Saturday, November 12, 2005
Friday, November 11, 2005
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Virginity!
Hog On IceVirgins Rule
Assuming They Still Exist
Comcast is still running on one cylinder today. If I haven't responded to your emails or popped up on AIM to say hi, this is the reason. Every once in a while, the lights on the modem go on and I get a couple of minutes during which I can just barely use the Internet, but that's about it.
It's amusing to me that people are saying negative things about virginity in my comments. Arguing with people who take this ridiculous attitude reminds me of arguing with the folks who thought the 21st century began with "Y2K, DUDE!" They're very obviously wrong, but you can't make them understand it.
Human beings are not capable of fornicating and getting away with it. Yes, you—one individual—may get away with it (or tell yourself you do), but when society endorses it and it becomes a standard practice, terrible problems arise, and we can't prevent them. And once they occur, we are often incapable of fixing them.
Tell that to a walking hard-on who measures his self-esteem by the number of women he's screwed, and he'll generally get angry. You're threatening the whole foundation of his high regard for himself. If you think he's a boob and a user for screwing around, you're cheating him of the admiration he thinks you owe him.
"You're just jealous!" That one always tickles me. Yes, yes mighty Penis Warrior. It is inconceivable that the rest of us would not envy you and admire you almost as much as you admire yourself. I wish I had what it takes to sit on a bar stool and tell lies to extremely ordinary women I don't care about. "You wish you were me! You just can't admit it! Now excuse me while I put more ointment on my sores."
Whatever, dude. If you don't like it, consider doing something of actual value. That might impress me. If inserting your unit in females is your idea of an impressive achievement, you must not have much to be proud of. The biggest dogs I’ve known were men that didn’t have much else to offer.
It's 2005, and it has been over three decades since we sent people to the moon. But no matter how much money we pour into research, we still haven't been able to solve the horrible problems fornication causes.
Laugh it up, bed-hoppers. But answer this for me: if screwing around is safe and wonderful and wholesome, why are thirty million people dying because of it in Africa? Call me hysterical; I think that's a serious negative consequence.
AIDS is causing suffering on a gigantic scale in Africa, and it has killed thousands and thousands of people here in the US, and it has made many more very ill--incurably so--without killing them. A big percentage of Americans have genital herpes and/or genital warts (caused by a virus which also causes cervical cancer). There are still Americans going insane and dying from syphilis. There are many, many women who can't bear children because VD has ruined their machinery.
If we've got it all figured out, how can all that be true?
Why do we still have millions of unwanted pregnancies every year in this country alone? Can't you admit the obvious, which is that human contraception is still primitive? We can vaccinate against smallpox with a single shot which is totally harmless and works for decades, but contraception is still sloppy and difficult, and I’m sorry to say that on a societal scale, it AIN’T working.
Right now, all over America, women are poisoning themselves with synthetic hormones—get this—because the men they sleep with are too whiny to give up a little friction. Can’t you see the absurdity? Does that seem like an elegant, advanced solution to you?
We now deal with the hazards of sex outside of marriage about as well as we dealt with polio before the Salk vaccine. We do a lame job of preventing them, and when we fail, we do a lame job of responding to them.
If you can’t see the obvious truth, I still love you, but don’t expect me to take your opinion seriously. I realize people are herd creatures, and the herd says, “If it feels good do it,” and most members of the herd would rather die than think for themselves. Besides, if the herd said sex outside of marriage was bad, you’d say it, too.
How can anyone think virginity is a bad thing? I’ve known women who were virgins, and I admired them tremendously. While the other girls were pulling trains on spring break and doing whatever it took to fit in with their classy tongue-pierced friends, the virgins were thinking for themselves and doing what they themselves wanted to do. They weren’t letting themselves be manipulated. That impresses me.
Apart from that, virgins don’t have AIDS, herpes, chlamydia, PID, HTLV, or any of the other hideous ailments you get from screwing around. That’s fantastic. And they also don’t have the other sexually transmitted viruses and microbes medical science hasn’t discovered yet. You think we’ve found them all? Yeah, right. I was an adult before they discovered the bacterium that causes most ulcers. And when I was a kid, no one knew cervical cancer was transmitted through sex. Enjoy living in your cocoon of arrogance. I for one know better. If you think more links between promiscuity and incurable disease aren’t on the way, you my friend are a true idiot.
Haven’t you noticed that promiscuous people are unhealthy and die younger? Are you aware that gay men—the most promiscuous people in our society—have a low life expectancy even after correction for things like AIDS and suicide?
Disease and expensive little bastards aren’t the only problems that arise from promiscuity. Women who screw around become hardened toward men, because they get used so much. I don’t want to deal with an emotional porcupine, do you?
Men say they prefer women who “know what they’re doing” in bed. Do you really think sex is that difficult? It’s not rocket science, folks. And if you’re monogamous, you have a whole lifetime to figure out how to make each other happy. And is it really important to get the best sex partner possible? If that’s your goal, you are what is known as “a shallow person.” You are probably not capable of actual “relationships,” so you might as well grab whatever pleasure you can. I hear the brothels in Thailand are inexpensive.
In the long term, “okay” sex combined with true love and trust will make you happier than great sex and a troublesome bitch.
I’ve pretty much written women off, and even if I hadn’t, I know there is virtually no chance I could land a virgin. I wouldn’t expect that; I realize it’s unrealistic. But I have nothing but admiration for women who wait until they’re truly ready. Other women may hate you because you make them feel like whores, and men may hate you because they can’t get between your legs, but I am your faithful fan. So keep it up.
Assuming They Still Exist
Comcast is still running on one cylinder today. If I haven't responded to your emails or popped up on AIM to say hi, this is the reason. Every once in a while, the lights on the modem go on and I get a couple of minutes during which I can just barely use the Internet, but that's about it.
It's amusing to me that people are saying negative things about virginity in my comments. Arguing with people who take this ridiculous attitude reminds me of arguing with the folks who thought the 21st century began with "Y2K, DUDE!" They're very obviously wrong, but you can't make them understand it.
Human beings are not capable of fornicating and getting away with it. Yes, you—one individual—may get away with it (or tell yourself you do), but when society endorses it and it becomes a standard practice, terrible problems arise, and we can't prevent them. And once they occur, we are often incapable of fixing them.
Tell that to a walking hard-on who measures his self-esteem by the number of women he's screwed, and he'll generally get angry. You're threatening the whole foundation of his high regard for himself. If you think he's a boob and a user for screwing around, you're cheating him of the admiration he thinks you owe him.
"You're just jealous!" That one always tickles me. Yes, yes mighty Penis Warrior. It is inconceivable that the rest of us would not envy you and admire you almost as much as you admire yourself. I wish I had what it takes to sit on a bar stool and tell lies to extremely ordinary women I don't care about. "You wish you were me! You just can't admit it! Now excuse me while I put more ointment on my sores."
Whatever, dude. If you don't like it, consider doing something of actual value. That might impress me. If inserting your unit in females is your idea of an impressive achievement, you must not have much to be proud of. The biggest dogs I’ve known were men that didn’t have much else to offer.
It's 2005, and it has been over three decades since we sent people to the moon. But no matter how much money we pour into research, we still haven't been able to solve the horrible problems fornication causes.
Laugh it up, bed-hoppers. But answer this for me: if screwing around is safe and wonderful and wholesome, why are thirty million people dying because of it in Africa? Call me hysterical; I think that's a serious negative consequence.
AIDS is causing suffering on a gigantic scale in Africa, and it has killed thousands and thousands of people here in the US, and it has made many more very ill--incurably so--without killing them. A big percentage of Americans have genital herpes and/or genital warts (caused by a virus which also causes cervical cancer). There are still Americans going insane and dying from syphilis. There are many, many women who can't bear children because VD has ruined their machinery.
If we've got it all figured out, how can all that be true?
Why do we still have millions of unwanted pregnancies every year in this country alone? Can't you admit the obvious, which is that human contraception is still primitive? We can vaccinate against smallpox with a single shot which is totally harmless and works for decades, but contraception is still sloppy and difficult, and I’m sorry to say that on a societal scale, it AIN’T working.
Right now, all over America, women are poisoning themselves with synthetic hormones—get this—because the men they sleep with are too whiny to give up a little friction. Can’t you see the absurdity? Does that seem like an elegant, advanced solution to you?
We now deal with the hazards of sex outside of marriage about as well as we dealt with polio before the Salk vaccine. We do a lame job of preventing them, and when we fail, we do a lame job of responding to them.
If you can’t see the obvious truth, I still love you, but don’t expect me to take your opinion seriously. I realize people are herd creatures, and the herd says, “If it feels good do it,” and most members of the herd would rather die than think for themselves. Besides, if the herd said sex outside of marriage was bad, you’d say it, too.
How can anyone think virginity is a bad thing? I’ve known women who were virgins, and I admired them tremendously. While the other girls were pulling trains on spring break and doing whatever it took to fit in with their classy tongue-pierced friends, the virgins were thinking for themselves and doing what they themselves wanted to do. They weren’t letting themselves be manipulated. That impresses me.
Apart from that, virgins don’t have AIDS, herpes, chlamydia, PID, HTLV, or any of the other hideous ailments you get from screwing around. That’s fantastic. And they also don’t have the other sexually transmitted viruses and microbes medical science hasn’t discovered yet. You think we’ve found them all? Yeah, right. I was an adult before they discovered the bacterium that causes most ulcers. And when I was a kid, no one knew cervical cancer was transmitted through sex. Enjoy living in your cocoon of arrogance. I for one know better. If you think more links between promiscuity and incurable disease aren’t on the way, you my friend are a true idiot.
Haven’t you noticed that promiscuous people are unhealthy and die younger? Are you aware that gay men—the most promiscuous people in our society—have a low life expectancy even after correction for things like AIDS and suicide?
Disease and expensive little bastards aren’t the only problems that arise from promiscuity. Women who screw around become hardened toward men, because they get used so much. I don’t want to deal with an emotional porcupine, do you?
Men say they prefer women who “know what they’re doing” in bed. Do you really think sex is that difficult? It’s not rocket science, folks. And if you’re monogamous, you have a whole lifetime to figure out how to make each other happy. And is it really important to get the best sex partner possible? If that’s your goal, you are what is known as “a shallow person.” You are probably not capable of actual “relationships,” so you might as well grab whatever pleasure you can. I hear the brothels in Thailand are inexpensive.
In the long term, “okay” sex combined with true love and trust will make you happier than great sex and a troublesome bitch.
I’ve pretty much written women off, and even if I hadn’t, I know there is virtually no chance I could land a virgin. I wouldn’t expect that; I realize it’s unrealistic. But I have nothing but admiration for women who wait until they’re truly ready. Other women may hate you because you make them feel like whores, and men may hate you because they can’t get between your legs, but I am your faithful fan. So keep it up.
Hammorabi
Hammorabi: "War against terrorism
The suicidal bombs in Jordan yesterday by the Jordanian Abomusaab Al-Zarqawi are just the beginning of many other attacks. The next attacks will be much tougher and only a matter of time. Jordan is still a target as well as others. In Iraq the attacks are happening daily and on variable and bigger scales.
It is so wrong to blame terrorism for one man or a group of people only. Terrorism requires a lot of elements. It needs people to carry out its effects, large amount of cash, armaments, equipments, logistic and brainpower support, media, and above all theoreticians among clergy men. These can not be provided by Binladen, Alzarqawi, or Alzawahri alone?
There are three countries connected to three elements of terrorism especially its promulgation in Iraq. Terrorism is born and incubated in Saudi Arabia. Then adopted by Syria and exported to kill inside Iraq while kept alive by the Jordanian Islamists who act as the energy and brain providers. However these roles are overlapping between these countries.
"
The suicidal bombs in Jordan yesterday by the Jordanian Abomusaab Al-Zarqawi are just the beginning of many other attacks. The next attacks will be much tougher and only a matter of time. Jordan is still a target as well as others. In Iraq the attacks are happening daily and on variable and bigger scales.
It is so wrong to blame terrorism for one man or a group of people only. Terrorism requires a lot of elements. It needs people to carry out its effects, large amount of cash, armaments, equipments, logistic and brainpower support, media, and above all theoreticians among clergy men. These can not be provided by Binladen, Alzarqawi, or Alzawahri alone?
There are three countries connected to three elements of terrorism especially its promulgation in Iraq. Terrorism is born and incubated in Saudi Arabia. Then adopted by Syria and exported to kill inside Iraq while kept alive by the Jordanian Islamists who act as the energy and brain providers. However these roles are overlapping between these countries.
"
U.S. Trade Deficit Hits High on Storms
U.S. Trade Deficit Hits High on Storms: "The trade deficit soared to a record in September as the Gulf Coast hurricanes helped push America's foreign oil bill to an all-time high. The politically sensitive deficit with China also set a record.
The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the deficit jumped to $66.1 billion in September, 11.4 percent higher than the $59.3 billion imbalance recorded in August. It was a far bigger increase than analysts had been expecting and reflected in part a record $23.8 billion in oil purchases as the price skyrocketed, reflecting widespread shutdowns of production facilities following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
So far this year, the deficit is running at an annual rate of $706.4 billion. This puts the country on track to far surpass the old deficit record of $617.6 billion set last year and gives critics ammunition to argue that President Bush's trade policies are not working."
The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the deficit jumped to $66.1 billion in September, 11.4 percent higher than the $59.3 billion imbalance recorded in August. It was a far bigger increase than analysts had been expecting and reflected in part a record $23.8 billion in oil purchases as the price skyrocketed, reflecting widespread shutdowns of production facilities following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
So far this year, the deficit is running at an annual rate of $706.4 billion. This puts the country on track to far surpass the old deficit record of $617.6 billion set last year and gives critics ammunition to argue that President Bush's trade policies are not working."
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Arthur C. Clarke Unauthorized Homepage
Arthur C. Clarke Unauthorized Homepage: "Arthur C. Clarke Unauthorized Homepage
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' - Clarke's Third Law."
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' - Clarke's Third Law."
Arthur C. Clarke Laws
Arthur C. Clarke Laws: "Arthur C. Clarke Laws
In the book Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible Arthur C. Clarke states his three Laws, which are formulated as follows:
Clarke's First Law:
'When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.'
Clarke defines the adjective 'elderly' as :'In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory'. (in Profiles of the Future.)
Clarke's Second Law:
'The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.'
Clarke's Third Law:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
Thought he wrote after the laws that 'Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here', he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states th e Clarke's 69th Law:
'Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software.'"
In the book Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible Arthur C. Clarke states his three Laws, which are formulated as follows:
Clarke's First Law:
'When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.'
Clarke defines the adjective 'elderly' as :'In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory'. (in Profiles of the Future.)
Clarke's Second Law:
'The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.'
Clarke's Third Law:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
Thought he wrote after the laws that 'Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here', he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states th e Clarke's 69th Law:
'Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software.'"
Arthur C. Clarke Laws
Arthur C. Clarke Laws: "Arthur C. Clarke Laws
In the book Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible Arthur C. Clarke states his three Laws, which are formulated as follows:
Clarke's First Law:
'When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.'
Clarke defines the adjective 'elderly' as :'In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory'. (in Profiles of the Future.)
Clarke's Second Law:
'The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.'
Clarke's Third Law:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
Thought he wrote after the laws that 'Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here', he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states th e Clarke's 69th Law:
'Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software.'"
In the book Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible Arthur C. Clarke states his three Laws, which are formulated as follows:
Clarke's First Law:
'When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.'
Clarke defines the adjective 'elderly' as :'In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory'. (in Profiles of the Future.)
Clarke's Second Law:
'The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.'
Clarke's Third Law:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
Thought he wrote after the laws that 'Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here', he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states th e Clarke's 69th Law:
'Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software.'"
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Stopping the Riots Might Be The Easy Part
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Stopping the Riots Might Be The Easy Part: "Stopping the Riots Might Be The Easy Part"
France's Woes __EconoPundit
EconoPundit: "
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Yesterday's explanations no longer need apply...
With my Tuesday evening international finance seminar I reviewed a twenty minute segment of this Frontline documentary last night. Interestingly, everyone agreed the documentary combined with the day's headlines would lead to conclusions precisely opposite to the puzzlingly standard current MSM approach:
WHEN THE MEDIA began covering the spreading violence in France, it appeared to go out of its way to avoid the notion that Islam had anything to do with the riots or their organizers. After all, even the French viewed the first couple of nights of unrest with a jaundiced eye. A nation that experiences nationwide protests every decade over some real or perceived injustice doesn't react quickly to a few burning cars in the Parisian suburbs. France averaged 80 cars a day lost to arson this year even before the riots began, and they assumed the riots meant little.
After a few straight days of increasing violence, however, the only people still believing that comforting line appeared to be members of the French government and the media, who insisted on doing everything they could to miss the story. Twelve days into the riots, even after they had spread across France and inspired violence in Germany and Belgium, the media for the most part still could not bring itself to mention the 'M' or 'I' words: Muslim and Islamist. The lack of even any suggestion that radical Islamists might have initiated the violence, or at least be taking advantage of it, boggles the imagination.
Anyway, read the whole thing for Ed Morrisey's solution to the puzzle."
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Yesterday's explanations no longer need apply...
With my Tuesday evening international finance seminar I reviewed a twenty minute segment of this Frontline documentary last night. Interestingly, everyone agreed the documentary combined with the day's headlines would lead to conclusions precisely opposite to the puzzlingly standard current MSM approach:
WHEN THE MEDIA began covering the spreading violence in France, it appeared to go out of its way to avoid the notion that Islam had anything to do with the riots or their organizers. After all, even the French viewed the first couple of nights of unrest with a jaundiced eye. A nation that experiences nationwide protests every decade over some real or perceived injustice doesn't react quickly to a few burning cars in the Parisian suburbs. France averaged 80 cars a day lost to arson this year even before the riots began, and they assumed the riots meant little.
After a few straight days of increasing violence, however, the only people still believing that comforting line appeared to be members of the French government and the media, who insisted on doing everything they could to miss the story. Twelve days into the riots, even after they had spread across France and inspired violence in Germany and Belgium, the media for the most part still could not bring itself to mention the 'M' or 'I' words: Muslim and Islamist. The lack of even any suggestion that radical Islamists might have initiated the violence, or at least be taking advantage of it, boggles the imagination.
Anyway, read the whole thing for Ed Morrisey's solution to the puzzle."
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Monday, November 07, 2005
Everything I Know Is Wrong: The Truth About Avian Flu
Everything I Know Is Wrong: The Truth About Avian Flu: "The Truth About Avian Flu
Michael Fumento has written an excellent article about the 'avian flu':
'Race to Prevent World Epidemic of Lethal 'Bird Flu,'' and 'Hong Kong 'Bird Flu' Could be the Next Big Outbreak,' blare the headlines. Former Washington Post reporter and author of a book on viruses, Robin Marantz Henig, penned an essay called 'Danger in the Air: Why Hong Kong's 'Bird Flu' Signals a Serious Threat,' chock full of scary 'what-ifs.'
Meanwhile, 'What is frightening about this flu strain is that it is unlike any that has infected people before,' NBC News tells us. We repeatedly hear of this new 'deadly flu,' or 'killer flu,' or to cite one headline: 'Mutant Killer Virus.'
Now, for a reality vaccination.
All influenzas are 'mutant killer viruses.' Flu always mutates at least slightly each year. That's why you need a flu shot each year, because the antibodies that you got from the last one (or the bout of flu you caught last year) will no longer afford you full protection from the new strain.
A flu that didn't kill would never be noticed. It would just be one of zillions of viruses we carry around that do us little or no harm. Each year on average, about 20,000 Americans die of flu.
Finally flu, of course, is always a virus.
Indeed, all flu is probably also 'avian.' Its 'reservoir' is generally ducks, and sometimes geese and chickens. They usually suffer little from it or not at all. But when their feces infects a water supply (or domesticated animals, usually pigs), they can transfer it to humans.
Oh, by the way, this isn't a recent article. Fumento wrote this in 1998 about an altogether different--yet all to familiar--'avain flu'. So why all the hubbub? I"
Michael Fumento has written an excellent article about the 'avian flu':
'Race to Prevent World Epidemic of Lethal 'Bird Flu,'' and 'Hong Kong 'Bird Flu' Could be the Next Big Outbreak,' blare the headlines. Former Washington Post reporter and author of a book on viruses, Robin Marantz Henig, penned an essay called 'Danger in the Air: Why Hong Kong's 'Bird Flu' Signals a Serious Threat,' chock full of scary 'what-ifs.'
Meanwhile, 'What is frightening about this flu strain is that it is unlike any that has infected people before,' NBC News tells us. We repeatedly hear of this new 'deadly flu,' or 'killer flu,' or to cite one headline: 'Mutant Killer Virus.'
Now, for a reality vaccination.
All influenzas are 'mutant killer viruses.' Flu always mutates at least slightly each year. That's why you need a flu shot each year, because the antibodies that you got from the last one (or the bout of flu you caught last year) will no longer afford you full protection from the new strain.
A flu that didn't kill would never be noticed. It would just be one of zillions of viruses we carry around that do us little or no harm. Each year on average, about 20,000 Americans die of flu.
Finally flu, of course, is always a virus.
Indeed, all flu is probably also 'avian.' Its 'reservoir' is generally ducks, and sometimes geese and chickens. They usually suffer little from it or not at all. But when their feces infects a water supply (or domesticated animals, usually pigs), they can transfer it to humans.
Oh, by the way, this isn't a recent article. Fumento wrote this in 1998 about an altogether different--yet all to familiar--'avain flu'. So why all the hubbub? I"
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
