If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Columbia Journalsim Review)   A review of Rathergate concludes everyone involved, bloggers and mainstream media, was an idiot   (cjr.org) divider line 514
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

15908 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jan 2005 at 8:31 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



514 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-01-04 11:24:13 PM  
consdubya:

And since you wont answer the question, I will have to assume you also believe that Bush did go AWOL

"since you went to the bathroom and stopped by the refrigerator to get another beer, i will have to assume you believe bush eats the entrails of innocent newborn babies and that you believe the third world nations should be subjugated to provide goat herders to ensure the developed nations with low cost feta cheese."

same logic.
 
2005-01-04 11:24:24 PM  
Something's open, it's my heart. Nothing's broken. 1 2 3 4 5, let's go a for drive. 6 7 8 9 10 let's go back there and back again. So why don't we drive in the rain....why don't we drive in the driving rain? Let's go there and back again, like the one I been waitin' for....you come walkin' thru my door, like the one I've been waitin' for
why don't we drive in the driving rain? watch the movie, like water for chocolate......
 
2005-01-04 11:24:38 PM  
Weaver95: Bad liberal. Go sit in the corner and contemplate the joy that is Mila.

I got news for you, Weaver...Mila wouldn't like you.

She'd like us liberal crowd. We aren't afraid to dream and take chances.
 
2005-01-04 11:26:09 PM  
whidbey: She'd like us liberal crowd. We aren't afraid to dream and take chances.

Wow... its only Jan 4th and I've already had my "Laugh of the year".
 
2005-01-04 11:26:11 PM  
got news for you, Weaver...Mila wouldn't like you.

You mean she'd punish me for being bad...?

Man....I think i'm gonna need a moment or two alone if you don't mind....
 
2005-01-04 11:28:01 PM  
nerfball
good point. this is fark. bush can do no right according to the prevailing wisdom on fark.

Let me fix this for you.

goodpoor point. this is farka fark political flamewar. bushpoliticians can do no right according to the prevailing wisdominsanity on fark.why else would most people consider fark and du one and he same these days?(I'm not entirely sure what that sentence even meant, but we'll pretend it is about Mila Jovovich. She's hot, and she saved this thread from certain doom.)
 
2005-01-04 11:28:41 PM  
CatholicSamurai: its only Jan 4th and I've already had my "Laugh of the year".

Don't worry. There's plenty more where that came from, I can assure you.

And yes, Weaver...five minutes. Not a second more...;)

Funny what we can agree on, isn't it?
 
2005-01-04 11:28:46 PM  
it always amazes me how many posters in any forum soon shape up to be a perfect example of a Mike Reed Flame Warrior.
 
2005-01-04 11:28:54 PM  
LesserEvil

No amount of proof or logic will sway Bush bashers


I will assume that you are not addressing me on this point, as I have not said a word about the president on this thread. I have also expressly acknowledged the possibility that the original document was created by some other word processor. In any event:


but as for the "th" - it's not distressed by wrinkling, but probably a simple shift from high contrast multiple-generation photocopying.

I would need to see evidence of that before accepting it. This particular example is a very localized shift, one that doesn't touch the characters immediately to the left, right, or above. I find it easier to believe that the effect was generated by another source -- whether typewriter, word processor, or scissors.
 
2005-01-04 11:29:11 PM  
Weaver95 writes: Same thing everyone else in this thread is thinking right now: Mila is on hot zombie slaying chick I'd like to have on MY side right now!

We're thinking that pretty much 24-hours a day. But, that doesn't diminish my curiousity about the slavish devotion some people show to George Bush and the Republican party. I'm just looking for a rational explanation to a behavior that is apparently very irrational.
 
2005-01-04 11:29:13 PM  
Oh, and just to make a point, Bush is capable of doing things right. His response to the Tsunami was very well done, and I applaude him for it.
 
2005-01-04 11:30:07 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas:

it is called being CONSISTENT. Consistent. Do you Understand CONSISTENT???? Flame? me?? no. The truth is what I hold in my hands. Kerry's words. Not mine. Kerry. Democrat. I don't expect to change the mind of a libbie-DU-Farker-protester here. I will be dammed if I let a baseless accusation stand without using the democrats OWN WORDS to take them to task. Don't like it? fine.



Ahh, I love it when people prove my points for me. You're so deluded by your own partisanship that you can't even see how inane and trivial this petty bickering both sides [again, I bring up the likes of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth] have taken part in, all of which involves the Vietnam War. That was just the issue du jour for this election. They'll be another thing to whine about with the next election. That way, people can focus on some other irrelevant issue thanks to people such as yourself. At least, if the posts you've made in this thread reflect your ideology. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not the type that creams himself everytime Toby Keith comes on the radio, such as the majority of freerepublic.

Hopefully people like you will grow up and stop trying to make every little thing a political issue. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be likely, considering the ages of the current violators.
 
2005-01-04 11:30:17 PM  
Weaver95
On your points:
1) Rather didn't research a story well enough and got what he deserved for it.
2) Innocent until proven guilty is for a courtroom. It is not a matter of innocence anyway. I only care that he is not being honest about it today. Now, I form opinions everyday without the benefit of a judicial system; so, I think that we are all entitled to reviewing the evidence or lack thereof and making up our own mind.
 
2005-01-04 11:31:54 PM  
eraser8:

I'm just looking for a rational explanation to a behavior that is apparently very irrational.

Just follow the money trail. I think you'll find your answer.

For I and my companions have a complaint-a disease of the heart, which only gold can cure,...

-Hernando Cortes
 
2005-01-04 11:32:26 PM  
NarrMaster

Chaos isnt it? I think we need the hood of shut-up.
 
2005-01-04 11:33:11 PM  
nerfball:

2005-01-04 11:24:13 PM nerfball

consdubya:

And since you wont answer the question, I will have to assume you also believe that Bush did go AWOL

"since you went to the bathroom and stopped by the refrigerator to get another beer, i will have to assume you believe bush eats the entrails of innocent newborn babies and that you believe the third world nations should be subjugated to provide goat herders to ensure the developed nations with low cost feta cheese."

same logic.




Nope, If you were to ask me: "Do you think Bush eats babies", and I did not respond, even making a point of not answering the question, then it would be the same.

However, if I were to actually respond to the question, and say "No, I do not believe Bush eats babies", there would be no problem, would there.
 
2005-01-04 11:33:30 PM  
Fox news rules! They are the only ones that give it to us straight!
 
2005-01-04 11:35:14 PM  
No way through today, there's trouble comin' every day...
 
2005-01-04 11:35:28 PM  
Right-wing bloggers are suspicious and paranoid?

You're kidding.
 
2005-01-04 11:35:46 PM  
consdubya:

Oh, and just to make a point, Bush is capable of doing things right. His response to the Tsunami was very well done, and I applaude him for it.

funny, right after the tsunami, not only was bush responsible for purposely delaying aid in order to engineer the deaths of untold victims, he was also responsible for causing the actual tsunami (the logic was that bush supported big oil and oil was what lubricated the tectonic plates, so if the big oil companies had not removed the oil from the ground, the tectonic plates would have been sufficiently lubricated, there would have been no earthquake and therefore no tsunami. only on fark people. only on fark).
 
B82
2005-01-04 11:38:09 PM  
EmmaGoldman

I'm not sure about the others, but any non-mentioning of Democratic Underground and DailyKos can do nothing but bolster the Left : )
 
2005-01-04 11:38:50 PM  
whidbey writes: Just follow the money trail. I think you'll find your answer.

That may explain the actions of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Matt Drudge. But, it doesn't explain the dispositions of people who stand to lose a great deal from Mr. Bush's policies -- people without whom Mr. Bush could not have hoped to remain in office. The Onion's satire was pretty close to truth: Nation's Poor Win Election For Nation's Rich
 
2005-01-04 11:40:12 PM  
Dammit, last post, I swear:


"I'm just looking for a rational explanation to a behavior that is apparently very irrational."

For some people, politics becomes a sort of religion. Their choices in this arena become so fundamental to who they are and their view of the world that to question it and therefore put it in jeopardy can be incredibly painful and a direct attack on not only the choices they have made, but on their ego and self-image.

Ok, that's my psychobabble of the day. I'm out, for real this time.
 
2005-01-04 11:41:11 PM  
Remember, the Republicans were never fooled, only * you * were. They are here to protect you and explain the world to you. Bias can't permiate their superior minds like it does your; big shrill alarms go of if it even tries. Just take their hand and soar on eagle's wings.

/I support the dupes
 
2005-01-04 11:42:04 PM  
nerfball:

2005-01-04 11:35:46 PM nerfball

funny, right after the tsunami, not only was bush responsible for purposely delaying aid in order to engineer the deaths of untold victims, he was also responsible for causing the actual tsunami (the logic was that bush supported big oil and oil was what lubricated the tectonic plates, so if the big oil companies had not removed the oil from the ground, the tectonic plates would have been sufficiently lubricated, there would have been no earthquake and therefore no tsunami. only on fark people. only on fark).


Yes, and Anne Coulter wants to nuke the entire middle east..... what is your point? There are morons on all sides of politics, and the extreme left is just as nutty as the extreme right. Whats more, are you sure the above example (oil lubricant prevents earthquake) wasnt sarcastic? It just sounds too stupid, even for extreme leftists.

I think you will find most on the left side of politics support Bush's actions in relation to the Tsunami.
 
2005-01-04 11:42:29 PM  
consdubya:

However, if I were to actually respond to the question, and say "No, I do not believe Bush eats babies", there would be no problem, would there.


and if you went to the bathroom and stopped by the refrigator to get a beer (or took a break for any other reason) would it be reasonable that i could decide what your lack of response meant?

you said "And since you wont answer the question, I will have to assume you also believe that Bush did go AWOL"

maybe it wasn't that he wouldn't post, but simply that he didn't. ever assume that?
 
2005-01-04 11:43:16 PM  
Prospero424, sad as it is, the logic you've presented is as good an explanation as I've heard.
 
2005-01-04 11:44:38 PM  
consdubya:

I think you will find most on the left side of politics support Bush's actions in relation to the Tsunami.


not on fark. on fark, bush is personally responsible for all that goes wrong in the world.

/fark, where facts don't matter and nascar is sacred.
 
2005-01-04 11:47:46 PM  
consdubya

There are morons on all sides

It's Morans, got it! Get with FARK already.
 
2005-01-04 11:49:28 PM  
nerfball:

2005-01-04 11:42:29 PM nerfball

consdubya:

However, if I were to actually respond to the question, and say "No, I do not believe Bush eats babies", there would be no problem, would there.

and if you went to the bathroom and stopped by the refrigator to get a beer (or took a break for any other reason) would it be reasonable that i could decide what your lack of response meant?

you said "And since you wont answer the question, I will have to assume you also believe that Bush did go AWOL"

maybe it wasn't that he wouldn't post, but simply that he didn't. ever assume that?




Nope, he (weaver95) wrote back explicitly saying he would not answer my question. He claimed my question had nothing to do with the thread, then went on to post Mila pics. Not that there is anything wrong with that (the Mila pics, not the avoiding of question)
 
2005-01-04 11:52:05 PM  
consdubya:
I think you will find most on the left side of politics support Bush's actions in relation to the Tsunami.

I try to look past the politics, that yes needed monies and supplies and whatnot will get into the right hands and save lives, but the motivation behind it is none other than a political opportunity to make a very dysfunctional nation appear as if it has a human side.

Which, as I've stated elsewhere, if the cynically disgruntled here in the US can call bullshiat, just think of all the millions of people in other countries that would skip past being cynical to just plain not believing the US doesn't have an agenda.

We've got a long long way to getting the rest of the world trusting us. Step one would be to not vote warmongers like Bush into office next time. A tall order, I know.
 
2005-01-04 11:52:34 PM  
2005-01-04 08:36:26 PM moltov

A review of Rathergate concludes everyone involved, bloggers and mainstream media, was an idiot

Should have read '..., were idiots.'

/Your fourth grade english teacher surrenders.


Should read ". . . , is an idiot." They haven't been cured.
 
2005-01-04 11:53:53 PM  
eraser8: Okay, I might have pushed too far with my previous message. I've been Googling the phrase "fake but accurate" and tracked it down to a New York Times article about Mrs. Knox. It does look like an accurate description of her view of the memo.

And, I haven't seen the media make the argument that Knox's recollection should be treated as gospel. If you have other information, I'd be interested in seeing it.

I have not found the smoking gun to prove my point. So again I might have gone too far with my "fake but accurate" rant. But reading about the memo again brought back some bad memories about the whole affair, the notion that I think a lot of media people had that the evidence didn't matter, and the resistance in the media to the bloggers who called out the memo as a fake when CBS News was trumpeting its authenticity.

I find it kind of unnerving when I agree with much of an article in the Weekly Standard, but there it is....
 
2005-01-04 11:55:37 PM  
whidbey:

We've got a long long way to getting the rest of the world trusting us. Step one would be to not vote warmongers like Bush into office next time.


once again, all the ills of the world acrue to g.w.b.

on fark, saddam was great. bin laden is to be praised. bush, however, is a warmonger.

/fark, where facts don't matter and nascar is sacred.
 
2005-01-05 12:02:18 AM  
nerfball

once again, all the ills of the world acrue to g.w.b.

on fark, saddam was great. bin laden is to be praised. bush, however, is a warmonger.

/fark, where facts don't matter and nascar is sacred.


I've been confused before and will be again, but I do not comment on it often. How does praise of Saddam equate with hatred of Bush combined with praise of NASCAR?
 
2005-01-05 12:03:46 AM  
I didn't need to read this to know that republicans are a bunch of lying, cheating, crooked, evil motherfark3rs.
 
B82
2005-01-05 12:05:30 AM  
For all the talk about how the Coalition of the Willing leaders are in political troubles, it seems like that Saddam appeasers are just as susceptable. Chirac and Schroder are not exactly loved by their countrymen and Martin has a minority government to deal with. Howard and Bush got re-elected and I'd bet Blair does the same. Not to mention all the unpleasantness with Russia concerning Ukraine. The Euros have bigger real concerns than Bush overthrowing a dictatorship every 4 years or so
 
2005-01-05 12:05:45 AM  
whidbey:

2005-01-04 11:52:05 PM whidbey [TotalFark]

consdubya:
I think you will find most on the left side of politics support Bush's actions in relation to the Tsunami.

I try to look past the politics, that yes needed monies and supplies and whatnot will get into the right hands and save lives, but the motivation behind it is none other than a political opportunity to make a very dysfunctional nation appear as if it has a human side.

Which, as I've stated elsewhere, if the cynically disgruntled here in the US can call bullshiat, just think of all the millions of people in other countries that would skip past being cynical to just plain not believing the US doesn't have an agenda.

We've got a long long way to getting the rest of the world trusting us. Step one would be to not vote warmongers like Bush into office next time. A tall order, I know.




I hear you on the ulterior motive part, but it dosent change the fact that the response to the tsunami was good.

I was mainly trying to point out to some of the Bush lovers that one can believe the president can do both good and bad. Given, in Bushes case it is mostly bad, but claiming it is all bad only weakens our point.

I personally believe the Bush is genuine in helping the tsunami victims, and that helping them is something he genuinely wants to do. The ulterior motives i think are secondary to this.
 
2005-01-05 12:08:34 AM  
nerfball

 
2005-01-05 12:09:38 AM  
Huskadoodle: on fark, saddam was great. bin laden is to be praised.

Bit delusional, are we? Where did anyone praise Bin Laden or say Saddam was great?
 
2005-01-05 12:09:39 AM  
eraser8:
Worse was the fact that Word recreated them without even changing font, font size, spacing, margins, etc... all default Word settings, and recreated the EXACT SAME DOCUMENT.

Not really. Word was designed to mimic typewritten text.
Bzzzzt! Wrong answer. Word was designed to be a word processor. It wasn't designed to "mimic" anything. The original Word for MS-DOS would print using whatever font was built into the printer. If printed on a daisy-wheel printer, it would indeed mimic a typewriter with reasonable accuracy, but that was the printer doing it, not the program. If the same document was printed on a dot-matrix printer, it wouldn't look much like a typewriter. Laser and ink-jet printers were still in the future.

Word for Windows (and Mac), on the other hand, use the fonts in the OS, and convert them to pixel-raster graphics which are then sent to the printer. Given modern laser and ink-jet printers, they print quite sharply and can indeed mimic a typewriter if the person using them intends to do precisely that and knows what he or she is doing. But that is the person doing the mimicry, not Word. That was never Word's goal nor purpose.

Macs originally came with fonts called New York (serif), Geneva (sans-serif), Monaco (monospaced sans-serif), and Chicago (system font for menus - a thick-thin sans-serif font). Bold and italics effects were simulated with these fonts (bold by effectively double-striking the character after horizontally offsetting it by one pixel, and italics by slanting it). Later, when they started the desktop publishing revolution, they licensed fonts from Adobe including Times, Helvetica (serif and sans-serif, respectively, each with true regular, bold, italics, and bold italics variants), Courier (monospaced serif that was very similar to a popular Selectric typewriter and daisy-wheel font of the day often used in legal typewriting - also available in regular and bold and oblique, though the use of bold and/or oblique effects would blow the typewriter simulation), and Symbol (Greek, math, and other symbols, with no stylistic variants). Those fonts were in both the Mac OS and in the original LaserWriter. Later they added Bookman (old-fashioned serif font with slanted serifs), New Century Schoolbook (scholarly serif font with larger serifs than Times), Palatino (stylish serif font with chisel-like serifs that looked like Roman letters carved into stone), Helvetica Narrow (all of the preceeding had true bold and italics or at least oblique variants), Zapf Chancery Medium Italic (calligraphic font with no stylistic variants, though the included version was technically a variant itself, as the regular Zapf Chancery is a much plainer-looking font without the swashes on the upper-case letters), and Zapf Dingbats (font similar to WingDings). These were included in the LaserWriter Plus and nearly all future PostScript printers as the Basic 35 Fonts set (the orginal font set was the Basic 17 Fonts [each stylistic variant counted as a different font]).

Windows originally only had bitmapped fonts such as MS Serif and MS Sans Serif, plus System, Terminal (used the old MS-DOS character set [with the cool box-drawing characters and such] and was mainly used to display the MS-DOS Command Prompt window), etc., plus some vector (not to be confused with outline) fonts that could be scaled but were designed to be plotted on pen plotters (Gothic, Roman, and Script). Later they co-created TrueType with Apple as a competition for Adobe PostScript Type 1, and ever since then (Windows 3.1 and later), Windows came with Times New Roman (a more modern variant of Times, with a larger look at a given point size), Arial (a slightly more stylish sans-serif font than Helvetica), Courier New (a more modern version of Courier), and Symbol. Macs now also include these fonts, and both OSes also include some other fonts from Microsoft intended to enhance Web viewing: Verdana (a wider, cleaner sans-serif font than Arial), Impact (a bold condensed sans-serif font), Comics Sans MS (looks like hand-written manuscript type), and Wingdings (dingbats similar to Zapf Dingbats). There are others as well: the Lucida family (Windows), a set of free fonts that Microsoft used to make available as an additional download for IE (Georgia [an old-fashioned but clean serif font that has "lower-case digits" that can have descenders], Trebuchet MS [a very stylish sans-serif font], and Andale Mono [a sans-serif monospaced font similar to the old Apple Monaco font]).

Word for Windows using the "Normal.dot" template as it comes with Word, without modification, sets type in Times New Roman regular 12-point black by default. This font looks nothing like a typewriter, and no typewriter of the period (not even an IBM Executive, which could indeed do proportional spacing but whose font was a very different font from Times New Roman) could produce it. Neither could any word processor on a computer of the time (1973 was a full decade before Apple released the LISA, which, while it could do proportional text printing on dot-matrix printers, had no font that looked like Times New Roman - not that it matters, because it would still require a decade's worth of time travel to put one on the desk of the officer in question.

The th is a major giveaway. No typewriter of the period could do that character at all without modification (I had to do some HTML tricks to do it just now!), yet modern versions of Word with the default settings of their AutoCorrect As You Type feature will automatically superscript "th" if it's typed right after a digit (as in &ldquo187th").

Times New Roman didn't even exist on personal computer OSes nor any printer nor typewriter available to the publicoontil the 1990s (first digitized by Monotype)! Prior to that, it existed only as a cast-metal type font used only in printing presses! And the older Times font, while similar in general appearance, would not have spaced the same, since it is smaller in x-height at a given point size.

Sorry, but it's fake. There is simply no way that it can be real. No way at all, period. Except for time travel.
 
2005-01-05 12:09:44 AM  
consdubya: The ulterior motives i think are secondary to this.

You hope. Me, if anything, maybe I'll grant that the man just might have felt a twinge of guilt.

But yeah, agreed that the real mission ended up transgressing political boundaries nonetheless.
 
2005-01-05 12:10:03 AM  
TheMikey

I didn't need to read this to know that republicans are a bunch of lying, cheating, crooked, evil motherfark3rs.

Somehow I read some of this thread and came to a different opinion. It's equally opinionated.
 
2005-01-05 12:13:05 AM  
Huskadoodle:

I've been confused before and will be again, but I do not comment on it often. How does praise of Saddam equate with hatred of Bush combined with praise of NASCAR?

it started last fall when the plane full of hendricks motorsports people crashed and the people tragically lost their lives. certain individuals who are highly connected with a certain website banned anyone why posted any comment that even insinuated that that loss of life was anything other than a tragic of epic human dimension, equal to the holocaust.

hence, the nascar comment.

on fark, saddam is given credit for running a society that was orderly and secure, much unlike the disarray and squalor of current iraq. on fark, bush is equal to satan and is responsible for every death from every tragedy (manmade or natural).

to a lot of people, it all doesn't make sense. some of us tune in from time to time to take note of the insipid logic.

that being said, in fark forums, bush is satan, saddam was a great leader and bin laden is a victim of american brutality.
 
2005-01-05 12:13:36 AM  
Professor Moosehead writes: the notion that I think a lot of media people had that the evidence didn't matter

My impression was completely different. I thought the media who were keeping the issue alive with the "forged but true" angle were saying -- rightly -- that the emergence of possible forgeries does not and should not automatically foreclose on the questions surrounding Mr. Bush's service.

If it were that easy to throw journalists off the trail, a scheming politician -- when faced with disclosure of documented wrongdoing -- would simply plant false documents with the adversarial press (and, information on the forgeries with friendly press). Soon, the story would be about the forgeries and all scrutiny of the important story would cease.

And, perhaps, that is precisely what happened in this case. We may never know...because the press has done a piss-poor job of following up, researching and reporting the story.
 
2005-01-05 12:16:25 AM  
WordUP

I was quoting nerfball ask him/her.
 
2005-01-05 12:18:53 AM  
COMALite J writes: The original Word for MS-DOS would print using whatever font was built into the printer.

Were the documents produced using Word and alleged to be the source of the CBS documents made using the original Word program and printed on a 1980s era printer? If not, your point here -- and, indeed, your entire exposition -- is irrelevant.
 
2005-01-05 12:19:30 AM  
04:01:24 PM BigTuna: That nicely sums up the problem with the entire debacle. The furor over "Rathergate" eclipsed the fact that Bush shirked his military duties.

And you know this how? The reason CBS jumped all over these memos was that they had no evidence of Bush shirking duty and were desperate to find something, anything, to corroborate that point of view. Your assertion assumes facts not in evidence, to put in in lawyer-speak.
 
2005-01-05 12:24:51 AM  
I'm sure the journalist that wrote this article has no bias in any of this.

/end sarcasm
 
2005-01-05 12:27:49 AM  
Huskadoodle: I was quoting nerfball ask him/her.

Oops, sorry. Will do.

nerfball: on fark, saddam is given credit for running a society that was orderly and secure

Some farkers have been saying that in some respects like security and basic commodities, Iraq was better off under Saddam than after the invasion. That point is debatable.

I happen to be of the opinion that there is a chance that Iraq will be better off after the war is truly over in other respects, such as individual rights and democracy. That point is equally debatable.

What's also debatable is whether the gains will have been worth the costs (to Iraquis and the coalition).

But it is you who twists all this into people allegedly saying "Saddam was a great leader and Bush is responsible for every tragedy in the world".

You seem to be building a strawman here.
 
Displayed 50 of 514 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report