Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Rococo Modem Basilisk

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
GASM Command / Urine luck (or shits and giggles?)
« on: August 08, 2009, 10:19:47 pm »
Disclaimer: This idea came out of the toilet paper squares in Cram's "Lesser Poop" issue of intermittens, and may or may not be quite as original as I think it is.

Some urinals, rather than having cakes, have little rubber pads. My idea was to stencil/paint words like "FREEDOM", "LOVE", "JUSTICE", etc. onto the urinal pads and then put them back in the urinal. Anyone using the urinal will be pissing on love/freedom/justice/equality/liberty/fraternity and then have trouble flushing it ;-)

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / A model of communication as waves
« on: July 28, 2009, 04:14:31 am »

In every medium, the content is formed not by the arrangement of symbols by in the interference patterns between the self/intent of the author and the self/intent of the audience. The symbols are the waveform put out by the author, and are meaningless and blank until the audience allows the interference pattern to form, which gives it meaning.

The interference pattern between the ego of the author as author and author as audience is null -- the intent will cancel and the message will be meaningless; in the context it will seem to mean everything in the author's self.

Over time, an author and an audience changes, because the messages so absorbed have their effects on the self. Solitude will expand single simple messages out to block out all else -- a jamais vu -- but without solitude, the interchange of messages causes a change in all involved, the interference patterns causing the illusion of complexity. In this way, an author can become a receptive audience for his previous self.

Since the initial wave has no meaning without context, any meaning implied by context is valuable as a reflection of both parties and their environment. The message says as much about the audience as it does about the author, and likewise says as much about their respective situations and prior influences.

The illusion of complexity is an illusion in the strict sense: it has no proof. To go by the identity of indistinguishables, as the illusion of complexity cannot be disproven to be complex, it is in effect complex. There is no complexity that is provably not illusitory.


The ego is the interference pattern between the ego and the other. As such, the ego changes through communication.

The whole of the ego is not explicitly apparent in the other. The interference patterns, although ostensibly complete, appear incomplete. Pieces cancel which may or may not signify. Only through change of ego can those pieces become apparent.

The shadow is signified by its echo. The self hides the shadow by self-cancelling with its own attempts at ego modification, but a resonance with the shadow will make it appear either by an exaggerated wave inversion or by the overpowering of the persona's waveform by the shadow. In this way does the shadow manefest.

The interference pattern of the self and the self is the amplified self. The interference pattern of the self and the inverted self is the void. The interference pattern of the ego and the shadow is the self.

The self, by imperfectly echoing, can propagate changes to the ego and the shadow. The self, by perfectly echoing, can only self-destruct.


Time passes in an apparent fashion not separate from the ego, but in terms of changes to it.

The internal dialogue and the dream state is the imperfect communication between the self as author and the self as audience. The noise is theraputic.

Without dialogue, there is no apparent time. Without qualitative changes to the self, there is no apparent time to the self, but there is a change in amplification.

Dialogue, as the exchange and mutual absorbtion of interference patterns between the self and the other, is the system by which both apparent time and apparent autonomy is reached. From arbitrary initial forms, the waveforms self-order. Feedback within the system supports this.

The internal monologue is an illusion. The internal monologue is an internal dialogue. A true monologue is not communication since it is not bidirectional; a true monologue involves a static source which itself does not change in response to interference. Though it may affect the audience differently as the audience changes, it itself cannot adapt, so the data it contains is finite unlike that which can self-modify. It is a string of symbols disconnected from its source, and as it cannot dynamically adapt, it cannot retain its ability to cause others to adapt without a dynamic support network.


A monologue seeks to replace the waveform of other selves with itself, but it never will. In order to do so, it must have a second dynamic self and the interplay of the two must normalize the differences by repeating both the interference pattern with the self and that with its inversion infinitely. Therefore, a monologue can never perfectly overwrite the self.

Although the self initially is programmed with echoes of the random and the accidental, it gives itself form by interplay with others. Without interplay, it cannot organize and remains not static but fundamentally unstable.

The human is fundamentally different not in its ability to engage in dialogue but in its willingness to use both dialogue and monologue in support of each other. Time binding is not the monologue itself, but the interplay of dialogue and monologue -- the symbols in the monologue are meaningless unless their meaning can change by their interplay with changing selves.

The time-binding instinct allows the static and the dynamic to have interplay by which the monologue can become dynamic despite remaining static. The symbols do not change, but their meaning changes as the audience interacts with new symbols in new contexts. In this way, the static appears to move and its apparent movement becomes a metric for apparent time.

The time-binding instinct is therefore well-named, since by staying objectively static and subjectively dynamic only in respect to apparent time, it gives the only reliable measure of apparent time.


The monologue cannot put the dialogue in stasis, and it cannot itself remain subjectively static. It fails at imparting immutable meaning.

Since the monologue is objectively immutable and subjectively mutable constant with the flow of apparent time, the change in its meaning is a reasonable approximation of apparent time. However, the monologue, thus subjectively dynamic, itself adds to the flow of apparent time. In this way, the monologue becomes a dialogue with itself.

The dialogue between the monologue and itself is facilitated by the dialogue between various impressions or interference patterns with the monologue in terms of secondary impressions, which likewise influence the monologue itself.

The illusitory mutability of the monologue is therefore the main strength of the monologue in that by being static, it causes itself to become dynamic.

Thus, this document as a monologue changes meanings each time you read it. Interaction with the other will likewise change this document's meaning moreso, and even its organization will interact with its meaning if these associations are primed and triggered. You, the audience, cannot unread this document. You have been changed.

There is no new info here. Move along.

An idea I have been playing with (and experimenting with, though with no rigour) for a while is that of using google as a medium for relaying intent.

Google's pagerank, given that it is used constantly by lots of people and that it is trusted to be more or less functional, is in control of a large amount of people's semantic environment -- specifically, the invisible stuff that they assume and don't consider. The outcome of pagerank's machinations is the internet equivalent of the unspoken cultural norms that make, say, Japan different from Britain different from the US.

Pagerank, however, is mutable by more or less invisible processes. It's based on statistics, and the mechanisms are well known. By slightly shifting the meanings of key words and phrases, you can affect the way those key words and phrases are perceived. In theory.

I use a blogger blog for this, linked in my sig, and I generate (mostly) nonsense which is then linked to arbitrary web pages based on a slight semantic shift in the meaning of the linked phrase in its context. The pagerank of the page itself is kept up using blogger's own header/footer feature. The slight semantic shift is, in AoM terminology, both the capsid and the mutagen (the fact that it is slight is the capsid, and the fact that it's a semantic shift is the mutagen).

If anyone has further ideas for experimentation in this method, or wants more info or is willing to try on their own, I would like to hear about it.

Apple Talk / Sigil thread
« on: June 17, 2009, 04:20:50 am »
Since people don't like me posting my sigils in the pic thread usually (or just are kind of wtf about it), I decided to take someone's advice and make a separate thread. Anybody else who has sigils (or pictures that look like sigils, or mspaint scribbles, or whatever) can post them here so as not to junk up the pics thread.

Bring and Brag / Quote-unquote MUSIC
« on: April 24, 2009, 04:30:40 pm »
My band (which is actually just me and my laptop, in reality, but on paper consists of a few more members) has finally released our new album, which has been in the works since like January.  <-- The new album <-- all our albums

License-wise, all of those can be downloaded and redistributed, sold, &c. That is, if you can find anyone willing to buy it :P.

I am unsure whether or not to call any of it 'music'.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Yet another overloaded ersatz BIP metaphor
« on: February 25, 2009, 03:12:40 pm »
I came across a document (credited to Terrence McKenna, but it was short and full of misspellings, and would probably constitute an anachronism due to the content, so this is questionable but irrelevant to the point) comparing culture to an OS for the human biocomputer. I like this metaphor, but I think the way that this may-be-or-not-McKenna explained it was total BS and was not taking full advantage of the metaphor. So, this is my attempt at an extension/rewrite to make this coincide with the various attempts at making a less clunky map-pataphor covering the BIP's territory.

So, as a child, you are more or less indoctrinated into culture. Before you have said your first words, you have already been imprinted with certain functions in more or less the way that is standard across the culture. By the time you reach puberty, you are expected to more or less have a default install -- this is the function of schools and of family units, generally, as well as one of the functions of television and other audiovisual media. Part of this cultural imprinting is highly pragmatic (in the colloquial sense): it is far easier to interact with a large network of nearly-identical systems than to interact with a large network of highly disparate systems, and so it is a benefit to both maintenance crews (administration types, arguably, and probably law enforcement too) and to anyone who needs to interact with a very large swath of strangers (advertisers, salespeople, marketing people, news media, entertainment media, &c.) since you can assume that most of the time the software will be nearly exactly the same -- people are trained to do little more than changing the cognitive equivalent of their desktop wallpapers and homepages, and they rarely even write their own files, instead being comfortable with downloading other people's image macros and saving archives of internet chain letters.

But, little do most people know that their cultural OS is in fact open source. They have been trained to stay away from the text editor and compiler, and they have been trained to deny that they can program, although they certainly know that they are written in the language of dream logic.

You know the language you are written in. You know how to modify your existing programs. Why don't you fix a bug or two, write a game or a utility here and there? Script some common actions, and change your API when it will benefit you.

Before you know it, you are no longer stock. Sure, you look the same from the outside -- the interface is transparent, so you seem to be using the same protocols. But you've been tuned up -- optimized under the hood, with hidden functions that your friends don't know about and fixes for the common exploits that nobody has released patches for despite the fact that the script kiddies have been using them to send you popup spam since the advent of television.

Techmology and Scientism / Zomg emergence
« on: February 18, 2009, 03:03:58 pm »

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Green lego prison
« on: February 18, 2009, 02:29:20 am »
The main arguments against the BIP metaphor seem to be:
1) it's dark
2) people move, prisons don't
3) prisoners don't build their prisons
4) prisons can be escaped

This is my (gross hack) attempt at creating a (gross hack) metaphor to (kluge) patch this.

The prison is not black iron. The prison you have been building from birth is made of legos.

Sure, when you're young, creating a house out of legos seemed like fun. You were enthusiastic. Perhaps you were brought up with one of the official instruction sheets, where if you followed the directions, you'd get the same lego motorhome as {jesus,muhamed,the good reverend roger}. Perhaps you were brought up without an instruction sheet and just stuck blocks together. Either way, you managed to build up a home around you (it can move, because it's one of these new-fangled super high power MindStorms kits with the biobattery, and you can even make it do simple tasks by itself like you see on the commercials! oh joy). Perhaps in your teenage years, in a fit of rage, you demolished some small bit of it and had to rebuild it in a different shape. Even so, it probably hasn't changed in a while. This is such a popular thing to do that you barely even notice anymore that you're living inside a house of tiny plastic bricks. Nobody really bothers to notice that you're in one either, and most days you can get by just by using the preprogrammed functions that you wrote during that weekend playing with the drag-and-drop programming thing when you were young.

But it's a bit boring in that lego house of yours, isn't it? You've been in the damned thing for how many years now? You've given up hope of getting out -- a little remodeling is fine, but trying to pry the bricks from those old, smooth inner walls is enough to make your fingers bleed. You've got everything you need in here anyway, right?

Well, you know... Just because you can't break through the walls in one go doesn't mean that you can't do some major remodeling over time. It's been a while since you did any of that stuff -- the preprogrammed functions have let you get through school, get through every day at the office... you hardly ever need to do anything that requires real thinking or real movement -- so of course you will have a rough time initially. For a while, it may seem like your own lego house is a prison or a death trap or some kind of macabre chapel perilous. But you made it, and you can take it apart.

First, open up a little moonroof. Let the sun in sometimes, and get a little more fresh air. Maybe try to brush up on those long-ignored mindstorms programming skills and add new automatic functions, or fix old ones, or remove ones you no longer need. You should remember that a lot of these were made when you were very little, and are both quite useless and very badly written. Perhaps maybe you can make it into a convertable, if you have time. And you have so much more time these days, now that you have the sun from the sunroof energizing you and the fresh air and your automatic functions are more useful and more optimized.

Hell, you can still ride around in the thing, right? You have your new and improved, souped up lego house. Leaving it, of course, would look ridiculous -- everyone of your age wears lego houses! You'd be naked without one, and crazy (you might get arrested for indecent exposure). I mean, sure, do it if you like, but it's way more fun just to pimp it out.

Just remember that some day, it will cease to be new and pimped out, and will become boring again. At that time, remember how you did a little fiddling and slowly changed your lego house into something that you're proud to drive around. It's easier now -- you have more practice.

Obviously this needs some work.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Copypasta courtesy of Cory Doctorow.
« on: February 11, 2009, 10:16:46 pm »
So, universal access to all human knowledge seems like it may, in fact, be a
reasonable goal at this point.  This is a pretty amazing thing, and it's
understandable that we got very, very, very excited about this, but the thing
that the Internet is even better at than providing universal access to all human
knowledge is nuking collaboration costs - getting rid of the cost of getting
people together to do stuff, and getting people together to do stuff is even
more important that universal access to all human knowledge, because getting
people together to do stuff is what allows us to be literally superhuman.  That
is to say, if you and someone else can do something that transcends that which
you could do alone, then you have done something that is more than one human
could do - it is superhuman.  Every institution that has ever tried to do
something superhuman - and that includes every protest group, every family
that's trying to cook a dinner together, every corporation, every government,
every church - every institution that's ever tried to do something superhuman
has had to tithe a piece of their time to just coordinating stuff.  Just getting
people to all point in the same direction, and march in the same direction and
keep all in lockstep, and not fall too far behind, and not get too far ahead,
and not tear anything important, and not take the potato that the other person
was about to peel out from under their nose.

All of those pieces have been the dead weight on superhumanness.  In fact,
Ronald Coase, who's the First Chief Economist of the American Federal
Communications Commission won the Nobel prize for a 1937 paper called 'The
Nature of The Firm' in which he identified these transaction costs, and more
importantly, solving these transaction costs as the primary job of any firm.
That no matter what it was you were up to, the way that you solved the problem
of getting people to do stuff together was the thing that characterised your
business, or your institution.  So the reason that, for example, General
Electric has bought the National Broadcasting Corporation is not because the
National Broadcasting Corporation is generally electrical, it's because General
Electric thinks that it's very good at getting people to do stuff together, and
one of the things that it thinks it can do is get NBC to do stuff together in a
way that realises more profit than it has been to date - that they can wring new
value out of it. 

So, companies are in the business of getting people to do stuff together. But
the more money you spend on coordinating, the less money there is left over for
profit; or if you're not a for-profit entity, the more time you spend cooking
dinner the less time there is to eat it; the more time you spend figuring out
where you're going to eat, the less time there is to eat there; the more time
you spend figuring out where you're going on holidays, the less time you have to
spend on your holidays.  What the web has done, is it's just kicked the
everloving crap out of the cost of organising people, so for example we now make
encyclopaedias and operating systems the way that ants build hills.

Imagine if you were going to erect a skyscraper, and the way that you were going
to erect the skyscraper was by putting up a notice that said, "I have this empty
lot.  If you happen to have any structural steel, architectural diagrams,
furnishings, rivets or welding guns, and you'd like to come down and help me
build a skyscraper there, I'd love to have you around, because we're going to
build the skyscraper - it'll probably take about 10 years, and when we're done
we'll all move into it."  I imagine you wouldn't get much of a skyscraper out of
it, but this is, in fact, more or less how we built both Wikipedia and Linux,
and say what you will about Wikipedia, it certainly performs a lot better than
that notional skyscraper would.  In fact, when I hear people criticise
Wikipedia, I often think that they're discussing a different Wikipedia than the
one I access, which seems to be chock-full of incredibly useful facts, including
the fact that sometimes people disagree very vehemently about what it is that
has been presented on the front page of Wikipedia.  It's been a long time since
I opened a newspaper and discovered a little sidebox next to the article that
says "6 out of the 9 reporters in the bull-pen thought that this was garbage,
but the Editor In Chief decided to run it anyway", but having worked for
newspapers, I'm here to tell you that there's more than one article in today's
edition of whatever newspaper you've just picked up that fits that very nicely.

So Wikipedia, and the GNU/Linux operating system which is running on this
machine, and probably running on the majority of servers that you've interacted
with today, including the box under your telly that's running your Sky plus, or
Virgin plus, or what have you - most of those systems are running some variant
of GNU/Linux built, if not by volunteers, then by people who weren't being
centrally coordinated in the way that we've historically centrally coordinated
the building of materials.  Same goes for a browser like Firefox, but that kind
of overt collaboration is just the opening act - there's a lot of collaboration
that's so simple, and so cheap, that we don't even notice that we're doing it. 

How many of you use Flickr?  Flickr has tags, as I'm sure you know - everyone's
encountered tags - and tags are an interesting alternative to something like the
Dewey Decimal System, or other notions for top-down organisation.  If nothing
else, it avoids some of the idiosyncratic problems that are inherent to allowing
someone like Dewey to design the universal taxonomy of everything that it's
possible to know, because Dewey for example has, I think, 3 categories for
religion: there's Christianity, Zoroastrianism and 'other'.

So, tags are pretty cool for that, but where tags get really interesting is
where you'd think that they would work worst of all - in things like abstract
nouns.  I subscribe to a Flickr feed of an abstract word, 'decay', and every day
my decay feed has 100 to 200 photos in it of varying quality, most of them
rather good, that are kind of coffee-table book, photo-essay meditations on the
theme of decay, and it starts with the kind of thing that you might expect to
see, like the thing that's turned into a science experiment in the back of your
office refrigerator, but it also covers things like beautifully peeling,
textured old fences, or handsome old barns that have gone down to their knees
and are rotting in someone's paddock, or an old jet, or someone's gran, or a
leaf in a field, and every other conceivable subject.

Now the interesting thing about this is that no-one ever convened a 'decay
working group' to discuss what the parameters of decay would be - in fact the
majority of these people, I'll wager, have never spoken to each other, don't
know what the other ones are up to, and have just kind of stumbled upon this
abstract label, and are playing a kind of collaborative game without rules and
without any co-ordination cost at all.

But even that looks expensive next to the most ubiquitous and cheapest form of
collaboration I know of on the Internet, which is making links to stuff.  You
and me and anyone who's ever made a link between two web pages helped to create
an underlying structure to the Internet - a citational structure that Google and
other search engines come along and hoover up, and then analyse to see who links
to which pages, which pages are most linked-to and therefore thought to be most
authoritative, where those pages link to and how they've had their authority
conferred on them.  This sounds familiar to anyone who's an academic - it's more
or less how citations work if you're trying for a better job at the university,
and of course Google was founded by a couple of PhD candidates: when all you've
got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

What this means is that the old approach to organising knowledge which is
embodied by the early Google competitors like Yahoo, who initially - you may
remember that Yahoo used to stand for Yet Another Hierarchical... I think
Obstreperous Oracle... Officious Oracle...  Yet Another Hierarchical Officious
Oracle - and the idea was that Yahoo would pay giant boiler rooms full of bored
people to look at every page on the Internet and sort them into their proper
single category (or multiple categories) in the One True Taxonomy of All Human
Knowledge. And this was outstripped by the web's growth so quickly that it just
kind of fell behind and became a kind of sick joke until Google came along and
figured out how to enlist every person on the Internet who ever makes a link
between two web-pages to collaborate on teaching it what the underlying
structure of the Internet is.  You literally couldn't pay enough money to
organise the Internet - you can only do it for free - you can only do it by
allowing people to make these links. 

So, this is the kind of post-web.  This is the web of cheap collaboration, and
itís given us a billion YouTube videos, blog posts, Flickr photos and every
imaginable piece of what we now call 'user-generated content', and most of them
are shit!  And this is fantastic, because it used to be that if something was
likely to turn out to be shit, you couldn't do it, and if you did do it, you
certainly couldn't do it in a way that would be reachable by other people.  The
cost of failing was so high that you had to be reasonably certain of some form
of success before you'd venture to do anything.  The fact that there are things
that make my five-month-old daughter's nappies look like high art circulating on
the Internet in a field where billions of people can get access to them tells
you just how cheap failure has become on the Internet.

And this is indeed very good news, because the cost of failure is the principal
barrier to innovation.  Most of the things that we now think of today as very
successful and interesting at one point were thought of as ridiculous, and it
was only someone who was confident enough that the cost of failure was
outweighed by the potential benefit of success that allowed these things to come
into existence. From the archway to the railroad, to lighter-than-air travel -
every one of these at one point was pooh-poohed as probably a ridiculous notion,
certain never to catch on, and it was only the fact that someone was convinced
they could afford to fail that allowed these things to come into existence.



I tried something out today, with less success than I would have liked. That said, I hope somebody else tries something similar and proves me wrong.

We all know about the law of fives, and it certainly works (at least in terms of numbers), but I questioned whether or not (as supposed by RAW, the law of fives/myth of starbuck stuff in PD, Tim Leary, and a bunch of newagers, not to mention seemingly a lot of the writing in the BIP and most proponents of the "psychocultural UFO hypothesis") it really is as pervasive in everyday life and everyday decision making. So, based on a reference in a book, I went looking, trying to see how well I could filter stuff.

I read an offhand mention in Quantum Psychology of "MEBON" -- the offshoot of MUFON that investigates only UFO reports relating to bunny rabbits. This seemed to be a pretty neat idea, so I went to research them. After finding absolutely nothing (google has several pages of results for towns named Mebon, and wikipedia has mostly the same), I decided to get into the mindset of a hypothetical MEBON agent and try to correlate existing UFO reports with bunny rabbits.

Despite the notability policy and the seeming upsurge in active enforcement of it, Wikipedia still has a tonne of pages relating to individual UFO incidents, as well as fringe UFO groups and oddball alien types, very localized cryptids, &c. Despite this, I found no UFO incident reports that directly relate to rabbits, and only two wherein the aliens could be mistaken for rabbits (the two are Spring-Heeled Jack -- who jumps very high and has long ears -- and one of the early sightings of "little green men" -- wherein the little green men were said to have long floppy ears/antennae and occasionally crawl on all fours). The cryptid search was almost equally mundane: nearly every cryptid with rabbit features was that of a horned/antlered normal rabbit (in other words, variants on the 'jackalope' -- and therefore in fact simply a normal rabbit with a relatively common disease that causes horn-like protrusions), and in scandinavia there were a couple crossbreeds of birds and rabbits. There was one thing that seemed promising -- the "moon rabbit" from chinese mythology -- but there weren't any sightings, and it seemed simply to be part of a backstory. I may have had better luck if I looked on the list of mutie victims for rabbit farmers.

I had no better luck after moving to the UK government's now-released UFO investigations, which contained no references to civillian sightings of EBEs at all.

It seems that for certain things, it takes far more effort or creativity to impose a functional filter. Furthermore, despite several hours of frantic wikiing, I could find *no* discernible evidence of an invasion by bunnies from outer space, even with my special creativity level normally reserved for flamewars, trolling, and writing long essays on why nothing exists and we live in an anarchist utopia functionally destroyed by perpetually horny talking lizards from Eris with magic hypno powers.

This lack of ability on my part to filter things may actually be self-imposed subconsciously, or something. After all, it's quite easy for us to find fives and 23s everywhere (and any other number), captain clarks, references to qaballah or (for me) ancient sumer, but all of those filters were initially imposed without our explicit knowledge and intent to impose, and then only later used with our conscious and explicit intent. Perhaps filters work better if the first filtered results were found without the knowledge of the conscious creation of a filter?

If someone can try this kind of thing out and see what their results are, I'd be interested in seeing the outcome.

GASM Command / A meta-gasm?
« on: October 28, 2008, 08:52:09 pm »
If anyone wants to contribute to my totally incomplete map of Operation Mindfuck, go ahead. Also feel free to fuck it up. The password is kallisti.

GASM Command / A blast from the past?
« on: October 28, 2008, 03:27:06 pm »
I have been reading The Invisibles, and I noticed that a lot of the people posting to the letters column were obviously discordians. Furthermore, a lot of them left in their full addresses. Anyone want to jake some discordians who still use the US Postal System circa 1995? It's only been a little over 10 years, so it's more likely to work than some of the addresses listed in the Principia and other discordian works from that era (California Dept of Furniture and Bedding?)

GASM Command / HIMEOBS blogging cabal
« on: October 20, 2008, 01:56:58 am »
HIMEOBS is the most powerful terrorst group evar! -->

Obviously more bloggers need to warn The American People about This Threat To Humanity, preferably via the most subtly ridiculous yet overtly plausible means necessary. We also need to do this independently, with no (obvious) communication between us, since we are getting the messages separately from HIMEOBS members and traitors.

If we can have multiple entirely contradictory yet entirely plausable interpretations that would be nice too.

Bring and Brag / Infocalypse
« on: October 17, 2008, 10:49:28 pm »

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]