Hope for your project - a little off topic.

Discussion in 'C++' started by woodbrian77@gmail.com, Jun 9, 2013.

  1. Geoff Guest

    On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:35:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:

    >On Sunday, December 22, 2013 8:49:29 AM UTC-6, Daniel wrote:
    >>
    >> If I could offer a cautionary note to Mr Flibble, the text continues:
    >>
    >> And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him: 'Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.'
    >>

    >
    >
    >I'm not sure of the age of those who were mauled by the
    >bears, but think they may have been immature people.
    >Elisha may have also been reckless with his new power.
    >After witnessing something amazing, he got carried away
    >so to speak.
    >
    >http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111915/jewish/Elijah-And-Elisha.htm


    Ah, so it appears you are not Christian. Your god is not the loving,
    forgiving god of the New Testament but the vengeful, powerful and
    destructive god of the Old.

    Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
    "children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
    is vain, the children perish, the prophet receives forgiveness.
    Hypocrisy at it's finest. This supposedly teaches the prophet a lesson
    about his "power" and he transgresses no more. If his enlightenment
    truly came from God he would never have transgressed at all.

    This is typical of the O.T. stories, God acts destructively in
    response to "sin" and people die. God forgives only after the fact.
    This is what makes the O.T. so illogical and fallacious.

    Above all, the Golden Rule applies. Always treat others as you want to
    be treated. Transgress this and live in hell.
     
    Geoff, Dec 24, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    d says...
    >
    > On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:35:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
    >
    > >On Sunday, December 22, 2013 8:49:29 AM UTC-6, Daniel wrote:
    > >>
    > >> If I could offer a cautionary note to Mr Flibble, the text continues:
    > >>
    > >> And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him: 'Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.'
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >I'm not sure of the age of those who were mauled by the
    > >bears, but think they may have been immature people.
    > >Elisha may have also been reckless with his new power.
    > >After witnessing something amazing, he got carried away
    > >so to speak.
    > >
    > >http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111915/jewish/Elijah-And-Elisha.htm

    >
    > Ah, so it appears you are not Christian. Your god is not the loving,
    > forgiving god of the New Testament but the vengeful, powerful and
    > destructive god of the Old.
    >
    > Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
    > "children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
    > is vain, the children perish, the prophet receives forgiveness.
    > Hypocrisy at it's finest. This supposedly teaches the prophet a lesson
    > about his "power" and he transgresses no more. If his enlightenment
    > truly came from God he would never have transgressed at all.
    >
    > This is typical of the O.T. stories, God acts destructively in
    > response to "sin" and people die. God forgives only after the fact.
    > This is what makes the O.T. so illogical and fallacious.
    >
    > Above all, the Golden Rule applies. Always treat others as you want to
    > be treated.


    So a masochist should always inflict pain on others? I think a better
    rule is to always treat others as _they_ want to be treated.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 25, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Daniel Guest

    On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:27:29 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    > So a masochist should always inflict pain on others? I think a better
    > rule is to always treat others as _they_ want to be treated.


    Finally back on topic for comp.lang.++! so People Who Answer Questions must
    always treat People Who Ask Questions the way they want to be treated, no more
    pestering them to post code, or scolding them for void main(){} and the like.

    Daniel
     
    Daniel, Dec 25, 2013
    #23
  4. J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:27:29 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
    > >
    > > So a masochist should always inflict pain on others? I think a better
    > > rule is to always treat others as _they_ want to be treated.

    >
    > Finally back on topic for comp.lang.++! so People Who Answer Questions must
    > always treat People Who Ask Questions the way they want to be treated, no more
    > pestering them to post code, or scolding them for void main(){} and the like.


    Why not? Pestering them to post code doesn't do any good as near as I
    can tell--the ones who understand why they need to do that do it without
    being asked, and the ones who don't seem to never grasp the concept.

    In any case, I think that those who post code fragments without any
    output or messages are ignoring the Golden Rule anyway, as they seem be
    expecting others to work miracles for them while they offer no miracles
    themselves.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 25, 2013
    #24
  5. Guest

    On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 3:55:44 PM UTC-6, Geoff wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:35:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >I'm not sure of the age of those who were mauled by the
    > >bears, but think they may have been immature people.
    > >Elisha may have also been reckless with his new power.
    > >After witnessing something amazing, he got carried away
    > >so to speak.
    > >

    >
    > >http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111915/jewish/Elijah-And-Elisha.htm

    >
    > Ah, so it appears you are not Christian. Your god is not the loving,
    > forgiving god of the New Testament but the vengeful, powerful and
    > destructive god of the Old.
    >


    > Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
    > "children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
    > is vain,


    He was angry at their foolishness. Perhaps they concluded that
    because Elisha hadn't been taken up with Elijah he was inferior
    to Elijah. They mocked him with "Go up". If they were
    challenging his authority, the bears may have helped them
    and others to know Elisha had the same authority as Elijah.
    Elisha's work among them would go on for years after this
    incident.

    > the children perish, the prophet receives forgiveness.


    I'm not sure anyone died. A couple of translations use the
    word 'tore' another uses the word 'mauled'. I think 42
    were hurt, but not sure beyond that.
     
    , Dec 27, 2013
    #25
  6. Geoff Guest

    On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 19:16:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:

    >On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 3:55:44 PM UTC-6, Geoff wrote:
    >> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:35:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >I'm not sure of the age of those who were mauled by the
    >> >bears, but think they may have been immature people.
    >> >Elisha may have also been reckless with his new power.
    >> >After witnessing something amazing, he got carried away
    >> >so to speak.
    >> >

    >>
    >> >http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111915/jewish/Elijah-And-Elisha.htm

    >>
    >> Ah, so it appears you are not Christian. Your god is not the loving,
    >> forgiving god of the New Testament but the vengeful, powerful and
    >> destructive god of the Old.
    >>

    >
    >> Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
    >> "children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
    >> is vain,

    >
    >He was angry at their foolishness.


    So foolishness is a capital offense.

    >Perhaps they concluded that
    >because Elisha hadn't been taken up with Elijah he was inferior
    >to Elijah.


    He was, in fact, inferior to Elijah since he was his disciple until
    that time.

    >They mocked him with "Go up".


    "Go up baldy" being the euphemism for "Die, baldy, die."

    >If they were
    >challenging his authority, the bears may have helped them
    >and others to know Elisha had the same authority as Elijah.
    >Elisha's work among them would go on for years after this
    >incident.
    >
    >> the children perish, the prophet receives forgiveness.

    >
    >I'm not sure anyone died. A couple of translations use the
    >word 'tore' another uses the word 'mauled'. I think 42
    >were hurt, but not sure beyond that.
    >


    And here we have the true answer to life's ultimate question.
     
    Geoff, Dec 27, 2013
    #26
  7. Daniel Guest

    On Thursday, December 26, 2013 10:16:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:

    > word 'tore' another uses the word 'mauled'. I think 42 were hurt, but not
    > sure beyond that.


    Curiously the number 42 is also the "Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", a fact that I am sure will not be lost on our excellent Mr Flibble.

    Daniel
     
    Daniel, Dec 27, 2013
    #27
  8. Ian Collins Guest

    wrote:
    > On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 3:55:44 PM UTC-6, Geoff wrote:
    >
    >> Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
    >> "children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
    >> is vain,

    >
    > He was angry at their foolishness. Perhaps they concluded that
    > because Elisha hadn't been taken up with Elijah he was inferior
    > to Elijah. They mocked him with "Go up".


    Like programmers mocking the style prophets with goto?

    --
    Ian Collins
     
    Ian Collins, Dec 27, 2013
    #28
  9. Öö Tiib Guest

    On Friday, 27 December 2013 05:16:30 UTC+2, wrote:
    > I'm not sure anyone died. A couple of translations use the
    > word 'tore' another uses the word 'mauled'. I think 42
    > were hurt, but not sure beyond that.


    Did you really want to discuss these old fairy tales or what? Yes,
    no one died. The good hunter came and cut the stomach of those
    bears and let the little red ridding-hoods out again. Or something
    like that.
     
    Öö Tiib, Dec 27, 2013
    #29
  10. Geoff Guest

    On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:32:00 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <>
    wrote:

    >On Friday, 27 December 2013 05:16:30 UTC+2, wrote:
    >> I'm not sure anyone died. A couple of translations use the
    >> word 'tore' another uses the word 'mauled'. I think 42
    >> were hurt, but not sure beyond that.

    >
    >Did you really want to discuss these old fairy tales or what? Yes,
    >no one died. The good hunter came and cut the stomach of those
    >bears and let the little red ridding-hoods out again. Or something
    >like that.


    :)
     
    Geoff, Dec 27, 2013
    #30
  11. Guest

    On Friday, December 27, 2013 12:25:41 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
    >
    > Incident? Are you serious? Adam and everyone related to Adam including
    > Abraham) NEVER EXISTED because there was no first human because humans
    > evolved. Do you deny the evidence for evolution? Your bible is a
    > fiction, your religion is a lie and your god does not exist.
    >


    If I'm all wrong, what about what I've been working on?
    Do you think on line code generation is the wrong path?

    This though might be like asking Noah's contemporaries
    for their thoughts on the ark. They may have thought
    it was a waste of time or something like that.
     
    , Dec 27, 2013
    #31
  12. Daniel Guest

    On Friday, December 27, 2013 3:32:00 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:

    > no one died. The good hunter came and cut the stomach of those
    > bears and let the little red ridding-hoods out again. Or something
    > like that.


    Except in this story it was the good hero who sent for the she bears ...
     
    Daniel, Dec 27, 2013
    #32
  13. Guest

    On Friday, December 27, 2013 5:57:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
    >
    > Did you not read what I said? Noah is related to Adam. Adam never
    > existed ergo Noah never existed ergo Noah did not have any
    > contemporaries. People that never existed never thought anything.
    >



    You ignored the first/primary part of my reply.
     
    , Dec 28, 2013
    #33
  14. Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Sun, 2013-12-22, Daniel wrote:
    > On Sunday, December 22, 2013 10:58:28 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
    >>
    >> One nutter joining in with another nutter. There is no God, fruitloops ...

    >
    > Sigh, it seems my little joke was sown on rocky places, where it grew not ...


    In other words: please don't feed the trolls. From where I'm looking,
    half of comp.lang.c++ is wasted on the Leigh-vs-woodbrian offtopicness
    and that is not how it should be.

    (And I wish I had something useful to contribute with, but I'm in my
    comfort zone with regards to C++ right now -- I know how to do
    whatever I want to do, and to do more I'd have to read up on C++11.)

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
     
    Jorgen Grahn, Dec 29, 2013
    #34
  15. Daniel Guest

    On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:03:19 PM UTC-5, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
    >
    > From where I'm looking, half of comp.lang.c++ is wasted on the Leigh-vs-
    > woodbrian off topicness and that is not how it should be.
    >

    Less than half, but it would be great if Leigh went back to what he does best,
    what he's very good at, which is to answer questions about C++ programming. It
    is the language, and only the language, that unites people here, and it is not
    possible to resolve other differences here.

    Although at the moment there does seem to be a shortage of questions ...

    Daniel
     
    Daniel, Dec 29, 2013
    #35
  16. Re: [OT] Re: Hope for your project - a little off topic.

    * Qu0ll:
    > *"Paavo Helde":
    > > > OK, all very interesting but can you now answer my question? Do you
    > > > believe there was a first human or not?

    > >
    > > I believe this term is ill-defined, so there is no need for me to
    > > decide if I believe in it or not.

    >
    > ROFL!


    Paavo happens to be right that the term is ill-defined (and of course,
    he's wrong about not needing to decide).

    Whatever criterion one chooses for "first human" it gets probabilistic
    and murky whether it's satisfied or not for any particular specimen. Our
    genetic information is fuzzily defined (there is great variation between
    individuals), and is just part of the molecular definition of the
    species. How the genes are expressed for in-body cell activity depends
    on the soup of chemicals in and between the cells, and this soup can
    vary, over the lifetime of an individual, and depending on the itself
    evolving environment. How the genes are expressed for procreation
    depends on the opposite sex individuals in the environment.

    Not to mention that people who disagree on criteria, or agree about an
    incomplete set of criteria, may disagree, to the tune of tens of
    thousands of years, about /when/ the first human existed.

    There seems to be some similarity to the "small heap" paradox. Start
    with a small heap of stones, add another typical tiny stone, then a
    small heap plus a tiny stone is still a small heap. So it will be
    forever small, no matter how many tiny stones are added one at a time.

    I think most kinds of macro-level physical identification are that way:
    fuzzy.

    The Bible's stories are not much about critical rational thought anyway.
    They're mostly about the opposite, namely blind obedience, supporting a
    dominance hierarchy. Do not eat fruit from that tree. Do kill your son.
    Do not look back on the city. Inbreeding is OK. So on.

    One oddball exception: the story of Susannah (English speling?) in the
    garden (or bath), where one critical-thinking young fellow prevented her
    punishment of death by stoning for the crime of being raped.

    I think for most Biblical stories the one, mister X, who created or
    elaborated on that story probably wanted people to behave the way
    indicated by the story. Blindly obeying mister X, letting him have his
    way no matter how irrational or meaningless it seemed. Letting mister X
    get away with having sex with his daughters, or killing his son. So on.


    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf (off-topic mode)
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Dec 29, 2013
    #36
  17. Re: [OT] Re: Hope for your project - a little off topic.

    On 29.12.2013 13:17, Qu0ll wrote:
    >
    > OK, all very interesting but can you now answer my question? Do you
    > believe there was a [non-metaphorical] first human or not?


    Of course not, and it's not a question of subjective belief either. The
    notion of a first human is meaningless because it builds on an incorrect
    assumption of the possibility of perfect, non-fuzzy and
    context-independent classification. Thus any belief in that notion, or
    failure to disbelieve it, is misplaced and irrational.


    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf (still off-topic mode, but this has to end, there has to be a last
    OT post)
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Dec 29, 2013
    #37
  18. David Brown Guest

    Re: [OT] Re: Hope for your project - a little off topic.

    On 29/12/13 09:46, Paavo Helde wrote:
    > "Qu0ll" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> "Paavo Helde" wrote in message
    >> news:XnsA2A56983F65myfirstnameosapriee@216.196.109.131...
    >>
    >> [ranting snipped]
    >>
    >>> Sorry I let me carried away into this thread. Trying to avoid that in
    >>> future...

    >>
    >> So Paavo, are you saying somewhere in there that there never was a
    >> "first human"? Please, please say yes!

    >
    > Cannot answer this without a meaningful definition of "first human".
    >
    > Cheers
    > Paavo
    >


    I think it is reasonable to say that since there is no possible
    definition of a "first human" (outside of religious fiction, and even
    there it is invariably inconsistent in every creation myth I have heard
    of), it is fair to be categorical and say there was no "first human".

    It is not uncommon amongst some religious people to deliberately
    misunderstand evolution and the concept of species. They read in their
    favourite book a few brief comments about early humans and other
    species, then extrapolate, misinterpret and misunderstand to come up
    with a theory about biology and species in which species are absolute
    and well defined. It's a logical as watching "Singing in the Rain" and
    coming up with a meteorological theory correlating the levels of rain
    with songs, but they seem to think it makes sense.

    So Biblical literalists think the two choices are "you believe God made
    humans and other species as complete, individual and unchanging
    concepts" or "you believe evolution made humans and other species as
    complete, individual and unchanging concepts through inexplicable leaps
    - one day a chimpanzee gave birth to the first human".

    Despite your (and Alf's) rather good explanations of species and
    "fuzziness", I doubt if you will change Qu0ll's fundamental and
    self-reenforced misunderstandings.
     
    David Brown, Dec 29, 2013
    #38
  19. Öö Tiib Guest

    Re: [OT] Re: Hope for your project - a little off topic.

    On Sunday, 29 December 2013 14:17:55 UTC+2, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "Alf P. Steinbach" wrote in message news:l9p2lk$ko$...
    > > Paavo happens to be right that the term is ill-defined (and of course,
    > > he's wrong about not needing to decide).
    > >
    > > Whatever criterion one chooses for "first human" it gets probabilistic and
    > > murky whether it's satisfied or not for any particular specimen. Our
    > > genetic information is fuzzily defined (there is great variation between
    > > individuals), and is just part of the molecular definition of the species.
    > > How the genes are expressed for in-body cell activity depends on the soup
    > > of chemicals in and between the cells, and this soup can vary, over the
    > > lifetime of an individual, and depending on the itself evolving
    > > environment. How the genes are expressed for procreation depends on the
    > > opposite sex individuals in the environment.
    > >
    > > Not to mention that people who disagree on criteria, or agree about an
    > > incomplete set of criteria, may disagree, to the tune of tens of thousands
    > > of years, about /when/ the first human existed.
    > >
    > > There seems to be some similarity to the "small heap" paradox. Start with
    > > a small heap of stones, add another typical tiny stone, then a small heap
    > > plus a tiny stone is still a small heap. So it will be forever small, no
    > > matter how many tiny stones are added one at a time.
    > >
    > > I think most kinds of macro-level physical identification are that way:
    > > fuzzy.
    > >
    > > The Bible's stories are not much about critical rational thought anyway.
    > > They're mostly about the opposite, namely blind obedience, supporting a
    > > dominance hierarchy. Do not eat fruit from that tree. Do kill your son. Do
    > > not look back on the city. Inbreeding is OK. So on.
    > >
    > > One oddball exception: the story of Susannah (English speling?) in the
    > > garden (or bath), where one critical-thinking young fellow prevented her
    > > punishment of death by stoning for the crime of being raped.
    > >
    > > I think for most Biblical stories the one, mister X, who created or
    > > elaborated on that story probably wanted people to behave the way
    > > indicated by the story. Blindly obeying mister X, letting him have his way
    > > no matter how irrational or meaningless it seemed. Letting mister X get
    > > away with having sex with his daughters, or killing his son. So on.

    >
    > OK, all very interesting but can you now answer my question? Do you believe
    > there was a first human or not?


    I believe there was at least twelve "first" humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens)
    whose offspring has survived to this day. Humans might have several
    ancestors among Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Idaltu.
    It feels nonsense to believe that there was the one single "first human".
    The apes did live in big packs already back then and the beneficial
    mutations happen rather slowly ... not like *bang* and that's now human
    but its mother and father ... no those were apes.

    > I don't care how *you* want to define the term "first human", just answer
    > the question if you don't mind.
    >
    > The assertion that there was no first human is what I am disputing.
    > Everyone seems keen to critique the Bible in general instead.


    I don't critique the Bible. Unlike Leigh Sausages Johnston I do find it
    quite notable piece of fiction considering that some parts of it were
    written 2500 years ago.

    > Really, it's a very simple question. Either you agree with Mr Flibble or
    > you don't.


    I agree with Leigh there. I also trust that you can find better answer
    (and links and reasoning) from more dedicated newsgroups (like talk.origins).
     
    Öö Tiib, Dec 29, 2013
    #39
  20. Geoff Guest

    Re: [OT] Re: Hope for your project - a little off topic.

    On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 09:39:57 -0600, Paavo Helde
    <> wrote:

    >David Brown <> wrote in news:l9p8bn$sth$1@dont-
    >email.me:
    >>
    >> I think it is reasonable to say that since there is no possible
    >> definition of a "first human" (outside of religious fiction, and even
    >> there it is invariably inconsistent in every creation myth I have heard
    >> of), it is fair to be categorical and say there was no "first human".

    >
    >It all depends on the definitions. Humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees
    >(Pan troglodytes) last shared a common ancestor (CA) 5-7 million years ago
    >(http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long). If we define the "first
    >human" to be the oldest child of CA who is also an ancestor of all humans
    >(or if CA did not have such child, then define "first human" to be CA
    >himself/herself), and for fixing this CA exactly define the species of
    >humans and chimps as the unions of the corresponding living individuals of
    >the corresponding species at 2013-12-29T00:00:00Z, then this "first human"
    >is most probably uniquely defined and certainly did exist (otherwise we
    >would not be here).
    >
    >Another question is if such a definition makes much sense (I think not) and
    >if we would recognize this concrete individual as human (most probably not,
    >as he or she was or would have almost been an ancestor of chimps as well).
    >


    And if there was a "first human", and if that definition is crisp,
    then who did he/she mate with and what are the offspring called?
    Because if he/she was the sole human on the planet (by definition)
    then all other potential mates were sub nor non-human and their
    offspring, having only 1/2 human DNA cannot be called fully human.

    The bible story, of Eve being made from components of Adam certainly
    makes sense from a human mated to human standpoint but the resulting
    incest of the offspring certainly makes no sense genetically. For God
    to set man up as a species by act of incest and then to make incest
    taboo in the subsequent chapters is completely illogical. One cannot
    take these stories literally, and that is the mistake of Creationists.
    But then again, a world filled with the product of incest, having
    recessive defects and retardation, certainly explains a lot of people
    walking around in the world today. They would appear to be classified
    as biblical literalists and creationists.
     
    Geoff, Dec 29, 2013
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Martyn Fewtrell

    A little off topic!

    Martyn Fewtrell, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    664
    Michael
    Jan 7, 2004
  2. A little off topic

    , Feb 4, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    549
  3. ohaya
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,492
    Sudsy
    Aug 21, 2004
  4. Claude
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    552
    Claude
    Mar 7, 2004
  5. Cliff R.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    585
    Roy Schestowitz
    Jun 15, 2005
  6. Tan Thuan Seah

    A little off topic but..

    Tan Thuan Seah, Oct 13, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    476
  7. m.a

    a little off topic

    m.a, Feb 7, 2008, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    486
    Paul Shapiro
    Feb 8, 2008
  8. jacob navia
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    823
    spinoza1111
    May 30, 2010
Loading...