About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 160

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 1:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sharon,
As regards  "evil, hypocracy, rationalizationing":
Do you say then, that these evoke emotions; and if so, are one's emotions driving these acts of rational self-interest?
We start getting into a definition of emotions with your question. The classical Objectivist one is that an emotion is a subconscious value judgment.

When you encounter evil, vile, loathsome things in front of you, you express disapproval. That is only normal. On Solo, some of these despicable nasty creatures show up from time to time and are normally welcomed and tolerated for quite a while. Different posters pop up to engage them in a polite - or playfully colorful - manner. After a while, they start showing their true colors and start offending those who do not buy their snake oil.

The offense can be polite or it can get really vulgar, but it is mostly vulgar. There seems to be something that irritates the hell out of a person with a hidden agenda when he/she is consistently not agreed with on rational grounds (or even consistently not agreed with at all).

In some cultures, these disgusting sorry excuses for human beings are tolerated. In others they are politely ignored. In others, they can make a nice little clique for themselves. Here they are called fucking assholes and the fun starts.

Linz occasionally coins phrases - one of which is weasel words. He holds that expressing disapproval for evil is good. Tolerating evil is evil. Words that tolerate evil he calls the infamous weasel words. His phrases tend to be artistic and include a dose of rat poison (like the term Saddamite, for instance). (He also coins nice terms too, for instance, NEM, which is "men" run backwards and means "New Enlightenment Man.")

Evil is the only thing that benefits from too much tolerance. The good never does. So disapproval of evil is actually in the interest of the good.

Balance is always a sound idea before deciding to draw your six-gun, though. But once you draw, you gotta start shooting - since fucking assholes tend to shoot all over the place without mercy. That is what happens here.

Balance (before trouncing evil) at Solo is shown in the initial tolerance and welcoming of a new poster. It is also shown by the benevolence you can feel all around you and by the phrase "agree to disagree" that pops up from time to time between posters who respect each other. Just look around here for a while and you will notice several other attributes that create this balance. The people around here are pretty darn nice most of the time.

If you follow some of the threads, you will see abrasive exchanges develop like I mentioned - tolerance of poster, explanations and discussion (where disagreements tend to be blunt at times, but generally respectful), offences made by poster, increasing irritation and then explosion.

Where you don't see this, where foully trouncing a poster seems to come out of nowhere, there is usually some kind of ongoing history in place. If you go to the poster's profile, you can check out some of his/her earlier posts and almost certainly you will discover this pattern.

Do mistakes get made? They certainly do. That is why you apologize. I can think of several posts where Linz has done this for an excessive reaction. He, to me, is a big man with a big heart and a big mind. (OK, Linz, I'm done with sucking up or a while... //;-)

Among people of good will, apologies are accepted, behavior is changed (at least about the idea in question), and respect on both sides is increased. You can always spot a non-benevolent person, or one with a hidden agenda, by his/her steadfast refusal to apologize to anyone under any circumstances. What a sincere person values more than anything else in a community like Solo is to share rational understanding - including how he/she feels about it. If it takes an apology to clear up a misunderstanding and get there, I have seen not one of those I fully respect refuse to proffer one.

Now to the crux of your question. Is this in rational self-interest? Once again, the answer is yes. Reason without emotion leads to anxiety and/or apathy. Letting off steam (both good and bad) for the right reasons is extremely healthy. (There is even a theory that it can help you avoid diseases like cancer.)

Since an emotion is a subconscious value judgment, what good is it to make a value judgment if you cannot express it? Mentioning a conscious value judgment in a polite manner can satisfy. But subconscious ones need a bit more elbow room, as they get really rowdy at times.

Solo makes room for them. Solo is an environment where rationally based emotions are fostered.

Not perfect, maybe. But it is sure a hell of a lot better than anything else I've seen so far in Objectivism.

As a member of Solo, you have my personal invitation as to do the following. Look around. Read, skim, analyze. See what makes you feel good and/or bad. Think about it some. Then let it all hang out.

Michael


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 161

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah, this would be the Committee for Aesthetic Deletions I'm talking to, would it?

Phil C, you said, "What touched off the ill will and the negative ending to the thread was Peter Cresswell's response..."

Ah, no. What touched it off was a chorus of ignorant insults and implied barbs against Frank Lloyd Wright in a thread that was set up to celebrate his birthday, and his "his triumphant struggle against stifling conformism."

No doubt Mr Seddon in particular saw that as a challenge to demonstrate the sort of militantly ignorant low-lifes against whom Frank had to struggle. He succeeded.

The short thread actually does demonstrate how people would rather peddle myths about a hero's clay feet than having a discussion about their greatness. Such a discussion can't even take place if one has to spend time on nonsense.

Phil C. again: "..a shot aimed at Jennifer for not having devoted enough thought to her post, when all she did was ask in a single sentence whether the charges against Wright were accurate."

Jennifer said "It seems that not enough thought was put into its initial construction." Uh huh. As if not enough thought was put into 'Atlas.' Jennifer had previously read my short piece explaining a lot of the Fallingwater nonsense (again!!) and 
told me* she was amused by it all. So she hadn't come to the topic out of ignorance; for whatever reason she had seemingly failed to integrate the knowledge she had, and instead joined in the chorus of complaint.

"I don't know anything about Peter C." No. You don't.

"And I'd only warn Mr. Cresswell if he had a habit of doing what he did above:"

Pompous arsehole.
====================================================
* http://solohq.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/0609.shtml#4

 



Post 162

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

> And I'd only warn Mr. Cresswell if he had a habit of doing what he did above.. [Me]
> Pompous arsehole. [Peter Cresswell]

Well that answers that question.

Post 163

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
>> And I'd only warn Mr. Cresswell if he had a habit of doing what he did above.. [Philip C.]
>> Pompous arsehole. [Me]

>Well that answers that question.[Philip C.]

Should I have added to that the qualifier, 'self-important'?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 164

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oy! I likes me ability to curse out all ye's nasty worthless peicesa shit fa anyting I dont fancy! Oy 'specially likes to curse out youse dat dont likes to use the curse words and prefers da polite discourse. Fuck yis all, ye wee little pansies! Gratuitous name calling and nastiness is a sign of a healthy mind and fosters a real benevolent-like atmosphere, expecailly for da newer postahs. Dont chase the retarded little fuckers off none, and if they doesn't likes it, they doesnt belongs here no ways, anyhow. We wants the real combatative types, what swear and carry on at the drop of a hat. But not towarsds the forum owners...You need a thick skin in this world, and there's me excuse for being a jackass...

Post 165

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 8:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ha, Haa, Haaaa, Haaaaaa, ......

Finally someone said something worth a belly-laugh!


Post 166

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 9:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott,

LOLOLOL...

Well, I'm certainly glad you got that out of your system! Somebody's going to sleep well tonight.

Anytime you want to stop being an attorney, you have a second career just waiting for you. You sure have a knack for comedy. That was pretty damn funny.

(btw - I have a ton of lawyer jokes, but you probably know more than I do...)

//;-)

Michael

Post 167

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 6:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
NO! Definitely not!

Let's get this absolutely clear RIGHT NOW!

If I am to abandon the lawe, it will be solely for purposes of writing bad soft-core porn, per Ramblin' Robert Bidinotto!

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 168

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is there a law that says bad soft-core porn can't be funny?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 169

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Thanks for engaging me; and giving me your time in hopes  [do Objectivists have hopes? make that your goal] of trying to enlighten me without treating me like a contemptible worm. The extent of your generosity has not gone unnoticed. Regardless, I still don't get it.

Scott,

I got your message loud and clear.  Unfortunately, I couldn't detect in you, any of that malicious baggage that oozes out of the pores of those  uncouth ones you tried to portray.  Back to acting school for you. I laughed so hard I had to go to the loo. Have you considered a stand-up comedy thread?  

Michael Again,

When I first read Ayn Rand, in her interview with Playboy Magazine, it was her notion that succumbing to one's emotions was not only irrational but immoral, that lead me to work towards her ideal. Now, you are telling me to gloss over what I experience; because the vituperative have lofty goals that are founded on reason; AND NOT ACTING     "on emotions for which (they) cannot account, the meaning of which (they do) not understand." 

I acknowledge that even rational beings lose their senses, and need to apologize. For what do they apologize; offending another's sensibilities?  Don't bother, my sensibilities are my problem.  I would suggest that they apologize to Ayn Rand, to their selves even, for succumbing to counterfeit behaviour; and taking her Objectivist name in vain.       [She came to me in a dream last night, and told me to see if that would fly.]

This is my conflict.  How can self-proclaimed Objectivists or quasi-Objectivists justify brawls as being in anyone's best interest?  What's this "clear the air" stuff. Ayn must be rolling in her grave.  Nature is nature. Clear your head first and the air will take care of itself.

Could I make the claim that many SOLOISTS are masters at talking the talk; but are just beginning to walk? This, to me is the crux of  the  "manners" issue. Is  behaviour on this site compatible with Ayn Rands teaching?  As some have said before me; The world is watching.

What they're watching is; how the brightest and best, the most erudite, intentional and well-endowed that this Earth has seen; solve the question of CIVILITY.

For what did Ayn Rand write her books. To keep her name on the lips of generations to come; or was she a closet altruist?  Her Objectivism has the power to transform this world.  The SOLO FAMILIA has the power to put Rand's philosophy in the minds and dare I say hearts of humankind. 

The brawling SOLOISTS just have too much time on their hands; and are looking for mischief.  When brawlers are confronted in some kindergartens, they are sent to the kitchen table to settle their difficulties until all concerned are "completely satisfied". When they are able to look each other in the eye,  shake hands and smile sincerely; the disagreement is over. Children of four and five years don't carry as much baggage as adults; and I could enforce that; I was the teacher.

On this site, I've heard allusions to people going to the "kitchen". I haven't figured that one out yet; but perhaps this site could do with some "kitchen table threads" where the no-holds-barred conversations can take place until the combatants are either exhausted, dead, or friends again; before they are  free to get up and join the others. As in kindergarten, the world may watch and learn, and even smile from time to time as we all grope towards Objectivism.

Speak freely, I "have" the hide of a rhinoceros, I spent 35 years in kindergarten. 

Sharon




Pardon me, I misquoted you about clearing the air. I was thinking of after the  "explosion". 



Moderators,

Thanks for letting me join your excruciatingly exciting group.    I am learning by writing; and of course, by listening to the more equaninimous of the company, how to be more civil and less boisterous in person.  My family too, would thank you.    Hunt and Peck Typing is for some, the sober second thought.  Now, I can really start to embarrass myself.

TTFN

(Edited by Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald on 6/18, 3:00pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 170

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 7:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey Sharon,

You certainly look like the beginnings of good Solo material. Speaking your mind sincerely is considered a virtue around here. I will get to a couple of points in a sec, but let me linger on this a bit.

What your post gives me is a sense of you wanting to understand - not of wanting to teach or manipulate, despite your obvious shock at some of the invective and vituperation you have encountered so far.

This is where some who come here do not get it. They come in trying to tell everyone how they should behave, not ask why. I cannot predict the future, but I speculate that if your inquiring mind continues in this fashion, even when you strongly disagree with someone, you will hardly ever be subject to blasts of emotional excesses - or that if this happens from a troll (that's what an insincere name-caller and finger-pointer is called around here), many will pop up to trounce that person for you.

Before continuing, I do want to point out that Solo has mountains of good reading material - and if you don't like the more emotive stuff, there is lots of cerebral stuff too. I do highly recommend it. But if you are not so inclined, hell, let's just talk all year long about why some people have uncouth manners on Solo. I don't think that will do too much for understanding and applying Objectivism, but it might be fun for a while.

Now to your points.

This is the second time you thanked me for engaging you. Does that mean you are now engaged?   //;-)

Generosity is quite an accusation to make of an Objectivist, don't you think? Dayaamm! You might even start thinking that some of the Objectivists you meet are nice around here too. Now that would be the final blow. Objectivists? Generous? Nice?

Er... let's go back to talking about the name-callers. They're more fun to bitch about.

If I understand what you are saying, you claim that the vituperative around here cannot account for their emotions nor do they understand them. So maybe they should pipe down. Did I get that right? (I hope not, but anyway, here goes.)

There's a reason Solo is growing by leaps and bounds without an influx of heavy marketing capital. Do you know why? Precisely because people around here express their emotions over issues they care about - and they do so by doing their damnedest to honestly account for these emotions and to understand them. That is the difference.

Some people equate understanding feelings with never expressing them. I contend that these people practice a sure-fire recipe for misery, anxiety and boredom.

You talk about Ayn Rand and her teaching. Well, let's look at what she wrote. I presume that you have read more than the Playboy interview. If you read The Fountainhead, for instance, there is a rape scene between the two main characters - the good guy and the girl. Both heroes by the way. So, um... you postulate that there might be a form of rape that can be done with civility? And that such would be the Aynd Rand "civil" form of rape? Another good guy - Mallory the sculptor - tried to assassinate a person (Toohey) because he disagreed with him in general - not even in person. This was another hero. (How's that for non-initiation of force for you?) Dagny, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, shot a man dead in cold blood because he would not make a decision. Now how's that for good manners?

Want me to continue? It's all there in Ayn Rand's writing. The rationality stuff is there too. What made Ayn Rand's fiction appetizing enough to become best-seller was that it was exciting. The emotional level is high in it. The good guys care and do things about it. The bad guys are despicable.

Ahem... Wanna take another look at Solo in that light?  Try it.

The emotional level is high at Solo. The good guys care and do things about it. The bad guys are despicable.

There's only so much you can do on a web site. You cannot shoot a vile bastard but you sure as hell can hoot him/her down in a barrage of foul language suited to the level of scum.

Why is there ever a need to apologize? Well, for as much as you may account for emotions and understand them, they are deceptively trickly little buggers. You point them in one direction and let loose, then off they go in another. This causes misunderstandings at times, but I have a question for you. Is there anything else in human interactions that does not cause misunderstandings?

The alternative to these flare-ups is to expunge the emotional content and become Randroids on stilts (another phrase I got from Linz that I like very much - a Randroid is one who preaches Rand but acts like an android - except with less feeling). There is no successful third way I have seen yet.

I got a kick out of your term, counterfeit behaviour. That is one of those phrases that gives you the sensation of looking at a mirror that is placed opposite another mirror so you see reflections of reflections of reflections until forever. Can behaviour be authentic too? Or maybe just legal, but not based on a standard? Or easily replicated, but criminal? Hmmmm...

(several minutes passing staring at the wall...)

Er... where was I?

Oh yeah. We gotta say we're sorry to Ayn Rand for living her philosophy instead of just talking about it. Some call that taking the Objectivism name in vain. Dayaamm!

This Rand-in-a-dream of yours. Did her first name start with "L"?

But I see your problem. You are/were a kindergarten teacher. All I can say to that is please stick around. Some of the posters around here actually might need your experience from time-to-time.      //;-)

But back to kindergarten you must go for primer lesson number one in Objectivism. It is not about civility. It never has been and never will be. We had a huge problem trying to unlearn that bad habit around here. Hmmmph.

Believe it or not, you stumbled on the right place to learn about the kitchen. I and my dear darling Kat (katdaddy), whom I met and fell in love with on Solo, coined that phrase. I will refer you to her for further explanations.

This has gone on a whole lot longer than I wanted to. Just one last thing. You said:

The world is watching.


Solo is a marvelous place. So I dearly hope so, Sharon. I dearly hope so.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/18, 7:33pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 171

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Sharon,

Just wanted to let you know that the kitchen is for making love not war.  The kitchen is a thread in Solo Romance and it is a rather playful place...and it can get pretty hot in there with the orgies, Chippendale guys and all. My beloved Colonel (Michael Kelly) sends me (Kitten) to the kitchen when I purr too loudly or get too frisky. 

It's just part of the Solo experience. Probably one of the greatest things about Solo is the fact that people are just themselves and interact pretty freely.  Whether people are discussing, debating, joking, doing stuff in the kitchen or brawling, the culture here is that we are all here sharing a common philosophy and sharing our ideas as unique individuals.  Just as companies have a corporate culture, forums also have the same type of thing.  Solo suits me well.  

Kat




*purr alert*
Michael, you are adorable. Meet me in the kitchen.  purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 172

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

The emotional level is high at Solo. The good guys care and do things about it. The bad guys are despicable.
There's only so much you can do on a web site. You cannot shoot a vile bastard but you sure as hell can hoot him/her down in a barrage of foul language suited to the level of scum.

Wrestle in the mud with a pig, and you'll both get dirty. The problem is, the pig likes it!

Get enough mud on you, and we can't tell you from the pig.

Michael, I disagree with your rationalization of gross language as entertainment or emotional expression. That may be true for 14-year-olds, but not for civilized adults.

Assuming that someone is worthy of contempt and denunciation, and assuming that expressing those feelings will actually lead to some positive benefit for all, ejaculating some infantile expression like "motherfucker" carries all the force of a tantrum. Adults, like a Voltaire or a Johnson or a Churchill, express their scorn with insulting ideas and wit, not witless trailer-trash talk.

Assuming, of course, that there is some constructive purpose in insult. It has its place in rhetoric, but only as a last resort, I'd think. Even when someone 'has it coming,' I usually feel worse for having used it.

Nathan Hawking


Post 173

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sharon:
Thanks for letting me join your excruciatingly exciting group.    I am learning by writing; and of course, by listening to the more equaninimous of the company, how to be more civil and less boisterous in person.  

I think I might have an equaniniminy in my aquariuminium.

I only say that because I'm feeling full of boister.

NH


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 174

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 9:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

I'm overwhelmed.  My problem lies in only having read Rand's non-fiction. I guess I did read  "We the Living"  once; but no other novels.  I guess I'm just a Randroid at  heart; dry and humourless; I'll get right onto that.  There is one  little thing that I have wondered about since I've been talking with you; do you think that bullshit really does baffle brains?  Oh! sorry, I was just foooooooling around.

Thanks for the great welcome. This is really a wonderful family.  Now can't somebody get those others to come back..Have they forgotten that you can't choose your family.

All Best
Sharon

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 175

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 9:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello Katdaddy

Thanks for the kitchen primer.  I feel that between you and Michael I've just been privy to SOLO 101.  All news I can use. I tried to check out those Chippendales; but the door was locked.  Don't you worry about making love, in a room with the kitchen sink so close at hand?

Glad to meet you
Sharon

Post 176

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathan,

We can disagree about the nature of the invective and vituperation and even the reasons for it. As a matter of fact, we do.

But if it starts bothering you too much, you're just going to have to fucking deal with it.

Sorry dude.

Michael



Edit - I forgot. That silly-ass horshit expression mouthed by the oh so very mature adult intellectuals, "trailer trash," refers to where I grew up. A part of the story is is on this very thread. I'll take "motherfucker" any day over that sorry excuse at trying to prance out an effected pose of erudition and sophistication. And I'll also take the goddam pigs over that kind of brainless blathering. They're more sincere and friendlier.


(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/18, 10:18pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/18, 10:42pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 177

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathan,

YOU ARE A TREASURE!

I agree completely with you.  Infantile invectives reveal a diminished creativity and are an insult to one's intelligence. Could it be that such a person brings force against one's own self?  Would that be tantamount to attempting suicide?   "Everyone knows" such responses or reactions are informed by  deep-seated unexplored emotions; and reveal a certain lack of self-control in that somebody is pulling their strings for them.

 Worse, we've heard those vituperations so many times before; they've lost their cachet. No,,,,, I think that other  means will have to be found to shock and dismay. Like old master's art that's been overexposed and relegated to kitsch; it just doesn't work on us any more. Finding common ground is really  the way to survive. Michael's only kidding when he says that I'm not trying to bring change. That's what philosophy is for; to live better lives. Change or become extinct.  

What kind of a fish tank did you say you had?

Sharon



Post 178

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael.

You are a hoot!

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 179

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 12:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:
We can disagree about the nature of the invective and vituperation and even the reasons for it. As a matter of fact, we do.

But if it starts bothering you too much, you're just going to have to fucking deal with it.

Sorry dude.
The thing is, hearing it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

It's not about how I feel -- it's about what the person who resorts to directing that language at another person says about himself or herself. It's about the kind of place abusive language makes SOLO.
Edit - I forgot. That silly-ass horshit expression mouthed by the oh so very mature adult intellectuals, "trailer trash," refers to where I grew up. A part of the story is is on this very thread. I'll take "motherfucker" any day over that sorry excuse at trying to prance out an effected pose of erudition and sophistication. And I'll also take the goddam pigs over that kind of brainless blathering. They're more sincere and friendlier.

You think people who choose forms of expression other than gross language, like Ayn Rand and Nathan Hawking, are 'effecting a pose' of maturity and intellectual sophistication? In other words, in your view, people who don't direct that language at other people are phony while you're genuine.

Did you read that in The Romantic Manifesto or For the New Intellectual?

You dislike my use of "trailer-trash"? Perhaps you'd prefer Rand's "street-corner lout."

I'm not going to debate this with you, Michael. Neither of us will convince the other. But neither will I allow you to advocate abusive language as entertainment or healthy and desirable emotional expression without presenting another viewpoint.

Nathan Hawking



 


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.