The Moon: Water ice may be more common than previously thought

Guest “Ice, ice baby!” by David Middleton

NASA Study Highlights Importance of Surface Shadows in Moon Water Puzzle
Aug 02, 2021

The shadows cast by the roughness of the Moon’s surface create small cold spots for water ice to accumulate even during the harsh lunar daytime.

Scientists are confident that water ice can be found at the Moon’s poles inside permanently shadowed craters – in other words, craters that never receive sunlight. But observations show water ice is also present across much of the lunar surface, even during daytime. This is a puzzle: Previous computer models suggested any water ice that forms during the lunar night should quickly burn off as the Sun climbs overhead.

“Over a decade ago, spacecraft detected the possible presence of water on the dayside surface of the Moon, and this was confirmed by NASA’s Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy [SOFIA] in 2020,” said Björn Davidsson, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. “These observations were, at first, counterintuitive: Water shouldn’t survive in that harsh environment. This challenges our understanding of the lunar surface and raises intriguing questions about how volatiles, like water ice, can survive on airless bodies.”

In a new study, Davidsson and co-author Sona Hosseini, a research and instrument scientist at JPL, suggest that shadows created by the “roughness” of the lunar surface provide refuge for water ice, enabling it to form as surface frost far from the Moon’s poles. They also explain how the Moon’s exosphere (the tenuous gases that act like a thin atmosphere) may have a significant role to play in this puzzle.

Water Traps and Frost Pockets

Many computer models simplify the lunar surface, rendering it flat and featureless. As a result, it’s often assumed that the surface far from the poles heats up uniformly during lunar daytime, which would make it impossible for water ice to remain on the sunlit surface for long.

So how is it that water is being detected on the Moon beyond permanently shadowed regions? One explanation for the detection is that water molecules may be trapped inside rock or the impact glass created by the incredible heat and pressure of meteorite strikes. Fused within these materials, as this hypothesis suggests, the water can remain on the surface even when heated by the Sun while creating the signal that was detected by SOFIA.

But one problem with this idea is that observations of the lunar surface show that the amount of water decreases before noon (when sunlight is at its peak) and increases in the afternoon. This indicates that the water may be moving from one location to another through the lunar day, which would be impossible if they are trapped inside lunar rock or impact glass.


The researchers point out that this new study could help us better understand the role shadows play in the accumulation of water ice and gas molecules beyond the Moon, such as on Mars or even on the particles in Saturn rings.

The study, titled “Implications of surface roughness in models of water desorption on the Moon”, was published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society on August 2, 2021.

The Moon is covered with craters and rocks, creating a surface “roughness” that casts shadows, as seen in this photograph from the 1972 Apollo 17 mission. Image Credit: NASA

Water may have also been more abundant early on in the Moon’s geological history than had been previously thought. Most of the rocks returned by the J Missions (Apollo 15, 16 & 17) contained traces of hydroxyl. The most famous example is probably Rusty Rock, returned on Apollo 16.

LMP Let me whack this thing right here. It’s so good that I can’t pass it up. All right, there’s a good place to whack.

CDR Oh, that’s hard – you got it! Demolished it.

LMP That’s a great rock. Look at that! I’m sorry we didn’t get it documented before, but that’s a good sample. I think it’s a crystalline rock.

CC Okay, let’s go ahead and document it now – – so we get the location of the one that’s still in place. It didn’t look like it moved.

CDR No, he didn’t move anything there. I’m going to do an up-sun on this documentation (107-17523-25)

LMP Okay, I’ll get a cross-sun here. It’s a grayish bluish – rock, Tony, in the matrix with some white clast in it. The matrix is so fine-grained, I can’t tell, but it’s definitely got a blue cast to it and there are inclusions of a whitish – it looked like plag to me.

CDR And then, needle-like black crystals in it, too. I see one in there that’s a millimeter wide by 3 mm long, and some other needle-like crystals in it.

LMP Here’s another piece – came off the same rock.

CDR It has this white clast in it. It’s got to be a breccia, Charlie.

66095 “Rusty Rock” Impact Melt Rock

Apollo 16 Crew Information

  • CDR = Commander John Young
  • LMP = Lunar Module Pilot Charlie Duke
  • CC= EVA CapCom Tony England
Figure 1: 66095 was chipped from a small boulder (0.5 m). AS16-108-17632. 66095 “Rusty Rock” Impact Melt Rock

Lunar sample 66095 was collected from a boulder on the rim of a 10 meter crater at the base of Stone
Mountain (figure 1). During the original examination of 66095 by (M. Bass in Butler 1972), an unusual
amount of colored stain (figure 3) was reported on the surface and interior of 66095 (LSPET 1973).

66095 “Rusty Rock” Impact Melt Rock
Figure 3: Close-up photo of metallic salts or “rust” on surface of 66095 (location unknown). Note the
appearance of a crust under the colored salts. Field of view about 1 cm. NASA S72-48424.

Rusty Rock was the mother-of-all breccias.

Most of 66095 (~80%) is composed of a fine-grained, subophitic to ophitic impact melt-rock (figures 5, 6 and 7), which also contains a wide variety of lithic clasts (from basalt to anorthosite) (Garrison and Taylor 1980,
Hunter and Taylor 1981). The suite of lithic clasts found in 66095 contains every highland rock type except norite.

66095 “Rusty Rock” Impact Melt Rock

This was the prevailing view of the presence of volatiles in lunar rocks at the time:

“One of the most striking features of the moon is its great depletions in volatiles, such as C, N, H2O, Pb, Bi and Tl. Apparently these elements were left behind in the solar nebula when the moon accreted. For an understanding of the moon’s chemistry, it would be of interest to know the magnitude of this depletion, relative to cosmic or terrestrial abundances. The only elements for which this can be estimated with some confidence are Tl and Pb ——.”
–Krahenbuhl et al. 1973

66095 “Rusty Rock” Impact Melt Rock

It was even suspected that Rusty Rock may have been contaminated on its return from the Moon.

It is possible that anhydrous metal salts (chlorides?) in 66095 combined with the moisture in the LM, CM,
tropical Pacific and/or individual terrestrial laboratory, yielding terrestrial-like hydrogen and oxygen isotopic
signatures (Friedman et al. 1974; Epstein and Taylor 1974). However, it is difficult to see how moisture penetrated into the sample to “rust” the interior metal grains.

66095 “Rusty Rock” Impact Melt Rock

Rusty Rock contained more water than any other rock sample returned from the Moon.

Epstein and Taylor (1974) and Friedman et al. (1974) carefully studied the temperature release and isotopic
composition of H2O released from 66095. Samples of 66095 were found to have far more H2O than any other
rock sample and somewhat more H2O than any lunar soil. However, isotopic analysis indicated that the ä2H and ä18O were similar to that of terrestrial water.

66095 “Rusty Rock” Impact Melt Rock

It’s interesting to note that the rocks returned on Apollo 11, 12 and 14 as well as the Soviet Luna return missions (16, 20 & 24) were as depleted in volatiles as expected… All of these missions landed in mare (basalt lava plains); whereas the three J Missions, which returned rocks less depleted in volatiles, landed in or adjacent to lunar highlands (Lunar Landing Sites).

4.9 10 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
August 8, 2021 6:06 pm

Even on Mercury water ice exists in shaded craters.

Reply to  John Tillman
August 9, 2021 2:02 pm

Glacial water-ice in Mercury’s craters. Water vapor in its exosphere, just like the moon’s exosphere. Daily variability of H2O in Venus’ mesophere. And Mars. Water in Ganymede’s upper atmosphere.

Louis Frank’s data is perfect. Never been refuted, just denied. I know, ten million small comets entering Earth’s atmosphere every year is hard to believe. You know what Nietzsche said, “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because it would destroy their illusions.”

Reply to  John Tillman
August 10, 2021 10:50 am

Almost certainly exists on backside too. Not sure, but I think it’s completely locked tidally, like the moon.

August 8, 2021 6:08 pm

To be really obvious, having a source of water on the moon would be a great aid to any long term mission there.

Jeff Alberts
August 8, 2021 6:59 pm

inside permanently shadowed craters – in other words, craters that never receive sunlight”

I see that the NASA article was written for Democrats.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 8, 2021 8:50 pm

That clarification is necessary because some craters may self-identify as being in shadow even when in full sunlight. Others may be transitionning.

Reply to  Greg
August 8, 2021 8:59 pm

We no longer live in the naive and simplistic world of our youth when male and female where mutually exclusive categories. That kind of binary thinking is just a construct of the white male patriarchy which believed that 1+1=2 without realising this kind of dogma was a form of racial suppression of the victims of society who could not keep up with such abstract forms of learning.

Going to the moon required such a concentration of learning and engineering skill that it was probably the most racist event in human history.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Greg
August 8, 2021 9:07 pm

Most are still confused about their pronouns, so they’re neutral and or fluid. NOT THAT kind of fluid.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 9, 2021 3:45 pm

It’s interesting that with essentially no atmosphere to warm up surroundings that a bit of shade gets frost on it, even on the sunlit side. Cool.

August 8, 2021 7:18 pm

It doesn’t matter how often your claims are shredded, you will never lose faith.

Reply to  MarkW
August 8, 2021 8:47 pm

As I pointed out last time he posted these two unscientific images with NO UNITS on the ruler in either case: 60m is about 200ft. The width of one image 60 somethings, the other is 200 equally unknown somethings.

Until he shows these two images WITH units, there is no contradiction about the size.

Reply to  Greg
August 8, 2021 9:03 pm

NASA work in feet, Indians work in meters ?

Also no source ref. for the source of either image, just a wayback snapshot of something and no explantion of the orange scale overlay. This is garbage.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
Jay Willis
Reply to  David Middleton
August 9, 2021 3:08 am


You do yourself or your position no favours by insulting the commenter ‘Mark Ingraham’. Whether he is wrong or right, can be determined through facts and evidence, not by emotional insults and appeals to shut him down.

You descend to the exact same level you insult.

pHil R
Reply to  David Middleton
August 9, 2021 9:37 am

Reverse Alinsky. Mock savagely and ruthlessly.

Reply to  Jay Willis
August 10, 2021 10:52 am

There’s an art to a good insult.

Ray in SC
Reply to  David Middleton
August 9, 2021 2:46 pm

NASA does not always use meters. Don’t you remember the Mars probe that used imperial units for the landing data? Oh wait…never mind.

Reply to  Greg
August 9, 2021 5:37 am

This is your standard answer to everything.
It’s obvious. No proof needed.

Reply to  MarkW
August 8, 2021 9:32 pm

You are a genius, Mr. ingraham! The smartest guy in the room!

Now if only the rest of the World would just recognize your superior intellect, we could take our direction from you and life would be perfect.

That said, can we all just move along now?
In God we trust all others bring data. But in your case, Mark i., I’ll settle for a peek at the stone tablets you have for your received wisdom.

C’mon, now. Let’s see ’em. Moses showed his. Let’s see yours. 🙄 😜

[Aside to the regulars.] I know, I know. I’m wasting keystrokes. But I haven’t seen anything like this since Danny Bloom and his push to get investors in his Arctic City scheme. That was what; about 2008 or so? Now that was really good craziness. Finest kind. And now I am gobsmacked, flabbergasted, awestricken by our current resident genius.

P.S. I’m starting to develop a real appreciation for our griff. Mark ingraham is going to go down in history here as the guy who made griff look good. I didn’t think that would be possible, yet here we are.

Zig Zag Wanderer
August 8, 2021 8:13 pm

Ah! This makes sense now. He’s just an utter loony.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 8, 2021 9:28 pm

More like Bulle khrap.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 8, 2021 9:27 pm

“contradict” is not an argument. Contradict what, what is your point?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David Middleton
August 9, 2021 8:11 am

Bots aren’t that stupid.

Reply to  Greg
August 9, 2021 5:41 am

self edit

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
August 8, 2021 9:50 pm

You must realize you come off as an idiot? Zoom in on the photo, it’s the perfect shadow and outline of base of the LM. The scales aren’t a perfect match, but the actual photo is the same, so that superimposed orange scale must be off, since it’s not original.

Reply to  PCman999
August 8, 2021 10:41 pm

Anyone with some simple image layering and scaling software can find out in a few minutes (seconds, if you are familiar with the technique) that the two grayscale images of moon surface are the same. Just differently scaled and with partially different after-the-fact overlays (however, even the original captions and arrows were rescaled and included in the duplicate which for this reason alone can only be a tampered copy of the original NASA presentation). Put the images as two layers in Photoshop, set the top layer to “difference”, call “Free Transform” and pull its four corners to resize and align it. The residuals (= differences between the two images) are minimal, showing that both not only show the same area, but go back to the same original image, as the NASA-added captions fall into line just like the underlying moon-surface image does. The same technique one routinely uses to find out whether different-sized and differently-tweaked copies of a photo come from the same negative (and/or are copied one from the other). These two do.

Last edited 1 month ago by AlexBerlin
Reply to  David Middleton
August 9, 2021 5:40 am

How do they contradict? Or are you just thrashing about hoping that somebody will notice and swoop in to save what’s left of your ego?

Reply to  David Middleton
August 10, 2021 10:54 am

Well that’s cool. You can even see the LM’s landing pads.

August 8, 2021 9:01 pm

Aww ! I thought this was going to be a discussion of sinuous rilles .

August 8, 2021 9:04 pm

I suspect the concentrations of water ice in those minerals will make the Sahara desert sands look like a Louisiana swamp in relative comparison. If they must process tonnes of rock to get 1 kg of water mass, the effort likely becomes self-defeating.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 8, 2021 10:46 pm

Yes, one would need to get at least 10 kg of water from 1 ton of lunar regolith per weight it would be 1 percent of recoverable water and in terms per volume about 2 percent. Or cubic meter of regolith is somewhere around 2 tons. And if assume lunar water worth $500 per kg then it’s $5000 of lunar water per ton lunar regolith.
With gold on Earth:
When gold ore has a high grade, it takes relatively less effort to extract an ounce of gold from the ground and, since less ore has to be dug out, it reduces the input costs for the gold mining company.” And:
“The World Gold Council defines a high-quality underground mine as having a gold ore density between 8 and 10 g/t, while a low-quality underground mine has a gold ore density of 1 to 4 g/t.”
Gold is about $50 per gram, so high-quality gold mine get about $500 gold per ton. And such high-quality gold mine on the Moon is not worth mining.
Or another way to say it if lunar dirt was drier then dirt which is not damp enough kill plants [5% water in dirt wilts plants] it might be mineable. Anywhere there is vegetation on Earth or your lawn which looks it needs water- has a lot water in the dirt then may be mineable on the Moon.
I usually think of it in terms per cubic meter [or every 2 tons of regolith] and percentage by this volume, so depending various factors, as said 20 kg per cubic meter or %2 by volume {or 10 kg per ton] seems like might be possible to mine. But even %10 per volume would not be sure thing, and I think it’s possible to have %20 per volume or %10 per ton or 200 kg of water per cubic meter.
Which on high end of what is expected to be found in the lunar polar region. Of course we could also find some solid ice, find skating rinks in the dark lunar craters.
But whether it’s low end of %2 or %20 or skating rinks one has get to point within say 5 year or less of selling 1000 ton of lunar water per year. So, not about drinking water for dozen people on the Moon, it about making lunar rocket fuel and exporting lunar rocket fuel to lunar orbit or somewhere else in Earth high orbit, or Mars or Venus high orbit. NASA merely exploring Mars may not have enough need of lunar rocket fuel. But things which include lunar tourist, lunar hotels, and governmental base for various countries space agencies, etc could enough. The private sector needs to do, and needs to create market demand for lunar water and rocket fuel.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 8, 2021 11:03 pm

If the alternative is dragging it up from Earth’s deep gravity will, it’s probably worth it. I’m not certain what it costs to drag up 1kg, but I think it’s worth a lot more than its weight in gold, for example.

August 8, 2021 9:58 pm

Several years ago I read about the planning to mine Helium-3 on the Moon and that the process – using the heat of the Moon days to extract Helium-3 and others such as H20.

Reply to  Dennis
August 9, 2021 12:33 am

Helium-3 is very valuable on Earth for research and for use in very sensitive neutron radiation detectors. But it also is “made” by tritium decay, so it is harvested (separated) from US tritium nuclear weapons stockpiles and production.
H3 is useless as a fusion fue as it poisons the neutron production. It simply absorbs a fast neutron, and then an extremely rapid beta decay of one of 3 neutrons converts to a proton and the nucleon becomes Helium-4 with 2 protons and 2 neutrons.

Peta of Newark
August 9, 2021 1:24 am

Why was it ‘previously thought’?
What was this thinking, where did they/whoever think that the water came from?

Surely Shirley (been a while hun, you OK?), every element in the Periodic Table will be present inside El Sol.
In the form of plasma.

As Sol hubbles bubbles toils & troubles, all this shyte ## will ‘circulate’ within and if/when it reaches the surface, will boil off/blow way in the Solar Wind.
As it leaves, each particle will be reunited with its electrons and take on its ‘normal’ chemical characteristics.
Hydrogen and Oxygen in the out-flowing flow will recognise their affinity and, patently before they even get to Mercury (never mind romantic heaven that is= Venus) will have become wedded – making ta-dah – Water

Thereafter, general all round coldness and gravity do the rest, water on Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars and finally not least, Dirty Snowballs

Please someone tell me that the Great (self important NASA?) Thinkers alluded to in this story realise that, or are ‘things’ REALLY ‘worse than we/anybody thought’

Sometimes yanno, you just wanna……………

## We know its all there inside Sol because of Sol’s chromosphere.
= a layer of atmosphere not dissimilar to the lower reaches of Earth’s stratosphere = a place where particles with elevated temperatures and low emissivities can/will/do accumulate and retain their high temperatures ‘against all odds’

And because Sol’s chromosphere has a temp of easily 1 million Kelvin, that is why Sol radiates at 10 to the power of sixteen Watts per square metre.

None of this is difficult, why so much breathless excitement.

Joao Martins
August 9, 2021 3:01 am

Moon to Earth: “Bring the scotch, we got the ice!”

August 9, 2021 3:02 am

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is not the detection of water based on spectrography that could also indicate the presence of bound hydroxyl ions?

The moon is constantly bombarded by protons, while its surface contains a fair amount of bound oxygen. The constant bombardment will produce hydroxyl (which is one proposed mechanism for the production of water on airless bodies), which could hang around long enough to either further bind to something, or break apart again as sunlight acted on them. Wouldn’t it be as likely that the detection of water at lower latitudes be the detection of these hydroxyl radicals?

August 9, 2021 8:20 am

All of the water is coming from small comets. Ten million small comets enter earth’s atmosphere every year. They are also impacting the moon and all the other planetary bodies in our solar system. Louis Frank, University of Iowa, discovered them almost forty years ago. They are the reason there is water ice on Mercury and in its exosphere. Small comets are responsible for the water vapor in the mesospheres of Venus, Mars, Ganymede.

And of course Earth. How else can we account for water vapor in all these exospheres and mesospheres? Be serious now. The H2O has to be coming from outside. Lots of it. Constantly. Frank’s discovery has never been refuted, only denied.

Thomas Gasloli
August 9, 2021 11:06 am

There is no useable water on the moon.

The press release is NASA publishing nonsense because they are lobbying Congress for their portion of the irresponsible spending and they know Congress does not fund reals science; Congress only funds pseudoscience and a sci fi scenario of water on the moon for a human colony is the sort of stupid that Congress will fall for.

Tom Abbott
August 9, 2021 11:09 am

We need to send a few more geologists to the Moon.

I see where Jeff Bezos is trashing Elon Musk’s plans for getting us back to the Moon.

Bezos lost a particular Moon contract to Musk, and he’s complaining.

Bezos says Musk’s plan is too complicated, compared to Bezos’ plan. And Bezos is correct, it is more complicated, but that’s not necessarily a big drawback if Musk can carry it off.

Bezos says his plan to put people back on the Moon only requires three Heavy-lift launch vehicle launches to get all the propellant and equipment in orbit.

Musk’s plan calls for eleven launches of his Heavy-lift vehicle to get all the propellant and equipment in orbit.

But, it looks like NASA is going with Musk, which makes sense because he appears to be further along in development of his space infrastructure.

We’ll get some more geologists on the Moon before it’s all over.

Maybe we can do a crowd funding effort and buy Dave a ticket on one of these new launch vehicles headed to the Moon. 🙂

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
August 9, 2021 1:48 pm

Not an important quibble, but IMO the training astronauts got in order to collect moon rocks wasn’t really PhD level, since they didn’t need to learn BS or MS level geology. Instead they were trained up to a high standard in a particular skill set needed for the precise job at hand.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 10, 2021 8:19 am

“Have you ever noticed that Musk’s Starship looks like Fireball XL5?”

It does look like it, doesn’t it.

Musk is apparently planning on landing that Starship craft on the Moon, on its tail. That was one of Bezos’ complaints, that Musk’s vehicle was too big. There was a side-by-side view of the Musk Starship and the Bezos landing vehicle, and Musk’s vehicle was about three times as high above the surface as the Bezos vehicle.

I didn’t quite get the Bezos reasoning on this complaint. It would take longer to reach the surface exiting from the Musk vehicle because it is three times as tall as the Bezos vehicle, but that seems to be a minor drawback at best.

Maybe Bezos is talking economics. His smaller landing vehicle requires less propellant so requires fewer heavy-lift launches to get everything in orbit, but if Musk can do it as cheaply as Bezos, dispite the differences in how they do it, then that would be a non-problem, too. For Musk, anyway.

I’m enjoying the competition. 🙂

And we don’t want to forget to mention Gene Shoemaker who helped the astronauts with their geology classes.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 10, 2021 12:06 pm
Michael S. Kelly
August 9, 2021 3:08 pm

It is possible that anhydrous metal salts (chlorides?) in 66095 combined with the moisture in the LM, CM, tropical Pacific and/or individual terrestrial laboratory, yielding terrestrial-like hydrogen and oxygen isotopic signatures (Friedman et al. 1974; Epstein and Taylor 1974). However, it is difficult to see how moisture penetrated into the sample to “rust” the interior metal grains.”

Is it possible that Danny Thomas was examining the samples while sipping a cup of coffee, and his TV son said something outrageous, causing Thomas to perform a “spit take” on the samples? After all, that’s why they called his TV son “Rusty.”

Gary Pearse
August 9, 2021 3:22 pm

Volcanic glass in rhyolite extrusions is very low in water, despite the granite magma source rock often containing 5-7% by weight water. This mystery is a clue to what is a serious misunderstanding by igneous petrologists of the physico-geochemistry of rhyolite formation and extrusion (I’ll highlight one aspect only here). It’s possible that the same mechanism accounts for the paucity of volatiles in moon rocks subjected to high impact pressures and high melt temperatures.

At magma temperatures of ~850°C and lithostatic pressures at depths of 8 – 15km, the 5-7% water by weight is a considerable volume of the source magma. At STP, the water volume is 10-15%, but at these pressures and temperatures it is in the form of “critical water” which has a density of only 0.32 g/cc and represents a
a third or more of the volume of the magma!

Moreover, critical water is a powerful universal solvent that dissolves twice its mass in constituent minerals in the granite. At saturation, the the solution has a density of only 1g/cc, about the same as water at STP. This fluid is very buoyant and rises to the top of the granite intrusion as it crystallizes, thereby making up a large
proportion of the “cupola”.

With breach of the cupola attending an irruption, critical water rising upwards converts to steam and at the same time, immediately drops its mineral content, separating the water from the mineral matter.

Voluminous freed up solute intermittently clogs the vent and causes multiple powerful explosions typical of rhyolite volcanoes. Little of that water remains in the volcanic rock to inform us.

A large bolide striking the moon would convert any moisture to critical water in the melt, which would evolve back out of the melt as steam in the same manner with in the volcanic extrusion.

Ian Coleman
August 9, 2021 6:26 pm

Water on the moon? I don’t care. I don’t care if there is whisky on the moon.

There is, on the surface of the moon, an indestructible plaque bearing the words, “Richard Nixon.” I don’t care about that either.

August 9, 2021 8:24 pm

You come across as very combative. I do not know your motivation. Someone once said a man should know his limitations. Just as a carpenter should measure twice before cutting, you should think twice before posting, lest your thought of, at the least a pest, at most a fool.

Reply to  Walter Keane
August 10, 2021 11:35 am

Someone once said a man should know his limitations.

Dirty Harry.

Last edited 1 month ago by beng135
%d bloggers like this: