supposed to be there.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 4:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

All great success stories include someone saying “That will never work” at the begining.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 2:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

A lot of failures, too.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 24, 2008 3:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That’s a fine opinion. Why are we wasting our time reading about baseball? We should be curing cancer.
I hadn’t heard of this particular group, and I’m pleased to learn that this kind of thing still exists in Cleveland. I’ve read about L.P. preservation moments that have come before, at least since the 80s, and slow but visible progress has been made. I’ve been to the site dozens of times (I am into this sort of thing). If you’ve looked into this some more, you might be able to tell what this place is like: It’s called a park, but it’s really more like a 600ft x 600ft swath of caked dirt and crab grass, with a few segments of chain link, powerlines and shoddy pavement. The neighborhood is a pure ghetto. It’s all black. It is surrounded by abandoned or decaying houses. There are almost no legitimate businesses anywhere in the neighborhood, and there certainly is no industry. There’s a nearby school and some churches. That’s about it.
No one is talking about a full restoration, that much is clear. That would be like “restoring” a mansion when all you have is a doorknob and a banister. This is about preserving what’s left as part of a larger park improvement initiative. If you knew anything about Cleveland, you’d know that grassroots civic initiatives such as this are precisely what the city needs. They’ve got the attention of the city. Here’s a summary of the most ambitious vision, . Go ahead and critique it. As you know these things tend to get scaled back, but if any part of this happens it would be a huge achievement. The neighborhood could use something to give it an identity. Nothing has happened there in the past 40 years except a lot of crime and the long tail of urban decay. I swear to God, these little things-something so small as the renovation of single building-go a long way in an urban dead zone.

by jhon on Jul 24, 2008 1:57 PM EDT to parent up   1 recs

I fully agree with Jhon’s last statement. When Akron first proposed Canal Park, I knew with all my 20 something wisdom that you couldn’t save the empty shells of buildings known as downtown Akron. I was dead wrong. That ballpark was a catalyst for the rejuvenation of Main Street. Today there is nightlife, restaurants, coffee shops and, in the winter, a packed ice rink.

The neighborhood around League Park looks like a lost cause, but I’m not giving up on it just yet. Judging by the new homes that pepper the ramshackle blocks that surround the park, I’m guessing there are others who share my optimism.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 2:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If the neighborhood has something-anything-that gave it an identity that would be a very good thing and a big step.

by jhon on Jul 24, 2008 2:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And the answer to that neighborhood identity is sitting there, partially standing, just waiting to be ressucitated.

Overall, Cleveland has some amazing architecture partially due to the fact that no one wanted to build where these buildings stand. In essence the declining local economy saved the structures that otherwise would have bulldozed for gas stations, drugstores and cheap homes. Hopefully current residents will have the presence of mind to keep these buildings a part of citywide identity and history.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 2:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Clay Herrick Jr.’s “Cleveland Landmarks” is a good architectural guide. Your library might have it.

There’s a big list of stuff that didn’t get saved. Many blocks, esp. on the near East side were cleared wholesale. Just east of downtown only about half of the planned “Erieview” development was ever built, leaving bunch of empty lots mostly used for parking. Euclid and Prospect avenues have been pretty trashed, as everyone knows. Cleveland’s eastside became a ghetto long ago, but now large parts of the west side that were more or less ok when I lived there in the 90s are still declining or starting to decline. I check up on the different neighborhoods every month or so, and I saw some disturbing things on my last inspection.

by jhon on Jul 24, 2008 2:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Although I don’t live in Cleveland (and haven’t since the late 70s) I did visit my old neighborhood in 2007. I grew up in Cleveland itself, but just east of Lakewood, on Baltic, near Detroit Ave.

Now I was only 10 at the time we moved West, but I recall that neighborhood to have been nice, but definitely not affluent. But it was kid-friendly and the yards/houses were pretty clean.

But when I went back in 2007, I did not get that same feeling for that neighborhood. It felt rundown but not quite dangerous either. I didn’t see anyone walking around, kids anywhere, etc. A total different feel.

As for the rest of Cleveland .. I have no idea.

by talonk on Jul 24, 2008 3:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Interesting perspective.

Energy costs are (finally) starting to influence the thinking on tearing down or rehabbing spaces. On the one hand, devoting resources toward destroying a usable structure and building a new one is considered about as un-green as you can get.

On the other hand, preservations are going to start having to accept that ongoing energy costs are part of the viability of an existing structure, and if it can’t be made energy efficient, then it probably needs to be torn down if it isn’t of truly unique historic significance. So it isn’t clear cut … but the conversation is changing.

by Jay on Jul 24, 2008 3:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That’s an excellent point about the viability of the structure in a changing energy economy. I hadn’t thought of that.

by afh4 on Jul 24, 2008 3:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

As a current renovator myself (1876 4 bedroom home with brick storefront,) it has come to my attention that the actual structures are more sound from 100 years ago compared to current construction-provided there is little water or structural damage. The timbers are thicker and old growth - trust me, I’ve cut them. And the brickwork is usually of high standard. Developers will tell you your new build home is the best materials, but what they really mean is the best materials you can afford. Older structures are actually built with higher ceilings and natural cooling systems. Insulation has only gotten really efficient in the past few decades. Also a renovated building will appreciate quickly as new builds and be much more likely to avoid depreciation.

And fellas, this is a baseball park we’re talking about!

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 3:54 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

An addendum on insulation: older building usually have deeper wall cavities that can be filled with more insulation resulting in a higher R factor providing an even better energy rating.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 4:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Often true. For example, those 400 year old English Tudors perform unbelievably well (many req. something like 10% of the heating and cooling inputs of comparably sized houses). More to follow…

by jhon on Jul 24, 2008 4:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes and no. They knew less about structures back in the day, so they’d toss in huge safety factors just to make sure. But concrete crumbles all to hell and such.

Timber is a completely different story – it actually is just flat-out better then that it is now. Reason: trees were older before they got cut down. They got time to get good and strong.

LGT’s resident structural engineer….iologist.

by joeee on Jul 24, 2008 4:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree, concrete sucks.

I disagree that they knew less bout structures. Wouldn’t you agree they tended to reenforce “too much” whereas today’s engineers will reenforce “just enough” based on what we now know about material strength? One can compare the engineering of the Brooklyn Bridge vs. the I-35 Minneapolis bridge that collapsed in 02? The enigneers who built the Mississippi bridge knew more, no?

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 4:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That was my point.

We know so much about structures these days that we’ll make something as flimsy as physically possible to save cost. Back in the day, they knew less, so they’d

toss in huge safety factors just to make sure.

by joeee on Jul 24, 2008 4:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ok so we agree. I was trying to say the same thing about lumber as well. I’ve reclaimed as much wood in my house as possible and fully know the difference between 19th century pine and the stuff i pick up at Home Depot.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 4:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yep yep yep. Reclaiming lumber is an absolute dream-job for me, but I need to be loaded first.

Saw a cool Dirty Jobs (Discovery Channel) about recovering lumber from the bottom of a super-cold lake in Canada. You should look it up

by joeee on Jul 24, 2008 4:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

They’re doing that in Lake Erie as well at a tidy profit because it isn’t as deep although there are likely less pristine logs. They say that the majority of timbered trees sank instead of making to the mills.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 4:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No joke, link?

by joeee on Jul 24, 2008 4:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No link I know of. I have a buddy who dives as a side job (shipwreck tours) and one of his charter captains does it.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2008 4:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This is an incomplete truth as well – obviously does not consider that the more we know, the more experimental we become. This exposes gaps in our knowledge.

by joeee on Jul 24, 2008 4:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs