Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 103

Thread: *Facemuffin*

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Is it significantly easier to teach "white power" to one's children when they are home-schooled as opposed to attending local schools with negroid children?

    I understand what you are saying, but it is one interface more to deal with when society wants to ensure a certain level of basic awareness in the next generation. Public schools are one sure-fire way of instilling a common culture to children; the one so prevalent in the US is a sick one, I agree, but at least it is one they all share, rather than some anti-Zionist religious rant taken as the current cosmogony.
    Ok, so here we have a concrete area on which we can agree to disagree. I am only concerned with public education and homeschooling in terms of education, whereas you view them both as social engineering tools.

    I will note that our public education does nothing like what you allege is sure-fire. All politics is local. So is all education. To instill a common culture, there would still have to be one, at least within the school environment. There is nothing anywhere near that. The US is just too large for something like that. Just look at how California and Texas are currently fighting over curriculum and textbook standards. There is no final result in that, if one "defeats" the other the system is large enough that it will just generate another challenger. Homogeneity isn't possible and I don't see why we'd want it anyway.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  2. #62
    It is not too large inasmuch as it is too racially heterogeneous. There could be one people, with one mind and one culture. But.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Catgrrl View Post
    Question: If no home lunches allowed, are the school lunches then free for students? I can't see making all parents pay for lunch. Can you imagine someone with three+ kids having to pay $40 or more per week for lunch?
    "He who sacrifices freedom for security [in this case, financial security!] deserves neither." I don't think a free lunch is a good enough bribe to take away freedom..

    Also, why not extend this to the teachers as well? Plenty of fatass teachers you know. Gotta make an example for the kids!
    The people who prepare the lunches seem to be usually fat, too...

    I'd also argue that the greasy pizza and chicken sandwiches they used to serve aren't healthier than the turkey and cheese sandwich, cookie, and pretzels I used to take as a kid. But I imagine they probably have revamped that district's school lunches by now to be healthier.
    Even if it was the case it's still not a good reason to do it. When I was a kid (maybe a decade after you..) it was pretty much the same. Hot dogs, fries, corn dogs (and apples), omnomnomnom. They weren't really greasy though. The food was not greasy, but I don't think it was very good. Anyway, I'd say that the vast majority of those parents -- those who can otherwise afford it but who don't care what their kids eat -- don't give the kids anything and make them eat school food, as opposed to giving them donuts for lunch. Most of my elementary school classmates ate (typically free) breakfast in the school because their parents didn't care enough to feed them even breakfast themselves.

  4. #64
    It was always cheaper for my mom to pack all of us lunches (including my dad) than to give us money for school lunch. If it did happen it usually was either because she couldn't make it to the store or we begged her when we knew it was something we really liked being served that day.

    My comment about free lunch was simply that if you are going to mandate kids eating school food, is it fair to charge the parents that aren't on welfare for it? They have the means (and care) enough to make their child's lunch. What about those parents who aren't particularly wealthy but also make just enough to not qualify for free lunch program? My argument is your punishing the lower middle class (yet again) if you aren't giving them the alternative to bring their own food as opposed to spending $10-$20 a week. (Which doesn't seem like alot, but if you have 2 or more kids you can make all of their lunches from home for $10 a week)

  5. #65
    This would never fly in our district or county. We had enough parental outrage when they forbade homemade treats for classroom holiday or b-day parties (in elementary grades), and only allowed pre-packaged crap. I think they relaxed that later, if parents coordinated with the teacher about cupcakes or cookies (but not cakes b/c that meant *gasp* a knife would be in the classroom).

    And like you say, cat---it would be a hardship for the gap families not poor enough for "free" lunches, and budgeting by sending a homemade lunch.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I have little difficulty believing that US public schools are doing a piss-poor job, the GOP is very keen to dismantle public schooling as soon as humanly possible to further divide the society into Eloi and Morlocks. (White people vs. brown people, for the most part.) This in and of itself is not a condemnation of public schools as an idea or a concept, nor does it mean that home-schooling is not primarily used as a tool for fuck-witted religious monsters such as yourself to poison the minds of children with your mythological garbage. The religious mythological poison is of course present in the over-all culture, so I won't pretend that public schooling alone can stave off the destruction of so many young minds, but most certainly I will assert that allowing Evangelical fuck-muppets to Evangelicize their children is purely a detriment on society, as well as a gross injustice on the innocent children now indoctrinated into monstrosities.

    That US public schools are doing poorly is a reason to improve them, not shy away from it and turn to home-schooling! Of course it behooves your base and disgusting motives to promote the latter.
    Regardless of where the child goes to school the child is going to be "indoctrinated" (ie shown God's love). Your aversion to home schooling seems to be based on the mistaken notion that if the child goes to public school they won't be taught theology at home. That is a pretty absurd position to take.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Regardless of where the child goes to school the child is going to be "indoctrinated" (ie shown God's love). Your aversion to home schooling seems to be based on the mistaken notion that if the child goes to public school they won't be taught theology at home. That is a pretty absurd position to take.
    No, the idea is that with public education there is at least the chance a child is shown, by what they consider an authority figure, that religion is a shameful poison poured down the throats and minds of the young and innocent. So long as evangelical fuck-muppets remain the sole arbiters of authority, the children have far lower chances of being exposed to anything but evangelical fuck-muppetry.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    No, the idea is that with public education there is at least the chance a child is shown, by what they consider an authority figure, that religion is a shameful poison poured down the throats and minds of the young and innocent. So long as evangelical fuck-muppets remain the sole arbiters of authority, the children have far lower chances of being exposed to anything but evangelical fuck-muppetry.
    Heh. So your counting on principals and teachers to make sure kids aren't religious? What is religion other then a belief system? You think the state must control what its population thinks? Oh wait I forgot who I was talking to, of course you do.

    In any event you're being silly. Kids don't respect teachers and principles. They are the ones that make them sit still in class, assign homework and get on them for skipping class. They may be looked at as authority figures but ones that they are always trying to get around. And almost no teacher (at least state side) tries to talk children out of following a religion.

    Your point again is moot and the level of your hatred and intolerance is just plain sad.

  9. #69
    Too bad this isn't a lesson for you on how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post

    Your point again is moot and the level of your hatred and intolerance is just plain sad.
    I got bored and went back to re-read your posts in the Fat Tax thread. Seems to me you've got a strange loathing and intolerance for poor people in general, bordering on a hatred, or at least a hatred for any organized gov't funded attempt to help them out of poverty. They're simply lazy, undisciplined, and ignorant. Too bad, so sad, they can jolly well die faster as smokers or obese people as far as you're concerned. Less people sucking on the teat of hand-out Nanny, or something.

    Not coincidentally, you've also supported private insurers (and employers contributing to employee health insurance plans) dictating lifestyle choices and actively "controlling" behaviors. Higher premiums for smoking or obesity, etc. No birth control unless you can pay OOP, and no federal funds for those --lazy, ignorant, undisciplined-- poor people, either! You don't limit this to health and/or employment, but also living in tornado alley or coastal areas prone to hurricanes or floods, homeowner's insurance, FEMA and federal flood insurance.

    You're nothing more than a corporatist and insurance industry shill, claiming Freeedom as your driving principle. I don't buy it.

  11. #71
    Suppose this fits here as well as anywhere else? All the elements are here: public use, public funds, indoctrinating children and/or captive audiences, advertising fast or fatty foods, busted budgets, corporate America, money rules above all else? Did I miss anything? Dig hard enough and union interests are probably in there somewhere?

    Go Go USA #1!


    Cash-hungry states and municipalities, in pursuit of even the smallest amounts of revenue, have begun to exploit one market that they have exclusive control over: their own property.

    With the help of a few eager marketing consultants, many governments are peddling the rights to place advertisements in public school cafeterias, on the sides of yellow school buses, in prison holding areas and in the waiting rooms of welfare offices and the Department of Motor Vehicles.

    The revenue generated by these ads is just a drop in the bucket for states and counties with deficits in the millions or billions of dollars. But supporters say every penny helps.

    Still, critics question whether the modest sums are worth further exposing citizens — especially children — to even more commercial pitches.

    “I have a 5-year-old who doesn’t understand what ads are,” says Megan Keller, 30, of Provo, Utah, who says her son Collin, a kindergartner, sees seductive posters for sugary cereals every day in the lunchroom of his public school. “I don’t like that he thinks, ‘Oh, this is good because it comes from my school,’ and I’m having to explain to him why that’s not true.”

    Because Utah will soon start selling ads on the sides of school buses, Ms. Keller has decided to transfer Collin to a nearby charter school that has sworn off commercialism.

    Utah became the latest state to allow school bus advertising when its governor signed a law last month authorizing the practice. The strategy began in the 1990s in Colorado, then spread to Texas, Arizona, Tennessee and Massachusetts. In the last year, at least eight other states have considered similar legislation.

    One of them, New Jersey, approved school bus advertising in January, and the state’s Board of Education is now writing guidelines for size and sponsorship restrictions. So far, four districts have expressed interest in participating, according to Frank Belluscio, a spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association. Idaho’s Legislature rejected a similar proposal earlier this month.

    Districts with 250 buses can expect to generate about $1 million over four years by selling some yellow space, according to Michael Beauchamp, president of Alpha Media, a company based in Dallas that manages advertising on 3,000 school buses in Texas and Arizona.

    Officials say that the revenue, while small, can still make the difference between having new textbooks — or a music teacher or a volleyball team — and not having them.

    “If the alternative is huge classroom sizes and losing teachers and losing qualified personnel, yes, this seems like something we should consider,” said Valery Lynch, 48, a fourth-grade teacher in The Woodlands, Tex., north of Houston. “But I know that it’s a bag of worms, and people are going to ask ‘What’s next? An ad on the classroom clock?’ “

    Some schools have been selling advertising space on their school Web sites and in campus parking lots, in addition to the lunchroom and the school buses. An online ad usually generates about $100 a month for a school, according to Jim O’Connell, the president of Media Advertising in Motion, a company in Scottsdale, Ariz., that sells advertising for school districts.

    Critics say exposing impressionable young children to ads that appear to be endorsed by their educators is problematic.

    “Mandatory education laws are based on the idea that education is good for society, and is good for kids,” said Josh Golin, associate director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, a nonprofit organization. “That argument falls apart when you’re talking about mandatory exposure to advertising.”

    The companies that help place the ads say that children are exposed to advertising just about everywhere they look anyway, including — for many decades — in their high school yearbooks and sports stadiums. They say that the primary audience for ads on the outside of school buses is adults, not children, and that much of the space is being purchased by dentists, banks and insurance companies.

    “School bus advertising is not for the kids in the bus, but for the cars around the bus that see the advertising when they’re at a stop sign or driving down the highway,” said Bryan Nelson, a Republican state representative from Florida’s 38th District, outside of Orlando. Mr. Nelson is sponsoring legislation that would allow school bus ads and direct much of the revenue toward defraying the buses’ fuel costs. “When you think about how many people are going to see those ads, you get a lot of exposure, so we can charge a premium price,” he said.

    Some states, including Florida, already allow advertising inside the bus. And while many states have prohibited school bus advertising for alcohol, tobacco and sexual content, none have ruled out displaying ads for junk food, Mr. Golin said.

    Pizza parlors and pizza chains are among the businesses that have purchased advertising on school buses.

    “When concern about childhood obesity is at an all-time high, and there’s a focus on taking junk foods out of schools, it’s still possible to see ads for those very same products on the sides of school buses,” said Mr. Golin. “It makes no sense.”

    In addition to schools and school buses, jails are also getting ads in some states and counties.

    Who would want to advertise to criminals? Defense lawyers and bail bondsmen.

    Next week, Erie County Holding Center in Buffalo will begin displaying ads on new high-definition television screens that defendants see immediately after arrest. The spots, which run on a loop along with the informational messages from the holding center, sell for $40 a week and have nearly sold out for the rest of the year.

    Anthony Diina, president and owner of Metrodata Services, the private company hired to run the new system, said he expected the program to bring the county $8,000 to $15,000 a year. The governments of Alaska, San Francisco and Orlando, Fla., have also contacted his company about setting up advertising programs in their jails. A jail in southwestern Florida started a similar program in 2009.

    Last year, Mr. Diina’s company set up television screens for advertising at the Erie County offices of the state Department of Motor Vehicles, a pilot program that he expects to bring the county revenue of “six figures over the course of five years.” He says that the reaction so far has been positive.

    “These ads provide distraction and amusement that lessens the perceived waiting time,” Mr. Diina said. “And it doesn’t hurt that they bring in some money, too.”

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I got bored and went back to re-read your posts in the Fat Tax thread. Seems to me you've got a strange loathing and intolerance for poor people in general, bordering on a hatred, or at least a hatred for any organized gov't funded attempt to help them out of poverty. They're simply lazy, undisciplined, and ignorant. Too bad, so sad, they can jolly well die faster as smokers or obese people as far as you're concerned. Less people sucking on the teat of hand-out Nanny, or something.

    Not coincidentally, you've also supported private insurers (and employers contributing to employee health insurance plans) dictating lifestyle choices and actively "controlling" behaviors. Higher premiums for smoking or obesity, etc. No birth control unless you can pay OOP, and no federal funds for those --lazy, ignorant, undisciplined-- poor people, either! You don't limit this to health and/or employment, but also living in tornado alley or coastal areas prone to hurricanes or floods, homeowner's insurance, FEMA and federal flood insurance.

    You're nothing more than a corporatist and insurance industry shill, claiming Freeedom as your driving principle. I don't buy it.
    Uh freedom also means the freedom to charge people more based on their behavior in the free market. I really don't see why you think its a bad thing for insurers to charge people more for behavior that will make them more likely to need insurance. I mean that is the whole point of insurance underwriting. Be that auto, dwelling or health coverage. Hey look you get a lot of speeding tickets, your insurance goes up. Hey you smoke, your insurance goes up for life/health. This is common sense, why so opposed to it?

  13. #73
    Little Fuzzy I read your mail and responded but the forum crapped out during the sending process and I am not sure if you got my response. If my response was just asinine and you're good with that, okay, but if you didn't get it, I can re-send.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Little Fuzzy I read your mail and responded but the forum crapped out during the sending process and I am not sure if you got my response. If my response was just asinine and you're good with that, okay, but if you didn't get it, I can re-send.
    I got it. Haven't had time to go any further with it.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    "He who sacrifices freedom for security [in this case, financial security!] deserves neither."
    This isn't the quote, please, both you and Draco stop butchering it. The person who said it wasn't a moron, and chose his words carefully to convey a specific meaning. Your butchering of it completely changes the meaning.
    . . .

  16. #76
    “Let the watchwords of all our people be the old familiar watchwords of honesty, decency, fair-dealing, and commonsense.”… “We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less.”"The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us.”

    Pro-tip: This was a Pubbie president, not Joe Stalin. Horror of horrors.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  17. #77
    Yessum.

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    Happy?

  18. #78
    I had one of those slightly drunken epiphanies. When it comes to making policy from people entrenched in local politics to improve local politics. PTA vs Superintendent. Kids eating subsidized lunches vs bringing brown bagged lunches from home. Tax payers vs Tax payers. Parents vs Parents.

    We often lay blame on multi-layered centralized inefficient bureaucracies. The alternative is to place power on parents or teachers and de-centralized bureaucracies. Perhaps we've given too much power to the powerful people who give credence to power structures, the adult administrators and bureaucracies, and not given enough attention to.....the students.

    In all these debates and discussions revolving around public education, teachers, lunch room foods and all that, the only voices I hear are coming from parents, teachers, administrators. The adult people with the power, but not the young people whose needs we're trying to figure out.

    Are the adults failing children because we've ignored the children?

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Yessum.

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    Happy?
    Highlighted some of the main, meaning changing differences, in this quote compared to the one you gave.
    . . .

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I had one of those slightly drunken epiphanies. When it comes to making policy from people entrenched in local politics to improve local politics. PTA vs Superintendent. Kids eating subsidized lunches vs bringing brown bagged lunches from home. Tax payers vs Tax payers. Parents vs Parents.

    We often lay blame on multi-layered centralized inefficient bureaucracies. The alternative is to place power on parents or teachers and de-centralized bureaucracies. Perhaps we've given too much power to the powerful people who give credence to power structures, the adult administrators and bureaucracies, and not given enough attention to.....the students.

    In all these debates and discussions revolving around public education, teachers, lunch room foods and all that, the only voices I hear are coming from parents, teachers, administrators. The adult people with the power, but not the young people whose needs we're trying to figure out.

    Are the adults failing children because we've ignored the children?
    Dunno...

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Highlighted some of the main, meaning changing differences, in this quote compared to the one you gave.
    I think it's the same.

  21. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    I think it's the same.
    Your thinking something does not make it so.

    For instance, Speech is an essential liberty. Being able to drive while intoxicated is not. Which means the quote can be applied to say, the government restricting speech in order to save a few lives, but not the government making it illegal to drive drunk in order to save a few lives. Which shows some forethought, depth of knowledge, and nuance of the author. Essentially it means that people like yourself can't whip it out for anything that can be construed as a freedom for any reason.
    . . .

  22. #82
    I don't think "essential liberty" by itself means any more than "freedom". It needs historical context...

    You could do the same kind of analysis if you replaced it with "freedom". You can't make an argument for what either thing means ("freedom"/"essential liberty") without an explanation. (that e.g. drunk driving is neither a "freedom" nor an "essential liberty".)

  23. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    I don't think "essential liberty" by itself means any more than "freedom".
    Liberty by itself is synonymous with freedom. Essential is acting as an adjective of liberty, describing what type it is.

    It needs historical context...
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Franklin was a leading author and printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, inventor, satirist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat
    So there is your historical context. It was written by a very well educated and intelligent person who knew how to string words together to express ideas succinctly, and with granular meaning, both because he was intelligent, educated, and because it was his f--king job.
    . . .

  24. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Liberty by itself is synonymous with freedom. Essential is acting as an adjective of liberty, describing what type it is.

    ...

    So there is your historical context. It was written by a very well educated and intelligent person who knew how to string words together to express ideas succinctly, and with granular meaning, both because he was intelligent, educated, and because it was his f--king job.
    Right, so even mis-quoted, the context I think provides the "correct" meaning of the quote for most people. "Essential" is a very subjective item, until you put it in the context of the American Revolution... the proof is in the margins, you see. It's all there. The margins are too small, though.

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
    For fuck's sake! This is an opinion, not an some deeper factual truth about life! It's just a pithy quote whose only purpose today is to mock others for being fraidycat sheeple, even though in reality it's an expression of a position that is untenable in a modern society. Anyone who implicitly supports the sentiment in that quote by eg. posting it in a discussion is a hypocrite. Stop using this retarded and underhanded quote in good discussions with good people. God
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  26. #86
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    For fuck's sake! This is an opinion, not an some deeper factual truth about life! It's just a pithy quote whose only purpose today is to mock others for being fraidycat sheeple, even though in reality it's an expression of a position that is untenable in a modern society. Anyone who implicitly supports the sentiment in that quote by eg. posting it in a discussion is a hypocrite. Stop using this retarded and underhanded quote in good discussions with good people. God
    Wow...miss your meds today?
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  27. #87
    You've got me confused with GGT. You're supposed to ask me if I'm on my period or refer to the bunchiness of my panties. Amateur

    I now see Illusions has already engaged the enemy
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  28. #88
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Well, it is easy to confuse you with her.

    (There was that professional enough? )
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  29. #89
    To be fair, your kind seem to have an easy time of confusing things. Note Aggie's confusion over the last couple of pages I hope we can all one day come to understand the value of anger. It's better than ritalin
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  30. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    You've got me confused with GGT. You're supposed to ask me if I'm on my period or refer to the bunchiness of my panties. Amateur I now see Illusions has already engaged the enemy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •