Are "women" a different species?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:59 am

Jason,

Your figures are wrong, because it's roughly 3 billion men and 3 billion women, not 6 billion of each.


Yes, I suppose that would change the estimate to 1 out of 50 million for males, and 1 out of a billion for females. It is only an approximate estimate anyway to illustrate the contrast of probability. So I hope you're not going to hold me exactly to these numbers Jason because I haven't scanned the entire world searching for sages of both genders. However, my intuition tells me that my estimates are not that far off...
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Alex Jacob » Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:34 am

One might propose: That even if you 'scanned' the whole world, you'd only see what your prejudice allows you to see. By your reckoning---and this is the crucial part, the axis---all the world is lost, deluded, etc. With the exception of about 60 persons, in which group you include yourselves. (Some Australian shit-kickers who are barely literate and a Canadian dude living with his parents).

The pretentiousness in this is quite absurd, if you really consider it.

You have made yourselves the grand arbiters of both 'enlightenment' and 'genius', and no one of you is either! What conclusion is possible but that your ideas about yourselves are pathological? It is a neurosis you engage in. Intellectually, no one of you can compare himself in any sense to the 'geniuses' you admire, whom you seem to hold up as a shield for your neurosis. Let's face it, intellectually you are not first rate, nor second, nor even third. Forth-rate and under is more likely. To recognize this and to work toward improvement is necessary.

No one has any ultimate and final idea of what this life is, what we are doing here, and what the ultimate measure of success is. True, any of us can attempt to answer that question, and it is a noble thing to make that effort, to dedicate oneself to it. To look into the sayings of great men is infinitely valuable. But one still lives in an embodied context. One still has to work. One still has to find a way to contribute to culture, to the world, to humankind. There is no way around this.

Sane people, who also have their feet on the ground, come to sane conclusions about what is attainable and what isn't. To live sanely is the goal. To incorporate knowledge so that it serves elevated ethics. One can make noble efforts to better oneself, to excel, to contribute---these are 'enlightened' goals, and many people can access them, incorporate them.

But this is not, somehow, what you-all are talking about. If it were, the path you recommend could be said to make sense, it could have some reach, it could be considered relevant.

Personally, I have no more to discuss or to learn from any of you. The gift you have given me, despite yourselves, is to be shown in no uncertain terms what happens to people who go off on an abstract tangent, an orbit that moves away from the Earth, from internal cohesion. To my way of seeing things, you-all demonstrate how people can get lost, not how they find themselves. I recognize in you, because you blow them all up, flaws that I must correct in myself. We are all susceptible to these errors, and that is one of the meanings of this branch of modernism, this breaking off from self. This moving away.

You are not teachers, you are warnings.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Carl G » Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:24 am

Ryan Rudolph wrote:
it's probably more accurate to suggest that a man's chances are about 1 out of 100 million, and the females chances are about 1 out of two billion, which would bring the figures down to 60 enlightened men, and 3 enlightened females on a global level.



If sixty men, that would make just 49 after QRS, Cory, Diebert, Nick, Matt, Sapius, me and you. We average less than one per 3 countries!
Yikes!
And with only 3 women, that would be after counting Sue and Kelly, like one toothless old lady in Outer Mongolia.

Slim pickins indeed my friend. We better keep sticking together.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby maestro » Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:05 am

Carl G wrote:If sixty men, that would make just 49 after QRS, Cory, Diebert, Nick, Matt, Sapius, me and you. We average less than one per 3 countries!
Yikes!
And with only 3 women, that would be after counting Sue and Kelly, like one toothless old lady in Outer Mongolia.

Interestingly Australia with a population of only 20 million boasts of at least 3 enlightened men, while in the rest of the world the chance is only one in 100 million, verily it is the holy land.

Canada is not too far behind with 2 confirmed enlightened masters out of 31 million.

How about India? Seems to be no confirmed cases. Pretty shabby for a country with a population of 1 billion and the birthplace of the enlightenment fad.
User avatar
maestro
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kelly Jones » Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:54 am

It's unwise to laugh at Ryan's efforts. His statistics might be rough, as there have probably been thousands of enlightened men, if literature of the past is anything to go by. Efforts of the female of the species are not comparable.

If I might express a view to a certain individual, it would be this.

Prometheuspan complained about the "genius male club" on this forum. He was partly right. Various folk here knew he was mentally ill, but responded to him with mockery. That is, as he rightly claimed, pack behaviour. I only wish it was a temporary phenomenon that only flares up now and then, rather than something entrenched around here.

If you are going to haze somebody, then try it by yourself.

It is not easy to abandon the world, and it's inevitable that one's efforts will be crude, clumsy and often off-track. I think it's to Ryan's credit that he doesn't waste time on impressing others with flowery speech, cracking jokes, chatting about politics, trying to pick up the chicks, and other pack behaviour.


KJ
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Carl G » Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:23 am

To heck with that A-for-effort stuff, Kelly. Ryan will be held to the same standards as anyone else here, that is, to the exacting standards of logic. I'm sure he would have it no other way.

Statistics, my foot.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kelly Jones » Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:41 am

It's possible for a person to express perfect reasoning, but have no relationship with Truth.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby David Quinn » Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:45 am

Alex Jacob wrote:One might propose: That even if you 'scanned' the whole world, you'd only see what your prejudice allows you to see. By your reckoning---and this is the crucial part, the axis---all the world is lost, deluded, etc. With the exception of about 60 persons, in which group you include yourselves. (Some Australian shit-kickers who are barely literate and a Canadian dude living with his parents).

The pretentiousness in this is quite absurd, if you really consider it.

You have made yourselves the grand arbiters of both 'enlightenment' and 'genius', and no one of you is either! What conclusion is possible but that your ideas about yourselves are pathological? It is a neurosis you engage in. Intellectually, no one of you can compare himself in any sense to the 'geniuses' you admire, whom you seem to hold up as a shield for your neurosis. Let's face it, intellectually you are not first rate, nor second, nor even third. Forth-rate and under is more likely. To recognize this and to work toward improvement is necessary.

No one has any ultimate and final idea of what this life is, what we are doing here, and what the ultimate measure of success is. True, any of us can attempt to answer that question, and it is a noble thing to make that effort, to dedicate oneself to it. To look into the sayings of great men is infinitely valuable. But one still lives in an embodied context. One still has to work. One still has to find a way to contribute to culture, to the world, to humankind. There is no way around this.

Sane people, who also have their feet on the ground, come to sane conclusions about what is attainable and what isn't. To live sanely is the goal. To incorporate knowledge so that it serves elevated ethics. One can make noble efforts to better oneself, to excel, to contribute---these are 'enlightened' goals, and many people can access them, incorporate them.

But this is not, somehow, what you-all are talking about. If it were, the path you recommend could be said to make sense, it could have some reach, it could be considered relevant.

Personally, I have no more to discuss or to learn from any of you. The gift you have given me, despite yourselves, is to be shown in no uncertain terms what happens to people who go off on an abstract tangent, an orbit that moves away from the Earth, from internal cohesion. To my way of seeing things, you-all demonstrate how people can get lost, not how they find themselves. I recognize in you, because you blow them all up, flaws that I must correct in myself. We are all susceptible to these errors, and that is one of the meanings of this branch of modernism, this breaking off from self. This moving away.

You are not teachers, you are warnings.

Aw, Alex is having a tantrum.

I wonder what psychology underlies the throwing of a tantrum. Is it the fruit of a healthy mind? Is it part of a neurosis? Is it a case of a narcissistic personality crying out from a lack of attention and acclaim?

How can our fourth-rate minds tell?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Nick Treklis » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:06 am

I think Alex is the only regular visitor to this forum who's posts I have not been able to finish, not a single one of them. They are completely mind-numbing and lack any conscious direction. It's equivelant to what I imagine reading through the diary of a teenage girl would be like.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Trevor Salyzyn » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:31 am

Alex,
No one has any ultimate and final idea of what this life is, what we are doing here, and what the ultimate measure of success is. True, any of us can attempt to answer that question, and it is a noble thing to make that effort, to dedicate oneself to it. To look into the sayings of great men is infinitely valuable. But one still lives in an embodied context. One still has to work. One still has to find a way to contribute to culture, to the world, to humankind. There is no way around this.

This is a collision of two contrary value systems. Better to stick fast to one than to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Despite yourself, by the end of this, it doesn't sound like you find philosophy noble at all.

The gift you have given me, despite yourselves, is to be shown in no uncertain terms what happens to people who go off on an abstract tangent, an orbit that moves away from the Earth, from internal cohesion. To my way of seeing things, you-all demonstrate how people can get lost, not how they find themselves. I recognize in you, because you blow them all up, flaws that I must correct in myself.

You have already established earlier that nobody knows what the ultimate measure of success is -- yet here you call some things flaws. What you see as a flaw shows what you value. If it isn't clear already, you are a pragmatist through and through, one of modern America's anti-philosophers.

Quite coincidentally, the other day when I was working on figuring out Thales, my sister commented that he sounded like a man who didn't know what to do with himself. Working only from his quotations, the impression the archetypical sage gave is one of futility. Thales loved wisdom and despised foolishness, yet said, in only slightly different words, time makes fools of us all.
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby David Quinn » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:37 am

Nick Treklis wrote:I think Alex is the only regular visitor to this forum who's posts I have not been able to finish, not a single one of them. They are completely mind-numbing and lack any conscious direction. It's equivelant to what I imagine reading through the diary of a teenage girl would be like.

That's an interesting observation, but I think the connection to the teenage girl mentality (which I agree is there) comes not from being a girl himself, but from his love of casting spells over girls. In other words, he is essentially a seducer, whose main method of seduction consists of overwhelming girls with a dazzling verbosity which focuses on the things they like to hear.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Tomas » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:53 am

Alex Jacob wrote:One might propose: That even if you 'scanned' the whole world, you'd only see what your prejudice allows you to see. By your reckoning---and this is the crucial part, the axis---all the world is lost, deluded, etc. With the exception of about 60 persons, in which group you include yourselves. (Some Australian shit-kickers who are barely literate and a Canadian dude living with his parents).

The pretentiousness in this is quite absurd, if you really consider it.

You have made yourselves the grand arbiters of both 'enlightenment' and 'genius', and no one of you is either! What conclusion is possible but that your ideas about yourselves are pathological? It is a neurosis you engage in. Intellectually, no one of you can compare himself in any sense to the 'geniuses' you admire, whom you seem to hold up as a shield for your neurosis. Let's face it, intellectually you are not first rate, nor second, nor even third. Forth-rate and under is more likely. To recognize this and to work toward improvement is necessary.

No one has any ultimate and final idea of what this life is, what we are doing here, and what the ultimate measure of success is. True, any of us can attempt to answer that question, and it is a noble thing to make that effort, to dedicate oneself to it. To look into the sayings of great men is infinitely valuable. But one still lives in an embodied context. One still has to work. One still has to find a way to contribute to culture, to the world, to humankind. There is no way around this.

Sane people, who also have their feet on the ground, come to sane conclusions about what is attainable and what isn't. To live sanely is the goal. To incorporate knowledge so that it serves elevated ethics. One can make noble efforts to better oneself, to excel, to contribute---these are 'enlightened' goals, and many people can access them, incorporate them.

But this is not, somehow, what you-all are talking about. If it were, the path you recommend could be said to make sense, it could have some reach, it could be considered relevant.

Personally, I have no more to discuss or to learn from any of you. The gift you have given me, despite yourselves, is to be shown in no uncertain terms what happens to people who go off on an abstract tangent, an orbit that moves away from the Earth, from internal cohesion. To my way of seeing things, you-all demonstrate how people can get lost, not how they find themselves. I recognize in you, because you blow them all up, flaws that I must correct in myself. We are all susceptible to these errors, and that is one of the meanings of this branch of modernism, this breaking off from self. This moving away.

You are not teachers, you are warnings.


No, Alex... you ain't going anywhere.

You are one of the select individuals that drop it in the laps of us commoners.

I like what you write :-)

Stick around!



.
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4321
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Nick Treklis » Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:14 am

David Quinn wrote:That's an interesting observation, but I think the connection to the teenage girl mentality (which I agree is there) comes not from being a girl himself, but from his love of casting spells over girls. In other words, he is essentially a seducer, whose main method of seduction consists of overwhelming girls with a dazzling verbosity which focuses on the things they like to hear.


Catering to the unconscious. That explains why I haven't been able to finish his posts, he's catering to the wrong crowd! He should be able to sense this by now, which makes me wonder why he has stuck around on GF for so long now. Surely there are hundreds of other forums and message boards that would absolutely fall in love with him.

Maybe he just thinks we're playing hard to get, and likes the challenge of the chase. Yeah that's it, he's all about the chase, that's what he lives for. Or similar to how you said it, he loves the fog. In either sense he doesn't actually want to accomplish anything. Unless of course we view the art of accomplishing nothing as an accomplishment of some sort.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Shahrazad » Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:27 am

Maestro,

Interestingly Australia with a population of only 20 million boasts of at least 3 enlightened men, while in the rest of the world the chance is only one in 100 million, verily it is the holy land.


If indeed the Aussie pop. is 20 million, and assuming a 50% male ratio, that would leave 10 million women. Two enlightened women out of 10 million means if you are a female and were born in Australia, your odds of being enlightened are one in five million. Holy land indeed, if you keep in mind that in the rest of the world the odds of a woman being enlightened are one in three billion.

Maestro, if you are still in your child-bearing years (and I'm pretty sure you are), you might want to consider moving to Australia so that your offspring stand a much better chance of becoming enlightened. This advice is also good for Trevor and Alex.

-
User avatar
Shahrazad
 
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Trevor Salyzyn » Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:09 am

Sher, why the advice? Last time I was given advice, it was to grow up, get married, become a lawyer, and leave this philosophy shit alone. Now it's to move to a foreign country and live vicariously through non-existent children.

Is there something wrong with how I'm presently living, or how I presently conduct myself w/r/t philosophy?
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Shahrazad » Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:26 am

Trevor, does it surprise you that you get different advice from different people? It's like that for all of us. The decision as to what to do with your life is always yours. Advice is never meant as an order, only as a suggestion.

You may also want to keep in mind that I have two grown children. Sometimes I forget to snap out of the mother role.

-
User avatar
Shahrazad
 
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Tomas » Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:28 am

.



-Beta Jason-
Your figures are wrong, because it's roughly 3 billion men and 3 billion women, not 6 billion of each.

-Alpha Ryan-
Yes, I suppose that would change the estimate to 1 out of 50 million for males, and 1 out of a billion for females.

-tomas-
Well, Ryan, looks like you will never be able to pass on your genetically superior philosophy. No 'little Ryan's' on your lap. Some some old stray cat on your lap (uh! the cat hair) or you'll have to settle for stroking the neighbors dog, up there in Nova Scotia.




-Alpha Ryan continues-
It is only an approximate estimate anyway to illustrate the contrast of probability.

-tomas-
Just what does "approximate estimate" mean?




-Alpha Ryan raises his eyebrows-
So I hope you're not going to hold me exactly to these numbers Jason because I haven't scanned the entire world searching for sages of both genders.

-tomas-
Alright there, Spock, Captain Kirk will send O'Hura to your private quarters for a brainstorming session :-)




-Alpha Ryan's final volley-
However, my intuition tells me that my estimates are not that far off...

-tomas-
Ah, yeah, that female intuition...




.
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4321
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Iolaus » Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:59 am

And with only 3 women, that would be after counting Sue and Kelly,


What???!! Sue and Kelly are enlightened now?
Canada is not too far behind with 2 confirmed enlightened masters out of 31 million.


Who???!!!

Sheesh, a lot has happened while I was away.

I think Alex is the only regular visitor to this forum who's posts I have not been able to finish, not a single one of them. They are completely mind-numbing and lack any conscious direction. It's equivelant to what I imagine reading through the diary of a teenage girl would be like.


Amazing! Simply amazing. We all live in such different worlds.

You are one of the select individuals that drop it in the laps of us commoners.

He tires of casting his pearls before swine.
Truth is a pathless land.
Iolaus
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby David Quinn » Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:27 pm

Iolaus wrote:He tires of casting his pearls before swine.

Doesn't he also consider you to be among the swine? After all, he has openly affirmed that you are also a deluded, neurotic individual who is unwittingly under the sway of sociological forces. Do you really think he has been on your side?


Nick wrote:I think Alex is the only regular visitor to this forum who's posts I have not been able to finish, not a single one of them. They are completely mind-numbing and lack any conscious direction. It's equivelant to what I imagine reading through the diary of a teenage girl would be like.

The other thing about Alex's posts is that he sounds like an old man - one who is tired of life, world-weary and cyncial. He sounds like a grandpa who no longer believes in anything - except, oddly enough, sociological cliches. That it tallies with the teenage girl mentality is rather interesting.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Iolaus » Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:40 pm

Doesn't he also consider you to be among the swine? After all, he has openly affirmed that you are also a deluded, neurotic individual who is unwittingly under the sway of sociological forces. Do you really think he has been on your side?


Because he said you-all? It is careless, I agree. But he and Being of 1 have said that they didn't mean for the exceptions to be included.

Of course, I am a deluded, neurotic person, unwittingly under the sway of sociological and other deceptive forces.
I'm just more humorous, and less stubborn, or rather, I like to think I make a break to get out of the cave, rather than scurry into the next seat.
Truth is a pathless land.
Iolaus
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Trevor Salyzyn » Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:48 pm

Sher, I wasn't sure if you meant "leave thinking to others".

Although I enjoy lying too much to honestly believe that I'm enlightened, I would still like to think I'm not a hopeless case.
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby maestro » Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:55 pm

Shahrazad wrote:Maestro, if you are still in your child-bearing years (and I'm pretty sure you are), you might want to consider moving to Australia so that your offspring stand a much better chance of becoming enlightened. This advice is also good for Trevor and Alex.

The only problem with this advice is that all the people in Australia seem to be partially enlightened.

I am reminded of a quote by Gurdjieff.

Happy is he who sits on the chair of men, a thousand times happier is he who sits on the chair of angels, but woe and grief to him who is without a chair.
User avatar
maestro
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby David Quinn » Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:10 pm

Iolaus wrote:
Doesn't he also consider you to be among the swine? After all, he has openly affirmed that you are also a deluded, neurotic individual who is unwittingly under the sway of sociological forces. Do you really think he has been on your side?

Because he said you-all? It is careless, I agree. But he and Being of 1 have said that they didn't mean for the exceptions to be included.

Of course, I am a deluded, neurotic person, unwittingly under the sway of sociological and other deceptive forces.
I'm just more humorous, and less stubborn, or rather, I like to think I make a break to get out of the cave, rather than scurry into the next seat.

Good for you, but Alex has described the very desire to escape the cave as neurotic. It forms the basis of his entire discourse. So by what stretch of the imagination are we to regard his words as "pearls" and ourselves as "swine"?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Kelly Jones » Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:18 pm

I don't think Australians (generally) are more likely to be wise, or even partially wise.

Here's some fors and againsts:

Down-to-earth but afraid of being different
Crude humour but can't get above fart or blonde jokes
Can't stand pretentiousness nor bosses
Loners and eccentrics are tolerated but only those who are maudlin and depressive
Men treat women as cows but act like calves
Women accept that they're cow-like but are content
Wealth isn't important but nor are ideals
Classless but naive
Can endure hardship but have no imagination
Free like cowboys but only for a few years (old men tend to be shrunken and confused)
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Are "women" a different species?

Postby Iolaus » Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:36 pm

Good for you, but Alex has described the very desire to escape the cave as neurotic. It forms the basis of his entire discourse.

What? When?

So by what stretch of the imagination are we to regard his words as "pearls" and ourselves as "swine"?

Well, I find much wisdom in a fair number of his posts, and good writing and good humor as well, so if a person says that they find nothing in it, I tend to think that this person is impervious to whole chunks of possibility, good possibility. In that sense did I call him/them swine, i.e., oblivious.

But I don't actually think that you deserved that, David.
Truth is a pathless land.
Iolaus
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest