bobquasit: (Default)
There's been a conversation going on over on a GoodReads discussion group about The Lord of the Rings:

For the record, I loathe the movies. That was the whole point of post #3. It's my hope and belief that the LOTR books will still be read and loved long after those idiotic movies are forgotten. The movies stood many of Tolkien's themes on their heads, and replaced some of his most memorable and beautiful dialog with ersatz idiocy. They represent a profound disrespect of Tolkien, although I believe that Peter Jackson was too self-important (and possibly too stupid) to realize that he was crapping all over a work that he wasn't qualified to read, much less film.

The Eagle was Gwaihir the Windlord. He was sent to Orthanc by Radagast the Brown, one of the Five Wizards and a particular friend of animals, at Gandalf's request - to bring news. Radagast had been misled by Saruman, but was not a traitor. Gandalf had certainly had dealings with the Eagles before, most notably in The Hobbit. Gandalf did not control Gwaihir, ever - the eagle helped him out of friendship. As far as I know, the only living things that Gandalf ever controlled were Grima Wormtongue and Saruman - and in both cases, only for a few moments at most.
Read more... )
bobquasit: (Default)
I'm sorry, I realize that I must be boring the pants off of most of the non-Armenians on my flist (that's most of you; come to think of it, one of the very few Armenians on my flist dumped me without warning or explanation last year).

I'm going to be obsessed with this topic for a while, as I will be every year at this time in particular.

I pre-asked this question for Gene Robinson at the Washington Post. I don't expect that he'll respond.

Hi, Gene, I enjoy your column.

Since President Obama seems to be backing away from recognizing the Armenian Genocide (mustn't offend the Turks), I was wondering what else he might find convenient to deny. Germany would love to have the Holocaust removed from the history books, wouldn't they? And it was a long time ago...people should just get over it.

Heck, the American South would LOVE to have the whole history of slavery wiped off the records! And it's not like anyone is still alive who was actually enslaved back then. Shouldn't we just leave it all up to the historians? Let's look forward, not back!

Sorry to sound so bitter, but I'm the descendent of Genocide survivors. We lost many family members in what the Turks claim was a million or so unfortunate accidents. The last few survivors are dying now, with the US government still cooperating with the deniers.

I'm finding it particularly hard to take this from President Obama, given his previous clear statements on the topic. Any thoughts?
bobquasit: (Default)
There's an interesting discussion going on over on Askville about religion. The asker's son is being indoctrinated by her fundamentalist mother-in-law, in violation of her stated wishes (and her husband's wishes, too).

"My inlaws are fundamentalist Christians and my husband and I are not."

One of the believers there brought up the old argument that atheists can't "know" that there is no God. My response:

Atheists (most atheists - some may differ) say "There is no god" in the same way that a Christian says "There is no Zeus" or "There is no flying spaghetti monster". If disbelief in any imaginable entity required concrete proof of the non-existence of that entity, Christians would have to spend all of their lives trying to disprove the existence of the countless gods and other supernatural beings which have been dreamed up by humans over millennia. Not to mention the innumerable deities that could be imagined by people living today!

To suggest that disbelief in god(s) requires special proof of non-existence is to insist that belief in that god(s) is the default position - effectively, it is an attempt to force the non-believer to justify their non-belief based on the assumption that God is real. In other words, it's a classic "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. But it's not valid, as Christians show daily through their failure to justify their non-belief in any other god but their own.
bobquasit: (Default)
Someone posted a rather nice question asking about the meaning of Christmas for religious and non-religious people. I posted my answer in the discussion board, rather than risk the usual negative ratings from angry Christians. But I've received several compliments from Christians instead.

As an atheist, I celebrate Christmas from a secular mindset. The winter festival or holiday predates Christianity, of course, and many - most! - Christmas traditions actually date back to so-called "pagan" religious rituals, from a number of different religions. Of course, being an atheist I don't take those religions any more seriously than I do Christianity.
Read more... )
Come, Credit Department! Come, Personal Loan!
Come, Mortgage, Come Christmas Club, Come ---"

- From "Happy Birthday, Dear Jesus" by Fredric Pohl, available in The Best of Fredric Pohl

It's quite a nice thread; I hope it continues.

Update: I just extended it myself.

I imagine that when the time comes that my son realizes that there is no Santa Claus, I'll tell him in all honesty that he is Santa Claus - he'll be Santa for his kids, just as his mother and I were for him, and my father was for me.
bobquasit: (Default)
What IS it lately? Oh yeah, right. The election.

Some moron asked "Do you want America's next president to have attended flag burning ceremonies, to redesign our flag, and anthem?"

The details of the question included a bunch of ridiculously obvious lies about Obama proudly proclaiming on "Meet the Press" that he and Michelle have attended lots of flag-burning ceremonies.

The stupid hurts. So once again I was forced to drag my tired ass out to defend a candidate that I don't respect or support:

No, I'd rather our next President torture people, spy on Americans (including personal calls made by our soldiers to their families), allow his cronies on Wall Street to run amok without regulation thereby crashing the stock market and the financial sector, abolish the centuries-old right of habeas corpus, and set up secret prisons where people - many of whom are innocent, and some of whom are teenagers - can be sent without trial to rot forever. All while running up a national debt so big that the Chinese will OWN us, and even our great-grandchildren will still be paying it off.

Oh, and please have him ignore the climate crisis too (although you probably think that it's a hoax, don't you?).

That sort of President would be SO MUCH BETTER than one who has had some obvious lies written about him by right-wing nutjobs. Thanks for opening my eyes!


The "limes" thing is a meme that people have been using lately on Askville to mock political questions - or at least, the recent spate of over-the-top "push-poll" type political questions that Republicans have been posting in the last few weeks.
bobquasit: (Default)
I lost most of my interest in Askville a couple of months ago. I'm still not 100% sure why. I continued to peek in now and again to adjudicate appeals, but it was mostly out of a sense of duty more than anything else. I didn't enjoy it much.

Then recently, Askville went through a radical change of policy. 16 people had their account suspended for actions they'd taken long before. Many of these people were on my friends list there, or were people I was aware of; they were, mostly, good advice-writers.

A lot of them ended up at another advice site called Fluther for the duration of their banishment. So I went over there too, to take a look.

It's not bad. Smaller and more friendly than Askville, for one thing. And it's not affiliated with some corporate behemoth (Askville is owned by, and you get gold coins for endorsing their products). So I just made the following post in an Askville forum. I know, I'm just asking for trouble:
Read more... )
I really should just go back and do some more work on that Dan Grabauskas poem. It's much more fun.
bobquasit: (Default)
My comment on an article over on the Washington Post about Colbert vs Stewart:

The Daily Show has funnier sketches and supporting players (not surprising, since Colbert's on-camera supporting team is much smaller). But Steven Colbert is a far more incisive and effective interviewer than Jon Stewart, who has a tendency to take it easy on his guests.

All in all, The Daily Show is marginally funnier, but Colbert is more biting and newsworthy. But both shows are funny and great.

If I had to vote for one of the two for President? Colbert. His in-your-face speech at the 2006 White House Correspondence Dinner was one of the most impressive acts of political courage that I've seen in the past twenty years.

Which is, I'll admit, a sad commentary on the state of American politics: that a truth-to-power speech by a comedian to a criminal President and criminally negligent Washington press corps ranks as a major act of courage. Nonetheless, it does.


Jan. 27th, 2008 10:12 pm
bobquasit: (Default)
Here's a comment I made on a discussion board over on Askville about bullying - both in the real world, and online.

Bullying online and bullying in the real world are not comparable. Online, most people are subject to something like "road rage"; they'll say things that they'd never say face-to-face. On the other hand, real-world bulling often includes physical violence, which is a lot harder to ignore than harsh words!

As someone who experienced more real-world bullying than most in school (I was beaten up at *least* once a day), I can say with some authority that ignoring it doesn't work. Fighting back does work, but only if you're at least half-way competent at fighting back; unfortunately, I wasn't. I did manage to learn a judo trick and throw one bully several times, after which I got respect for about a week...until the other bullies figured out that I hadn't learned anything else.

I also got some respect for a few days after I threw a boy across a room. Again, it didn't last.

*Ignoring* them just encouraged them, however. And telling the teachers made it worse, too - the bullies would always get revenge, and the teachers were helpless to enforce discipline (and there were a few who were actually on the bullies' *side*!).

I can't speak for anyone else, but what finally worked for me was simply not being willing to play the role of the terrified victim any more. I remember being approached by one bully, one of the crazier ones, and defiantly telling him that sure, he could beat me up, but I didn't give a damn and wasn't going to cower. I'd gone a little crazy, to be honest; being beaten up every day for years can do that to you.

He was a little taken aback. I wasn't giving off the right signals. And as I recall, I was never beaten up again.

As for online bullying...if you're at all bright, it's usually easy to fight back. It helps to think and develop insight into the motivations of the bullies. I remember not long ago one *astonishingly* offensive person here on Askville; he was so rude and over the top that I was literally stunned, and quite upset for a little while.

Then I asked myself "Why is he doing this?" And it occurred to me that this was the only way he had to avoid responding to my arguments. So I simply posted "X is trying SO hard to make this personal. I wonder why?", and he disappeared from the thread.

I found that very satisfying.
bobquasit: (Default)
Over on an Askville discussion thread, a Christian just said that they viewed attempts by some to mix New Age practices with Christian theology to be the first steps towards the Ant-Christ.

That's Ant-Christ - yes, it was obviously a typo. But I couldn't resist making the following response, in part:
I don't quite see how New Age practices lead to the Ant-Christ. I'd have thought that it would be some sort of celestial picnic that would lead to Him, or rather, that would lead Him to us. But I tremble at the thought of His mighty antennae and exoskeleton. :D

I wonder if anyone will get the joke?
bobquasit: (Default)
Couldn't help writing another response to a "liberal press" idiot recently:

[idiot] has presented an article of his (or her) faith:

The Press Is Leftist.

Of course, if you're not entirely disconnected from reality you're aware that this isn't true. The owners of the overwhelming majority of the mainstream press fall into one of two categories:

1. Arch-conservative Republican billionaires like Rupert Murdoch or close Bush family friend and cult-leader the "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon, or

2. Enormous multi-billion-dollar media corporations which are so closely intertwined with the US government as to be virtually a PART of the government.

Any sane person would not be able to keep a straight face while saying that either of these groups of media owners are wild-eyed socialists. They would know that these groups are interested in preserving their own profits first and foremost - the status quo. And that the best way to do that has traditionally been seen as supporting the Republican Party.

(Although ironically enough the collapse of the credit and housing bubbles, along with the damage caused by massive corruption in the financial world, has proved that responsible government regulation DOES have value in the marketplace.)

But to [idiot], all the words above are just the text equivalent of the voice of the teacher in a Charlie Brown special: "Bwaa bwaa, bwaa bwaa-bwaa bwaa". The facts don't matter. Reality doesn't matter. All that matters is that [idiot] has been told by right-wing talk show hosts and apparatchiks that The Press Is Liberal. And nothing and no one can tell [idiot] differently. S/he's simply too well indoctrinated.

Blind obedience and faith in the Party Line is the only thing imaginable to [idiot] now. Any attempt to convince her or him otherwise is simply a waste of time and effort. It's rather sad, if you think about it.
bobquasit: (LLAP-GOCH)
There's a blog article in the New York Times today about newly-elected Muslim congressman Keith Ellison's plan to hold a Qur'an at a ceremony after taking his oath of office. A cretinous Republican congressman and a radio talk-show guy have been screaming about it, and a number of idiots are lapping it up. I couldn't resist making a very silly comment, which may not be approved because the blog is moderated.

If Mr. Ellison is going to put his hands on a Korean when he swears his oath, that's up to him - as long as the Korean consents to it, that is.

And it should be a FEMALE Korean of course, and I am assuming that Mr. Ellison is unmarried. Come to think of it, is he planning to marry this Korean girl? Why does he want to put his hand on her in public, anyway? Won't children be watching? No bad touches, please!

I almost forgot: it goes without saying that the Korean that Mr. Ellison wants to touch must be a legal immigrant!

What? What's that? Mr. Ellison wants a private ceremony while holding the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, and NOT a Korean? The Constitution says that no religious test may be applied to hold office in the United States, and even specifies that a non-religious affirmation may be used in place of an oath? And this whole phony issue has been drummed up by an idiot Congressman and a sleazy rabble-rousing talk radio guy to excite and inflame a bunch of morons?!?

Oh! Well that's very different.

Never mind!

(Sorry to get silly, but this whole issue would be ridiculous - if it weren't so sad and scary that so many voters are ignorant enough to actually let themselves be manipulated by this racist demogogery.

Sigh. Gilda Radner would have been sixty years old this year...)

We'll see if it gets posted.
bobquasit: (Default)
I couldn't resist posting this comment on the Yahoo discussion forum for a news story about Yahoo's plan to continue to cooperate with the Chinese government's violation of human rights...I suppose it might be deleted, so here's the text.

Subject: Shame On Yahoo!

Not really much more to helping the Chinese government jail dissidents, Yahoo is showing itself to have no consideration for human rights...nor any consideration for the ordinary people who make up their clientele.

I guess we'd all better hope that our own governments don't decide to pressure Yahoo into giving up our personal information, because if they do, Yahoo obviously won't hesitate to comply, no matter how tyrannical and despotic the government.

It's not rocket science, of course. Just the obvious.
bobquasit: (Sam - Holy ^@%#!)
Just made a post over at Feministing - there was a blog entry about a study that shows that people with female-sounding handles get hit on a lot more than people with male or ambigious-sounding handles.

Come on. Just how blindingly obvious does a fact have to be before someone won't spend money to verify it? Wasn't there ANYTHING more deserving that that money could have been spent on?
bobquasit: (Omac Destroys!)
I just got into a flamewar on Yahoo; perhaps it will amuse you.
bobquasit: (Rorschach)
I just posted an angry/sarcastic screed on Yahoo about the newly-revealed NSA total telephone record database; I couldn't help myself. It's not that well written or funny, but for some reason it's getting a lot more recommendations than most of my posts there do. I can only guess that maybe some neocons are rec'ing it based purely on the title. D:
Shut up, you stupid liberals!
This is America, and if the government wants to record everyone's personal data, we conservatives know that it's the duty of EVERY American to shut up and obey!

We're rugged individualists, so we know it's our duty to unquestioningly obey the government - it always knows what's best, and NEVER abuses its authority.

The liberal journalists who wrote the stories about the Terrorist Telephone Monitoring program are traitors, and should be sent to Guantanamo. Now the terrorists know that the government is spying on everyone! Nice job, guys! Osama must love you.

Haven't you learned that it's your job to report only what you're told by official government sources? You're not supposed to do investigative reporting. This is AMERICA, after all.

The government knows best, so you should all just shut up. TRAITORS!

bobquasit: (NewQuas)
Once again I snapped and replied to an idiot over on Yahoo.
>I'm confused

It shows.

> has been stated over and over again
>that the fact that Plame was not covert for
>the previos [sic] five years...

Here's a news flash: just because RushHannityO'Reilly say something over and over, that doesn't automatically mean that it's true.

Sigh. I know that as far as harryscom and the other True Imbibers of the Kool-Aid are concerned, the previous paragraph is the text equivalent of Charlie Brown's teacher:

"Whaa mwaaa mwaaa mwaa-mwaaa."

>Might not have been the wisest thing to do
>give the rabid anti bush press...

LOL. Keep working that one, but I think it's starting to get a little too obvious.

Who OWNS the media, after all? Gee, could it be the rich and powerful? Like those famous liberals Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and the Bush family favorite: apocalyptic cult leader the "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon?

And by the way, could you name ONE nationally-broadcast left-wing pundit, apart from the ones on Air America Radio (which reaches a much smaller audience than Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, or Thomas)?

The point, of course, is that Bush lied his ass off to the American people, AGAIN. And not about what he'd done with his penis, but about compromising the security of the United States. HELLO!? He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution!

Unless you're a highly-placed CIA official, you're talking out of your hindquarters. Nothing new about that.

Here. Here's the information straight from Special Counsel Fitzgerald:

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

I know I've just wasted my time, of course. Bush and company have now been caught committing treason; if President Clinton had done something one-HUNDREDTH as bad, these idiots would have marched on Washington shooting off their guns, in a massive right-wing circle jerk.

But since it was BUSH, let the denials begin!
bobquasit: (Default)
I've entered the silly zone again. Couldn't resist commenting on an article in Yahoo about Bush's plans to cut Social Security survivor benefits:

Subject: Immunity for Survivor!

Why does Bush hate Survivor?

And how can he even THINK of cutting their benefits? They suffered on that island for MONTHS, eating raw fish, getting sunburns and scurvy, getting voted off one by one, dealing with immunity challenges...they EARNED those benefits!

Maybe Bush just doesn't like TV? But I thought he was an American.
bobquasit: (Default)
[ profile] klyfix recently did a post about something interesting, which is why I'm still awake.

Apparently the Joint Chiefs have enough time on their hands to write a letter of protest about a recent editorial cartoon in the Washington Post.

We're not talking Ted Rall, here. We're talking Tom Toles.

So I had to write a comment on AmericaBlog. For some reason I used my old Quasit identity for the signature, I'm not sure why.

Here's the comment. It'll make much more sense if you go see the cartoon first. Frankly, it's not that I view the JC letter as censorship; it's just amazing to me that they apparently missed the whole point of the cartoon. I mean, how stupid can they be? And honestly, how could they justify wasting time over drafting a joint letter? It's too ridiculous.

Well, it's understandable that the Joint Chiefs are upset. After all, what Tom Toles was obviously saying in that cartoon was "I'm glad that lots of soldiers are getting maimed."

What? That's NOT what he was saying?

Oh. Then he must have been saying "Hey, soldier-boy! We blow you up plenty good, and generals are sleeping with your wives and girlfriends!"

That's not right either?

Okay, then it must have been "I, Tom Toles, support Al Queda. Long live the heroes of Allah! Terrorists, come and blow up Walter Reed hospital. And cut funding for veterans, while you're at it."


Damn. I'm stumped. Whatever that cartoon meant, I'm sure it was SOMETHING unpatriotic. And I'm awfully glad that the Joint Chiefs are taking the time to defend us against the bomb-throwing Mr. Toles.

It's not like they have anything more IMPORTANT to do, after all!
bobquasit: (Me)
I responded to a post in the [ profile] atheist community from a theist who was perplexed by atheism. My reply was ignored, of course. I'm beginning to believe that I'm invisible. But what the hell, I'll post it here. If only as a record for myself.

Why is it so difficult?

Because we simply see no evidence that God exists. It's really that simple; you see, or rather feel something that we just don't.

I once saw the noted author and atheist Isaac Asimov giving a lecture at the University of Bridgeport (CT) many years ago. During the question and answer session, several people in the audience stood up and asked him why he didn't believe in God; he'd written a book on the Bible, so they knew that he was aware of it. So why was he chosing to burn in Hell for eternity?

He answered, quite calmly, that religion was a matter of personal emotional experience - an experience that he hadn't had. They, he assumed, had had some sort of personal religious revelation; they had in some way felt touched by God. He had not. That being the case, any profession of religious faith on his part would be not only meaningless, but hypocritical.

The questioners didn't accept that, of course, and got pretty loud about it. They became so disruptive, in fact, that campus Security was called to escort them from the room.

So basically it comes down to this: to you, evidence of God is obvious and everywhere. To us, it's not. We don't see it.

Mind you, some of us have tried to see that evidence; we've tried our best to see some sort of evidence for the existence of God. But in the end we haven't been able to avoid the conclusion that it just isn't there. And ultimately, our loyalty is to the truth. We've chosen it over social pressure and condemnation. We've given up a comforting myth to deal with the inevitability of death and nonexistence in our own individual ways.

I hope you can understand that that takes a kind of integrity and courage.

I'll also say that it's patronizing to suggest that atheists don't believe in anything we can't directly see or experience. That's certainly not the case. I've never been to Tucson, Arizona, but I'm sure that it exists. But that's because there is a huge amount of evidence that it exists, in the form of photographs, maps, references in books, people I know personally who have been there...this is all evidence which I judge to be credible.

In my own judgement, there is no more "evidence" for the existance of the supernatural - including any version of God - than there is for, say, a magical elf who lives inside the Moon and grants wishes. In other words, none. It's silly, and not credible in any way.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and someday that magical elf will toss me into the burning clothesdryer that he maintains beneath Mare Imbrium for the eternal punishment of unbelievers like myself...but I really, really don't think so, and I'm not worrying about it for a second.

Neither, I suspect, are you.

And your reasons for not believing in my magical elf are exactly the same as my reasons for not believing in God or the supernatural.

I just want people to open there minds to the possibility of all things.

But YOU have closed your mind to the existence of the magical elf.

You see, if you believe in EVERYTHING, than you basically believe in nothing. Because "everything" includes every opposite, an infinity of possibilities. Perhaps there's a god who wants you to post in your journal. You don't know there isn't, so you can't disbelieve in him!

But maybe there's a god who DOESN'T want you to post. Again, there's no way for you to you must be open to that possibility, too.

But their Commandments are mutually contradictory. And they're both completely silly and unbelievable. So you do what seems best to you; you post, or you don't post, as you choose.

Keeping an "open mind" in the way that you suggest makes knowledge, decisions, and even thinking both meaningless and impossible. And you, yourself, have clearly rejected that approach, since you have chosen ONE god, rejecting all others.

Sorry, I've gone on much too long here.
bobquasit: (Default)
I couldn't resist making a couple of posts on Yahoo (under the name omac_lives) about an article on the American people's loss of faith in government.
Subject: It's no accident...

Of COURSE people are losing their faith in government. That's what the neocons WANT. If they can eliminate the government, make it so small that they can "drown it in the bathtub", then there'll be nothing to stand between rapacious corporations and the people.

Unfortunately too many people don't know what things were like in the age of the Robber Barons, when big business called the shots.

Child labor - children working 16 or more hours a day in factories, seven days a week, and dying by the hundreds every day.

Debtor's prison - get sick, get behind on your bills, and you found yourself in prison working off your debt, often for life.

The vicious circle - work for a company, and you had to live in the company town, buy a company house, go to the company church, shop at the company store. With prices calculated to keep you always behind, always in debt, and effectively a slave for life.

Senior poverty - No pensions. No Social Security. Old age was synonymous with desperate poverty. And with no social safety net, people went out on the street and died - for most of them, there were no other options.

Safe food and water - you don't even want to KNOW the sort of things that companies put in food, back in the day. Bleach in milk and bread, to make it extra white, just for starters.

But the American people have grown soft, and stupid, and ignorant. They've forgotten what it means to really suffer, thanks to decades of enlightened progressive programs. And now they're on the verge of losing it all.

The neocons, backed by the super-rich, have taken over - and what a surprise, they've screwed up government hopelessly. The wolves have starved and crippled the sheepdog, in the hopes that the angry sheep will send that damned dog away. Because then the wolves could take CARE of the sheep, in that oh-so-perfect free market way...right?

To be honest, I think - I HOPE - that the neocons have misjudged the American people. Or at least that they've misjudged our apathy, our passivity, our willingness to suffer in silence. My gut feeling is that as things get worse and worse, people will continue to get more and more angry. And the time may come when things get really ugly.

Unfortunately most of the rich will probably be able to escape with their loot to Saudi Arabia or some such place, leaving behind a devastated and ruined America. At the least, though, we can hope that the environmental damage will not be so severe that it destroys the human race.

But I wouldn't count on it.

Subject: Re: the bird flu

It's true that TODAY, you're much more likely to die in a car crash than from bird flu. But it would be a mistake to think that there couldn't be a pandemic. Please check out the history. MILLIONS of Americans died in 1918 from the worldwide influenza epidemic.

Not only could it happen again, scientists say that it's *likely*. After all, the world has become a much smaller place since that time, thanks to modern transportation technology. Improvements in medical science have given us some additional tools to use in the fight against flu, but experts insist that a global epidemic causing millions of deaths all around the world is *very* possible. Do you really want to take a chance that they're wrong?

It's not a bedtime story. It's a very real and frightening possibility.


bobquasit: (Default)

February 2016

212223 24252627


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 31st, 2017 12:26 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios