fucked up comic strip that ocaasionally appeared in the Grauniad. I can't remember what it was called.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 18:23,
archived)
that's only on birthday parties; tis not a Christmas drink :D
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:40,
archived)
so other than the hair, there is really no difference
*whistles*
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:32,
archived)
*whistles*
great fun!
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:33,
archived)
I bet the bottom one is a much better shag :)
Though I wouldn't like to find out the hard way
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:34,
archived)
Though I wouldn't like to find out the hard way
just cause ugly girls are ugly doesn't mean they're better in bed.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:35,
archived)
I mean I guess it's nice that ugly girls can get laid, but the assumption that they're better in bed is silly.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:38,
archived)
I wouldn't have thought they possess the imagination to be particularly fun in bed though.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 18:29,
archived)
Who's to say she's ugly, Who's to say you're ugly? Who's to say I'm ugly?
Ugly is such an ugly word :)
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:41,
archived)
Ugly is such an ugly word :)
for getting some, and will have more pent up sexual frustration to expend on you, so tend to be fucking wild compared to ms. IcanGetItAnyTime who will, lets face it, be as loose as a bucket of water.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 18:26,
archived)
the bigger the cusion
the better the pushin'
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:37,
archived)
the better the pushin'
Found bottom one here:
www.pornotube.com/media.php?m=23891
NSFW, obviously
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:37,
archived)
www.pornotube.com/media.php?m=23891
NSFW, obviously
I thought something looked wrong...
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:34,
archived)
made from an empty bottle, a rubber glove and some hand cream.
then realising you left it ont he floor in your room and your mum was doing a speing clean today.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:29,
archived)
then realising you left it ont he floor in your room and your mum was doing a speing clean today.
speings should be kept clean on a regular basis, it's only propper
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 18:21,
archived)
secretly wonders which one you think is the worst one then?
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:22,
archived)
as it made me want to stab something.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:27,
archived)
You NEVER, and I do fucking mean NEVER, use a condom twice.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:22,
archived)
A MEXICAN RIDING A BIKE!
actually - the illusion here is whether the vase is in front of the children or behind them
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:18,
archived)
actually - the illusion here is whether the vase is in front of the children or behind them
It's funny because it's name sounds like a bodily function!
Nice drawing though, I like the strip.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:15,
archived)
Nice drawing though, I like the strip.
At our school, each class has done a picture for 1 of these days of the song. I got 10 Lords A-Leaping and this is what we did.
The photos are of me. I hope you like it!

Please don't do anything to this picture and sorry it's 95k.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:10,
archived)
The photos are of me. I hope you like it!

Please don't do anything to this picture and sorry it's 95k.
Worst line of text on B3ta ever.
Also, Where am I in there?
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:12,
archived)
Also, Where am I in there?
doesn't it?
But it's hometime and I don't have photoshop here.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:13,
archived)
But it's hometime and I don't have photoshop here.
Jeremy Beadle, front bottom centre, in the Stan from South Park hat, has already got CDCs for legs.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:14,
archived)
I rather like the display though.
/Making displays for primary school art classes blog.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:17,
archived)
/Making displays for primary school art classes blog.
I don't know what else to do to optimise it.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:22,
archived)
"please don't do anything to the picture"
I'll respect this wish, I will however do disgusting acts with a copy of this picture :D
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 18:32,
archived)
I'll respect this wish, I will however do disgusting acts with a copy of this picture :D
Edit: I am here humping a big f*cking RIS to your stapler meningities story... please explain.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:01,
archived)
What is the part with the glass all about?
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:09,
archived)
it wont go white and disappear, whereas most other rashes will
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:10,
archived)
about 12 years ago. Problem is I've forgotten what it was. Something to do with memes.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:01,
archived)
"Why are you so angry about something you don't think exists or is it that really you're a bit afraid that God does exist and you're going to hell for being a twat?"
I'm all for people having their own beliefs but it annoys me when someone pretends to be a scientist or insists that science can do things which it can't.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:05,
archived)
I'm all for people having their own beliefs but it annoys me when someone pretends to be a scientist or insists that science can do things which it can't.
The questions being asked him by American students the other day were frightening.
And the thing about their University museum having a 3000 year old dinosaur bone is disturbing.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:07,
archived)
And the thing about their University museum having a 3000 year old dinosaur bone is disturbing.
The ID brigade annoy me too. They're just feeble. They just happen to contain enough waffly bullshit to convince people who know no science.
But the people who think that science proves that God does not exist are just as stupid.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:09,
archived)
But the people who think that science proves that God does not exist are just as stupid.
I thought it was to teach kids the science that we know first, and then let them decide if they want to be religious when their brains are capable of understanding what it means - generally just avoiding the brainwashing.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:12,
archived)
Intelligent Design is about teaching kids God made everything, using bad science.
If what I've read about God is correct, he'd probably use good science.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:14,
archived)
If what I've read about God is correct, he'd probably use good science.
I thought you were saying that Dawkins was proving God doesn't exist.
He just isn't accepting that he does either until science proves it.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:17,
archived)
He just isn't accepting that he does either until science proves it.
not deductive. Evolution explains the facts without invoking the supernatural, it's the most likely theory. Deducing is not possible and will never be, unless time travel is invented or God appears.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:19,
archived)
Evolution explains the facts by invoking other things we have no real evidence for. The fossil record is amazingly scarce (and saying that the conditions required to fossilise and the massive time scales make finding fossils difficult, is not an argument in favour) and doesn't really show what we'd expect it to.
Which could point to either evolution being rubbish or something a lot different to what we currently imagine it to be. Either way, there's not much evidence for it as it stands.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:27,
archived)
Which could point to either evolution being rubbish or something a lot different to what we currently imagine it to be. Either way, there's not much evidence for it as it stands.
and so we have a plausible idea of what might have happened with some scant artefacts and a bit of reasoning, or a somewhat less plausible idea based on a collection of old writings.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:30,
archived)
Exactly the same thing.
Both require an act of faith to say that you know what is right and others are wrong.
As for the plausibility - how can you say one is more plausible than the other? You can say that one makes more sense to you than the other, doesn't make it more likely.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:32,
archived)
Both require an act of faith to say that you know what is right and others are wrong.
As for the plausibility - how can you say one is more plausible than the other? You can say that one makes more sense to you than the other, doesn't make it more likely.
Hardly surprising on a technology based search.
I bet you'd get a different result if you checked the Bible.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:35,
archived)
I bet you'd get a different result if you checked the Bible.
I think that science shows that stuff could have happened quite well without the existence of a deity.
No point complicating things unnecessarily.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:12,
archived)
No point complicating things unnecessarily.
that is by its own definition outside of the bounds of rationality.
For example they've been trying for years to tell me that my friend Bobo doesn't exist, but I know he does, don't you Bobo?
What's that Bobo? No surely not, THEY DON'T DESERVE IT BOBO - NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER DESERVED IT! I CAN'T DO IT! I WON'T DO IT!
alright, alright, just let me get the axe out.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:17,
archived)
For example they've been trying for years to tell me that my friend Bobo doesn't exist, but I know he does, don't you Bobo?
What's that Bobo? No surely not, THEY DON'T DESERVE IT BOBO - NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER DESERVED IT! I CAN'T DO IT! I WON'T DO IT!
alright, alright, just let me get the axe out.
but if Science suddenly came up with a mathematical answer to the cause of the big bang that said it seems to be a massive water buffalo with omnipresent abilities and startling control over matter, then they would possibly describe it as "godlike".
However, while religion jumps up and down and says "I worshipped the water buffalo all along, you people with your beardy bloke were always wrong and now we must have a war", the scientists would be wondering where this God thing came from in the first place and who it's creator was.
Or similar
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:22,
archived)
However, while religion jumps up and down and says "I worshipped the water buffalo all along, you people with your beardy bloke were always wrong and now we must have a war", the scientists would be wondering where this God thing came from in the first place and who it's creator was.
Or similar
who was working on Big Bang theory and had worked out that matter appeared in the Universe before the Big Bang. Not very long before though. He calculated that the period of time between the appearance of this matter and the Big Bang it sparked off, was about the same amount of time to say, "let there be light," in hebrew.
It means nothing.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:25,
archived)
It means nothing.
It's also the same amount of time as it takes to say "I fancy a wank" or "that curry I had last night is really messing with me innards, hang on a sec, I'm just going to the loo" in ancient Maori.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:28,
archived)
But it's possible to disprove things, that is, to come up with better theories than the ones that say those things exist.
(Now I have to go somewhere, I'm late. *vanishes*)
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:22,
archived)
(Now I have to go somewhere, I'm late. *vanishes*)
You can prove something does exist by finding it. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist until you've looked absolutely everywhere for it (and are sure that it isn't just behind you or moving away every time you get close).
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:29,
archived)
It's not the job of science (or philosophy) to prove things, but to produce better theories.
www.amazon.com/Retreat-Commitment-William-Warren-Bartley/dp/081269127X
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:19,
archived)
www.amazon.com/Retreat-Commitment-William-Warren-Bartley/dp/081269127X
but I feel my knowledge of the various theories is too shallow.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:23,
archived)
after years of exposure to me and Leigh and Rob and other Popper fans. Gotta go, anyway, bye.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:28,
archived)
however it is impossible to prove that something DOESN'T. It's known as falsifiability.
For example, the statements, "All ravens are black" and "No ravens are white" are not proveable - even if you gathered up all the ravens currently in the universe, you cannot account for all the possible ravens that might spring into existence between now and the end of time, or even those that have already ceased to exist.
However, the statement "Some ravens are black" is proveable, obviously, you just have to see a black raven.
Hence I agree entirely with the sentiments above about Dawkins being an unremitting twunt.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:29,
archived)
For example, the statements, "All ravens are black" and "No ravens are white" are not proveable - even if you gathered up all the ravens currently in the universe, you cannot account for all the possible ravens that might spring into existence between now and the end of time, or even those that have already ceased to exist.
However, the statement "Some ravens are black" is proveable, obviously, you just have to see a black raven.
Hence I agree entirely with the sentiments above about Dawkins being an unremitting twunt.
I don't think science shows that at all. Not without needlessly complicating things itself to make it seem that way. It doesn't necessarily follow that there must be a God, but science is a LOOOONG way from showing that everything could have just happened like this anyway.
check out some M-theory. It just takes it back past the Big Bang still without answering any questions.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:21,
archived)
check out some M-theory. It just takes it back past the Big Bang still without answering any questions.
It's philosophy that can disprove the existence of god.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:07,
archived)
extreme "scientists" like Dawkins are pretty much the same as extreme religious types.
Probe a little and the theories tend to be equally flawed.
EDIT: Why couldn't I think of the word philosophy? Ta Felix.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:07,
archived)
Probe a little and the theories tend to be equally flawed.
EDIT: Why couldn't I think of the word philosophy? Ta Felix.
when philosopher would have worked better.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:11,
archived)
But that's not typically due to using weak arguments. It's more to do with the failure to realise that they're attempting to saw through people's psychological crutches, and that very
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:17,
archived)
It was something about ... very strident attacks by evangelistic atheists being pointless, but The God Delusion seeming to have some positive effect in comparison.
I have to go now, anyway. Heh.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:26,
archived)
I have to go now, anyway. Heh.
He's a scienceist.
I respect him for his work on evolutionary biology, but he should stick to what he's good at. Going after religion in general is at best psychology (not his field of expertise) and at worst bigotry.
For the record, I think that "Intelligent Design" is a load of crap, and Darwin's description of evolution is the only thing that really fits the facts.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:13,
archived)
I respect him for his work on evolutionary biology, but he should stick to what he's good at. Going after religion in general is at best psychology (not his field of expertise) and at worst bigotry.
For the record, I think that "Intelligent Design" is a load of crap, and Darwin's description of evolution is the only thing that really fits the facts.
I reckon Darwinian evolution is on it's way out. I think it's, at best, a decent rule of thumb (like the sultana pudding model of atomics or the 2,8,8,8 etc. electron shell theory).
I have no idea how it really works though. I'm more of a chemist than a biologist.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:17,
archived)
I have no idea how it really works though. I'm more of a chemist than a biologist.
the majority of people that the masses look up to.
He just has to be careful not to turn in to one of the ranting people he's objecting to.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:05,
archived)
He just has to be careful not to turn in to one of the ranting people he's objecting to.
He's a frothy-mouthed egotist with, ironically, a god complex.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:31,
archived)
amuses the hell out of me
which is as good a reason as any to be a supreme being.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:11,
archived)
which is as good a reason as any to be a supreme being.
Who would have guessed that Alfred Hitchcock was the supreme being?
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:00,
archived)
Of course. I knew it looked familiar. I just couldn't place it.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:06,
archived)
/mussolini
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:54,
archived)
/Keeley Hazell
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:57,
archived)
then say something not nice. :)
and your father smells like a cheap elderflower cordial substitute*.
*piss.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:55,
archived)
*piss.
Savege, Izzet, yes Lennon, Heskey... grand team.
Shame about the fight with him and his brother :|
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:13,
archived)
Shame about the fight with him and his brother :|
always falling over - best thing was the money we got for him from Liverpool :)
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:32,
archived)
v Aston Villa in the league cup QF..... ah, I was at Filbert Street for that.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:36,
archived)
TJ:
Right... A news paper article has a headline at the top (in big bold), then another few paragrpahs (in smaller bold), then it continues with the rest of the article
What's that second bit called (a tagline perhaps) i'm havin no luck wiv google as i dunno what i'm searching for.. :-/
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:50,
archived)
Right... A news paper article has a headline at the top (in big bold), then another few paragrpahs (in smaller bold), then it continues with the rest of the article
What's that second bit called (a tagline perhaps) i'm havin no luck wiv google as i dunno what i'm searching for.. :-/
(i used to know, as i studied that sort of thing, but i've forgotten)
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:51,
archived)
but the headlines are too long and are fucking me off.... i'm trying to explain that they are confusing the headline with the *insert word here*...
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:54,
archived)
I'm just completing a news section if you want to see my front end code?
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:56,
archived)
... if they keep overdoing the headlines, I'm gonna have to truncate to keep the design intact, which they wont like. HURRUMPH!
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:58,
archived)
get 'em out for the lads!
yeah, double please. Wrap the cheddar around it.
*drools over keyboard*
I KEEP DOING THIS!
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:56,
archived)
I KEEP DOING THIS!
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072407611/student_view0/glossary.html
It's always worth puttin gthe word 'glossary' into Google when you know the subject but don't know the word you're looking for.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:51,
archived)
It's always worth puttin gthe word 'glossary' into Google when you know the subject but don't know the word you're looking for.
... like tagline or summat (but a tagline is used in advertising, yes?)
i'm a bit useless outside of my remit :(
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:55,
archived)
i'm a bit useless outside of my remit :(
To kinda lure you in with promise of wonders
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:57,
archived)
IT WAS NORMAL SIZED PEOPLE WITH NORMAL SIZED ANTS!
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:42,
archived)
*realises it expired 1997*
Uh oh......
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:43,
archived)
Uh oh......
are after you
artist retreival tactical yellowy spongey horrible indigo team!
granted it's a great picture, still a bit pseudo naughty though, but very well done
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:45,
archived)
artist retreival tactical yellowy spongey horrible indigo team!
granted it's a great picture, still a bit pseudo naughty though, but very well done
glabella, occipital lobe, facial sutures... THE WHOLE WORKS!
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:48,
archived)
So either sexy anteaters,
Or sexy grubs and multch
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:46,
archived)
Or sexy grubs and multch
Any species of mollusc will do.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:44,
archived)
Mussels, Cockles (double entendre potential?), sea slugs, and snails all with breasts!
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:47,
archived)
(Dead Man's Chest)
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:49,
archived)
and they can be drawn to be quite cute. And besides, apparently this is a mollusc. (NSFW: Contains human nudity for some reason.)
I want a sexy one of these!
/edit - Is it me, or is this squid actually a hippo?
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:00,
archived)
I want a sexy one of these!
/edit - Is it me, or is this squid actually a hippo?
Giant insects are the future!
(shame about the lack of robots, but you can't have everything!)
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:45,
archived)
(shame about the lack of robots, but you can't have everything!)
Maybe they wear them posture bras that you see advertised in granny pamphlets.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:57,
archived)
I remember that song...even David Cassidy covered it..
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:43,
archived)
go now! Go now, go now...ad nauseum.
and 'woo!' of course
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:02,
archived)
and 'woo!' of course
*opens*
woo woo woo woo woo woo woo
*breaks up plastic rings*
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:03,
archived)
woo woo woo woo woo woo woo
*breaks up plastic rings*
I don't know what will
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:55,
archived)
EDIT: I think...
Sinterklaus, or something was the original name...
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:41,
archived)
Sinterklaus, or something was the original name...
It means that if at any point something doesn't make sense, I can claim insanity
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:48,
archived)

Is like leaving a rapist unattended in a Teen Coma ward
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:35,
archived)
CHAMELEON, HE COMES AND GOES
HE COMES ON GIRLS!
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:36,
archived)
HE COMES ON GIRLS!
based on a film "Taxi Driver"
google for more
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:54,
archived)
google for more
It looks like a load of tower blocks
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:33,
archived)
who only eats hairy pies, fish suppers, badly-packed kebabs and the odd vertical bacon sandwich
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:42,
archived)
Although it shouldn't be a conning tower. I still want Her Maj to storm into Parliament and send Blair to The Tower.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:39,
archived)
I'll change that sharpish
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:21,
archived)
I'm not going to buy a console again until that comes out.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:26,
archived)
just the same, sandbox, do what you like gameplay in different settings.
i'm getting a wii to play games differently. like wario ware smooth moves.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:27,
archived)
i'm getting a wii to play games differently. like wario ware smooth moves.
The only game I have really really really loved over the past few years has been GTA: Vice City (or San Andreas possibly) I still play that now. Every other supposed brilliant game hasn't lasted more than a week or so before i'm bored of it. With the possible note of Half Life 2 on the PC which I only played for the first time a couple of months ago, and thought it was amazing.
EDIT: And it's the 'do what you like' aspect of the GTA series that makes them so utterly btrilliant. I have never played the games through - I let my housemate unlock everything, then I spend hours and hours just messing about and exploring etc.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:37,
archived)
EDIT: And it's the 'do what you like' aspect of the GTA series that makes them so utterly btrilliant. I have never played the games through - I let my housemate unlock everything, then I spend hours and hours just messing about and exploring etc.
Don't forget Rayman Raving rabbids, that looks more fun than burning a bucket of kittens.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:37,
archived)
maybe they could make a game for the wii where you strap the 3d controller to you pants and thrust away
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:10,
archived)
starring all your favourite Nintendo stars
only on Nintendo Wii
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:18,
archived)
only on Nintendo Wii
to Fwap off your favourite nintendo characters.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:24,
archived)
ROUND 1!
Donkey Kong VS Princess Peach
Oh my! Oh My OH MY!
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:33,
archived)
Donkey Kong VS Princess Peach
Oh my! Oh My OH MY!
We were discussing USB powered vibrating fannies at work the other day. That pulsate depending on what's going on on the animal porn film your watching.
Surely these should exist by now....
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:15,
archived)
Surely these should exist by now....
Surprisingly, I think you could actually make money out of this one.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:17,
archived)
Your fears are justified. And perhaps ancient. And maybe even driving an ice cream van.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:29,
archived)
You're bringing sexy back!
You've become quite the board whore again too, I see from the stats....
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:27,
archived)
You've become quite the board whore again too, I see from the stats....
I shall have to slow down a little.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:28,
archived)
incidentally.... THIS is number one:
www.b3ta.com/board/profile.php?id=4134
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:34,
archived)
www.b3ta.com/board/profile.php?id=4134
and then fizzle like a moth to a flame
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:44,
archived)
there'd be no way i'd actually pay for one.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 16:15,
archived)
« Older messages | Newer messages »

























