AdSense to Search
Custom Search
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Humanity is grey
There's a clique of mostly unintuitive folks polluting the internet, and even beyond, who deem intelligence as the ultimate test of a person's worth. These same people often wax misanthropic, or at least border on it, by claiming that the majority of humanity is stupid and needs to go. Hell, even I have had this feeling here and there so I couldn't exactly wash my hands of this.
I do feel an ounce of shame for it, though.
What prompted me to drop my two cents on this subject? Why, the following video of course:
Before I tear into "TJ" here with my frustrations over this overrated wave of misanthropic pessimism, I'm going to summarize him.
I'm a Youtube user and I am subscribed to his channel. He's been around since 2006, about as long as I have. The guy found an audience amongst those interested in, fledgling, or those who hold the sigil of atheism. He's evolved into a fat (noticeably less-so over time due to short-lived weight loss), almost witless rip-off of George Carlin since then and one could never describe his delivery as consistent if they would want to maintain an ounce of dignity. He sometimes pumps out something entertaining, such as his film reviews or where he addresses people directly usually to argue against them, but when he does something like the embedded video above, that's where he dives right into the abyss of pretention.
Plus, given its premise and what he says, and with a good look at what this guy pulls off with his off-Youtube activities (it's always good to question its veracity, but there is some truth to be found on his Encyclopedia Dramatica article), he really shouldn't throw stones in the glass house he calls home.
When TJ talks about humanity, he often broadly underhands us as unintelligent, uninteresting nitwits who are just sheeple trudging along for comfort sake. It's as if intelligence is the penultimate measure of anybody's worth or character to people like this conniving motherfucker. Are people like him missing the fucking point? Do they not realize that some of the most heinous people to ever walk the earth were also some of the most intelligent? Do they also conveniently leave out the acts of altruism that people carry out, such as food banks, animal rehabilitation centers, and other usually volunteer organizations that help less empowered in the world? It is one of the things that goes to show that no matter how intelligent you are, if your principles, or lack thereof make you a reprehensible piecce of shit, then your intelligence means nothing to someone like me. To someone like the asshole in the video above, all you need is to be intelligent!
What is a measure of intelligence, anyway? No one is a jack of all trades, and that applies for even the smartest of folks. A person who may come across, at face value, as a slack-jawed yokel may be quite proficient in repairing downed vehicles. Whereas a person is an experimental physics prodigy, he or she may be out of their element as per the intricate mating patterns of the Portuguese Man 'o War. Is anybody who thinks that the average man or woman is a bumbling idiot who follows the herd, any one of these arrogant assholes starting to see just how much grey there is to humanity?
I think the best way to judge anybody is their strength of character. It's a far more admirable quality to have than just being a smart cracker who can invent a new slice of bread or, as for what happens with many scientific breakthroughs, voluntarily or involutarily strengthens the military-industrial complex in some way. I'm sure if Einstein were alive today, he'd feel immense shame at what some of his inventions were used for. After all, he is one of the brains behind the nuclear missile. But how many oh so intelligent scientists are remorseful knowing that their work is being used to take lives around the world? Keep "strength of character" in mind, think of the potential number of Mensa society members contributing to death & destruction, and then talk to me.
TJ, on the other hand, is anything but as intelligent as he seems to champion in his videos and some of his writings. The guy is really no different from the average man. He's obsessed with the size of his dick, he bumbles at more than half of anything he does (see: 'Freespeech videos' for an embarassing example) , and he is lazy. The guy can't lay claim to much by way of strength of character because of his conning his Youtube audience through e-begging campaigns. The guy once said, "you motherfuckers owe me" in an e-begging video where he was desperate to do the nasty with a fat chick. That is called SELF-ENTITLEMENT folks. He also once gave a lame excuse as for refusing to get a job like any self-respecting asshole (hint: he doesn't really have any) - he doesn't want to work for a giant corporation! To that I say this:
You, Mr. Contradiction Synonymous, "work" for a giant corporation with your moderate Youtube audience & success, and you directly benefit them through monetization. That company is called Google, in case you forgot, and you contribute to their continued rise to be one of the most powerful IT companies on the planet every time you post a video. And for more than a year now, you've actually made a few videos in which you blatantly advertised for numerous products. Your latest baffling piece of advertising crap was for an NCAA videogame by Electronic Arts. This isn't the only time you contradicted yourself, but boy, any time you talk about how giant corporations are shit (I do agree on this to some extent, but I'm more realistic about it than you are), you should simply keep your mouth shut if you want to maintain any dignity whatsoever.
Compared to him, here's my checklist:
You, Mr. Contradiction Synonymous, "work" for a giant corporation with your moderate Youtube audience & success, and you directly benefit them through monetization. That company is called Google, in case you forgot, and you contribute to their continued rise to be one of the most powerful IT companies on the planet every time you post a video. And for more than a year now, you've actually made a few videos in which you blatantly advertised for numerous products. Your latest baffling piece of advertising crap was for an NCAA videogame by Electronic Arts. This isn't the only time you contradicted yourself, but boy, any time you talk about how giant corporations are shit (I do agree on this to some extent, but I'm more realistic about it than you are), you should simply keep your mouth shut if you want to maintain any dignity whatsoever.
- I actually want to work, namely in the IT and Film industries.
- I have an independent spirit and I'm more likely to gift someone else than to even ask for anything.
- I don't care for cliques whatsoever.
- I'm not self-entitled.
- I don't con people out of their money with false advertising or guilt-trips, let alone flat-out incompetence in living up to my end of the bargain.
- I'm not fat.
- I don't envy people for their success; I only think about mine.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Misunderstanding The Occupy Movement; Now in Film Reviews!
Tom Charity, of CNN.com, wrote a review for Christopher Nolan's closing chapter in the current Batman film series, The Dark Knight Rises. In summary, it's a negative review, taking shots at political subtexts in the film. That's not a big deal, for not all moviegoers will get the same reaction. No, the problem lies in a sentence from the review in question.
To quote Charity directly, here's an argument he used to lambast the film:
A problem I have with the film review, other than the reporter's flagrant ignorance of what the Occupy Wall Street, is the fixation on the thematic elements of The Dark Knight Rises. He neglects to mention anything technical, or the plot at face value. There's no mention on the soundtrack, either, which is in some ways more bombastic than the predecessors.
Plus, it is so brief, without actually listing an effective number of arguments against it for him to call it "Nolan's biggest and worst movie to date." Really, Charity? Talk about exaggeration! Oh, isn't that one of the usual suspects in why the mainstream media (CNN, Fox, (MS)NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.) is steadily losing credibility among the masses? And then, given how much information you are capable of extracting thanks to the corporate bosses you work for, you barely use anything to substantiate your arguments.
Mr. Charity, please, don't write reviews until you can actually point out strengths & flaws readily. I know you make a few legitimate jabs in a few places, but that's far too little for an article that, in spite of it being an opinion piece (and not truly factual, because not all viewers will get the same reaction or pick up the same things), really does influence the experience for other potential viewers of the film. And working for CNN, you'd think, given your larger audience, you'd try to give them reason to take your platform seriously. But you pretty much failed to do so on your part. Better luck next time, I guess.
---
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/showbiz/movies/dark-knight-rises-review-charity/index.html
To quote Charity directly, here's an argument he used to lambast the film:
She's no Joker (who is?), but Hathaway's slinky, light-fingered, high-kicking thief is the film's best idea of fun, even if she's also weighed down with the Nolan brothers' irrepressible urge to smuggle topical, half-baked Occupy sermons into the script (as others have noted, the movie's defense of the establishment in the form of philanthropic billionaires and an incorruptible police force gives it a conservative gloss and makes you wonder what on earth Nolan saw in the two films he's cited as inspirations, "The Battle of Algiers" and "Prince of the City").Notice the text underlined and in bold. Now, if you are worth a salt at all in terms of the Occupy movement, at least in what you know about it, then considering the context of the entire paragraph, Charity displays ignorance of this movement that should have dissipated by now, almost a year into the movement notwithstanding. I'm irked by statements of this caliber, especially when they're used to down-rate a film.
A problem I have with the film review, other than the reporter's flagrant ignorance of what the Occupy Wall Street, is the fixation on the thematic elements of The Dark Knight Rises. He neglects to mention anything technical, or the plot at face value. There's no mention on the soundtrack, either, which is in some ways more bombastic than the predecessors.
Plus, it is so brief, without actually listing an effective number of arguments against it for him to call it "Nolan's biggest and worst movie to date." Really, Charity? Talk about exaggeration! Oh, isn't that one of the usual suspects in why the mainstream media (CNN, Fox, (MS)NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.) is steadily losing credibility among the masses? And then, given how much information you are capable of extracting thanks to the corporate bosses you work for, you barely use anything to substantiate your arguments.
Mr. Charity, please, don't write reviews until you can actually point out strengths & flaws readily. I know you make a few legitimate jabs in a few places, but that's far too little for an article that, in spite of it being an opinion piece (and not truly factual, because not all viewers will get the same reaction or pick up the same things), really does influence the experience for other potential viewers of the film. And working for CNN, you'd think, given your larger audience, you'd try to give them reason to take your platform seriously. But you pretty much failed to do so on your part. Better luck next time, I guess.
---
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/showbiz/movies/dark-knight-rises-review-charity/index.html
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
The Chamber Review
I've wanted to get this off my chest for a long time. I watched it when it premiered, and I was horrified at what was transpiring on the screen before me. Just looking at the faces of every single contestant as they walked away with whatever "prize" payout
One of the many indicators that FOX Entertainment was well on its way to fame for being a platform of pure shit, The Chamber is a take on the hype surrounding 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire?' and 'The Weakest Link'. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you can do something different that hopefully captures an audience significantly enough. This sounds fine, right?
Wrong. The premise of the show is that the contestant is strapped into a "chamber", a concealed contraption (which looks fucking scary) that pit the contestant against extreme conditions whilst they had to answer progressively difficult questions, just like you'd get in 'Millionaire'. Those conditions are either extreme heat, or extreme cold. In the former, the temperature goes in to the triple digits, fire actually bursts around the contestant, simulated earthquakes rocked the player, foul odors eventually crept in, and they're probably on the fast lane to a heat stroke or mental breakdown in the process. On the other hand, extreme cold sees the player get drenched in cold water, which is then essentially frozen as the temperature drops dramatically, possibly causing hypothermia and frostbite, or both. All of this for roughly 7 minutes a game. God, even water boarding lasted usually 5 to 10 seconds.
There were un-aired episodes that featured three chambers, and just by the sound of them, they all sound just as horrible; electric shock, water torture (most likely akin to water boarding, without a blindfold perhaps), and an insect chamber. Got a fear of bugs crawling all over your face? Prone to getting freakish nightmares of sometimes giant monstrous insects infesting every facet of your unconscious excursions? Then it's good you never had to go through that one yourself.
Let's just get to why that is all just so horrible. It really is the worst part of the show. Each contestant I saw that had to go through with the thing showed absolutely no sign of enjoyment, not even a hint of masochism. All of those things that the chamber was advertised as doing were real, so they put up with conditions that could only have been concocted by a psychopathic, sadistic tyrant. As the game went on for each contestant, the conditions worsened. Yeah, try answering a fucking question that actually makes you have to think thoroughly while you're being burned to a crisp, or frozen in ice-water, all within seconds of each other. There was little fucking around with that machine; it worked quite efficiently in its torturous designs and you had little room for error (you were kicked out .
The biggest insult to the contestants, aside from the inhumane conditions they signed on for (they either had big cajones to accept the almost impossible deal being handed to them, or they were flat-out lied to about what they were going to deal with), was the prize payout. The maximum prize payout of fucking $100,000. Think about that for a second; you're being essentially tortured, the game got harder and harder (the questions weren't exactly a cakewalk, people), and you're distracted by so many factors the least of which being the chamber conditions, and you expect people to walk away happy with one-hundred grand? Fuck you, Dick Clark Productions.
A poor sucker by the name of Scott Brown did beat the game more than anyone else, by answering 20 questions. The minimum to win the grand prize is 25. So they gave him a lousy fucking $20,000 for his troubles. Like the swift branding of justice that a competent and by-the-books judge would hand the most deserving criminal, Brown sued the show because he was hospitalized after getting out of the chamber. Dick Clark Productions did him right, I guess, by giving him $100,000 more.
It's funny that Matt Vasgersian turned down the show out of integrity because the show was so horrendous in design.
A goof even existed in the show as well in the headset the contestants had to wear, because there was no way they could be heard just by talking through the chamber with all that crap attacking his/her body. The headset was so shoddy that it often created a problem for the contestant, and because it was held together by scotch motherfucking tape, it came apart.
This show lasted just a couple of episodes, and god damn, I was disgusted then and I am disgusted now. Fuck the people who came up with it. I won't format this review like my others because it's a TV show that lasted just a couple episodes. I'm just glad I was able to vent.
One of the many indicators that FOX Entertainment was well on its way to fame for being a platform of pure shit, The Chamber is a take on the hype surrounding 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire?' and 'The Weakest Link'. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you can do something different that hopefully captures an audience significantly enough. This sounds fine, right?
Wrong. The premise of the show is that the contestant is strapped into a "chamber", a concealed contraption (which looks fucking scary) that pit the contestant against extreme conditions whilst they had to answer progressively difficult questions, just like you'd get in 'Millionaire'. Those conditions are either extreme heat, or extreme cold. In the former, the temperature goes in to the triple digits, fire actually bursts around the contestant, simulated earthquakes rocked the player, foul odors eventually crept in, and they're probably on the fast lane to a heat stroke or mental breakdown in the process. On the other hand, extreme cold sees the player get drenched in cold water, which is then essentially frozen as the temperature drops dramatically, possibly causing hypothermia and frostbite, or both. All of this for roughly 7 minutes a game. God, even water boarding lasted usually 5 to 10 seconds.
There were un-aired episodes that featured three chambers, and just by the sound of them, they all sound just as horrible; electric shock, water torture (most likely akin to water boarding, without a blindfold perhaps), and an insect chamber. Got a fear of bugs crawling all over your face? Prone to getting freakish nightmares of sometimes giant monstrous insects infesting every facet of your unconscious excursions? Then it's good you never had to go through that one yourself.
Let's just get to why that is all just so horrible. It really is the worst part of the show. Each contestant I saw that had to go through with the thing showed absolutely no sign of enjoyment, not even a hint of masochism. All of those things that the chamber was advertised as doing were real, so they put up with conditions that could only have been concocted by a psychopathic, sadistic tyrant. As the game went on for each contestant, the conditions worsened. Yeah, try answering a fucking question that actually makes you have to think thoroughly while you're being burned to a crisp, or frozen in ice-water, all within seconds of each other. There was little fucking around with that machine; it worked quite efficiently in its torturous designs and you had little room for error (you were kicked out .
The biggest insult to the contestants, aside from the inhumane conditions they signed on for (they either had big cajones to accept the almost impossible deal being handed to them, or they were flat-out lied to about what they were going to deal with), was the prize payout. The maximum prize payout of fucking $100,000. Think about that for a second; you're being essentially tortured, the game got harder and harder (the questions weren't exactly a cakewalk, people), and you're distracted by so many factors the least of which being the chamber conditions, and you expect people to walk away happy with one-hundred grand? Fuck you, Dick Clark Productions.
A poor sucker by the name of Scott Brown did beat the game more than anyone else, by answering 20 questions. The minimum to win the grand prize is 25. So they gave him a lousy fucking $20,000 for his troubles. Like the swift branding of justice that a competent and by-the-books judge would hand the most deserving criminal, Brown sued the show because he was hospitalized after getting out of the chamber. Dick Clark Productions did him right, I guess, by giving him $100,000 more.
It's funny that Matt Vasgersian turned down the show out of integrity because the show was so horrendous in design.
A goof even existed in the show as well in the headset the contestants had to wear, because there was no way they could be heard just by talking through the chamber with all that crap attacking his/her body. The headset was so shoddy that it often created a problem for the contestant, and because it was held together by scotch motherfucking tape, it came apart.
This show lasted just a couple of episodes, and god damn, I was disgusted then and I am disgusted now. Fuck the people who came up with it. I won't format this review like my others because it's a TV show that lasted just a couple episodes. I'm just glad I was able to vent.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
The PS3 Controller vs. The Xbox 360 Controller
There are new gaming consoles on the horizon, perhaps even as early as next year (given that Infinity Ward [revision 2] is developing the next-gen title, keeping in mind the annual release schedule for this heavily milked series), and one of the debates about which will come out on top is on the controller.
One of the biggest game genres these days, unfortunately, is the first-person shooter. You know what I mean; Halo, Counter-Strike, Call of Duty, Resistance, Half-Life, Doom, etc., are all FPS names that we can all recognize. The consoles were not remiss in their supply of this genre, but they were very much in contention with one another as to the question, "which console is better for shooting games?" The Xbox 360 generally comes out on top for this question.
As a Playstation 3 owner myself, who also owns an Xbox 360 Controller S for Windows (Wired), I feel like levying some accolades (represented as a "+") & complaints (preceded with a "-") towards both. A note to anyone reading this post: I am FAR more used to the PS3 controller than with the latter, which I hardly ever use on my PC, so I'm speaking out of bias in some places.
Let's start with the Sony side:
+ Lightweight controller helps to prevent my hands from getting sore.
+ The D-Pad is precise and feels better to use.
+ The Start/Select buttons are easy and quick to access, without being too small, either.
+ No button jamming of any kind has ever occurred.
+ Good R1/L1 buttons, little resistance when actually pressing means less effort on the hand muscles (which get sore quite easily).
+ I can wrap my hands around the controller a bit more easily than the other controller, so this helps for comfort.
+ USB 2.0 interface allows for far more flexible cord options.
+ Six-Axis is innovative, and when used right, feels neat...
- DREADFUL R2/L2 buttons. You have to push too much in order to press them, they're clunky, and don't work for the few shooters that, idiotically, relied on them for the main command most players will use them for; shooting/throwing grenades. Unfortunately enough, they're hardly any good for any other game genre, either.
- Analog sticks are too loose.
- Analog sticks have little grip, even with the rigid texture.
- Battery is built-in, so if your controller's battery ever fails to the point of no return, you have to buy a new controller outright. Bad move for the consumer, Sony.
- Getting more controllers on your system is a hassle, as it requires going through the XMB dashboard to assign a controller to a slot. Plus, only two controllers can be plugged in at any one time on most models of the system.
- You have to tilt the controller slightly to see what port your controller is assigned to.
- ...Six-Axis is also a gimmick more than it is a useful feature.
Now with the Mickeysoft side:
+ Feels more solid.
+ Much more grip with the analog sticks.
+ Analog sticks aren't loose, so they feel right. Plus, they seem to have more of an angle of movement.
+ The controller assignment process is crazy easy, and efficient. You just plug in your wired or wireless controller to the numbered ports, press the Xbox 360 button on your controller, and the system finds the controller in a breeze (lights up a number on the face of your controller, too).
+ Excellent shoulder buttons that feel like they're made for shooters.
+ Battery packs on Wireless controllers can be replaced and managed by the user if need be.
- A bit on the heavy side. My hand gets sore far more easily and far sooner.
- D-Pad is awful on the original 360 controller. It's too imprecise, and many a time I've, by accident, done something I didn't want to do in the heat of a moment in a game (Resident Evil 5 comes to mind. It makes all the difference when you want to quick-select a hand-cannon to stop an instant killing monster in its tracks).
- The shoulder buttons are good for shooters, but hardly good for any other genre which doesn't really need them.
- Too much resistance on the bumper buttons, and they don't feel right at all.
- TINY start & select buttons, and they're too far from your thumbs 99% of the time.
- From experience, buttons jammed far too often for my liking. I hardly ever use my 360 Controller S for Windows and some of my buttons are jammed right now.
- Can't wrap my hands around the controller because it's too big, and unshapely. This helps for comfort, people!
- When accessories are plugged in, they can get in the way.
+/- No controller feature that is comparable to the Six-Axis of the PS3 controller. But this is neither a plus or a negative.
Take it or leave it. That's my rundown of the pros & cons of either controller. This is not about the systems themselves, as that would take a whole day to cover, so I won't bother going into it.
One of the biggest game genres these days, unfortunately, is the first-person shooter. You know what I mean; Halo, Counter-Strike, Call of Duty, Resistance, Half-Life, Doom, etc., are all FPS names that we can all recognize. The consoles were not remiss in their supply of this genre, but they were very much in contention with one another as to the question, "which console is better for shooting games?" The Xbox 360 generally comes out on top for this question.
As a Playstation 3 owner myself, who also owns an Xbox 360 Controller S for Windows (Wired), I feel like levying some accolades (represented as a "+") & complaints (preceded with a "-") towards both. A note to anyone reading this post: I am FAR more used to the PS3 controller than with the latter, which I hardly ever use on my PC, so I'm speaking out of bias in some places.
Let's start with the Sony side:
+ Lightweight controller helps to prevent my hands from getting sore.
+ The D-Pad is precise and feels better to use.
+ The Start/Select buttons are easy and quick to access, without being too small, either.
+ No button jamming of any kind has ever occurred.
+ Good R1/L1 buttons, little resistance when actually pressing means less effort on the hand muscles (which get sore quite easily).
+ I can wrap my hands around the controller a bit more easily than the other controller, so this helps for comfort.
+ USB 2.0 interface allows for far more flexible cord options.
+ Six-Axis is innovative, and when used right, feels neat...
- DREADFUL R2/L2 buttons. You have to push too much in order to press them, they're clunky, and don't work for the few shooters that, idiotically, relied on them for the main command most players will use them for; shooting/throwing grenades. Unfortunately enough, they're hardly any good for any other game genre, either.
- Analog sticks are too loose.
- Analog sticks have little grip, even with the rigid texture.
- Battery is built-in, so if your controller's battery ever fails to the point of no return, you have to buy a new controller outright. Bad move for the consumer, Sony.
- Getting more controllers on your system is a hassle, as it requires going through the XMB dashboard to assign a controller to a slot. Plus, only two controllers can be plugged in at any one time on most models of the system.
- You have to tilt the controller slightly to see what port your controller is assigned to.
- ...Six-Axis is also a gimmick more than it is a useful feature.
Now with the Mickeysoft side:
+ Feels more solid.
+ Much more grip with the analog sticks.
+ Analog sticks aren't loose, so they feel right. Plus, they seem to have more of an angle of movement.
+ The controller assignment process is crazy easy, and efficient. You just plug in your wired or wireless controller to the numbered ports, press the Xbox 360 button on your controller, and the system finds the controller in a breeze (lights up a number on the face of your controller, too).
+ Excellent shoulder buttons that feel like they're made for shooters.
+ Battery packs on Wireless controllers can be replaced and managed by the user if need be.
- A bit on the heavy side. My hand gets sore far more easily and far sooner.
- D-Pad is awful on the original 360 controller. It's too imprecise, and many a time I've, by accident, done something I didn't want to do in the heat of a moment in a game (Resident Evil 5 comes to mind. It makes all the difference when you want to quick-select a hand-cannon to stop an instant killing monster in its tracks).
- The shoulder buttons are good for shooters, but hardly good for any other genre which doesn't really need them.
- Too much resistance on the bumper buttons, and they don't feel right at all.
- TINY start & select buttons, and they're too far from your thumbs 99% of the time.
- From experience, buttons jammed far too often for my liking. I hardly ever use my 360 Controller S for Windows and some of my buttons are jammed right now.
- Can't wrap my hands around the controller because it's too big, and unshapely. This helps for comfort, people!
- When accessories are plugged in, they can get in the way.
+/- No controller feature that is comparable to the Six-Axis of the PS3 controller. But this is neither a plus or a negative.
Take it or leave it. That's my rundown of the pros & cons of either controller. This is not about the systems themselves, as that would take a whole day to cover, so I won't bother going into it.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Fury - Final Chapter Listing
It's been revised once again, but I'm sticking with this. By the way, I haven't made any progress for quite some time, but since I have too much free time on my hands these days, I think I'll get back into the project.
So here are the chapters for one last time:
So here are the chapters for one last time:
1) The Pride and Joy
2) The Unfazed Guardian
3) The Deathly Scream
4) The Trail of Blood
5) The War Cry
6) The Embodiment
7) The Demon’s Card
8) The Pace of Vengeance
9) The Snarling Wolf
10) The Wicked Roots Wither
11) The Sorrow it Wrought
12) The Cry for Help
13) The Sworn Oath
14) The Act of Vengeance
15) The Setting of Justice
16) The Fading Flame
17) The Impassible Slope
18) The Well is Poisoned
19) The Wolf's Anguished Howl
20) The Would Be
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
