|
ClemenSalad posted:A person with no interest in military history wouldn't choose to read this thread. Someone who did would and theres been cool discussion. The point of this thread is that someone interested in military history can come in and discuss it. A person with no military history is modding this thread. I'm going out of my way to try to work with you guys here. Maybe make it fun as well. I am not opposed to learning about new things. SaltyJesus posted:Are you seriously having a dig at me for being misogynist or something? First of all I have no idea what gender you are nor do I care. Secondly I personally think their clothes are fabulous, moreover I think it's really interesting that they were excused from decency laws because their lives were "short and brutish". The story goes that they would take bits of clothes from their slain enemies, creating a patchwork of fabric and making them look like murderous harlequins. They would slash their over-shirts/pants and pull the fabric underneath through those slashes to form puffs of contrasting color. These patches were as much for flair as they were for repairing the tears and slashes their clothes would suffer in battle. See now that is an interesting story I did not know about. And you have little concept of fun and humour. SaltyJesus: funkiller. :P Veins McGee posted:What is making a new thread going to change? There must be something simple here that I'm missing. The same people are going to post in the thread. We're going to discuss some of the same things that we've already discussed and some new things. There is no circlejerk except when someone posts a topic that has been beaten into the ground(i.e. the bear, which isn't even a topic. Its just a fact). People are still going to get mildly annoyed when someone posts about the bear in any new thread. It's going to hopefully change the obnoxious reports. This is a good thread, I'd preffer to not watch it die in a glorious battle of "no you!". "We've all made it pretty clear what we want" = 4 for leave it, 2 for go to D&D, 2 for Undecided/maybe find somewhere else for it, and 3 for new thread/op. If I was 'the mod and going to do whatever I wanted' I wouldn't be having this discussion or trying to find a middle ground in an amusing way. But I sure could. SilverSliver fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Aug 17, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
The advantage of staying in ask/tell is that it invites a certain attitude. While some things come up repeatedly, the overall attitude is that questions are asked, answered, and people want to move on to new topics. This is distinct from D&D where people feel that long term debates are welcome and consider backing down to be tantamount to cowardice. And being here means that people who aren't interested in guns, and who aren't part of the military can feel more welcome. SilverSilver, which part of milhistory would you potentially be most interested in? Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:03
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The advantage of staying in ask/tell is that it invites a certain attitude. While some things come up repeatedly, the overall attitude is that questions are asked, answered, and people want to move on to new topics. This is distinct from D&D where people feel that long term debates are welcome and consider backing down to be tantamount to cowardice. And being here means that people who aren't interested in guns, and who aren't part of the military can feel more welcome. I am all for you guys staying in here period. I'll be honest with you. What I'm doing here is either breaking up the current conversation which is the same people talking about the same things and it's starting to make problems, or starting a new thread wherein hopefully new posters would come take a look see and generate interesting conversation. I honestly don't understand why some are so opposed to the idea of a new thread since every successful thread gets a 'part 2' after a couple hundred pages for the reason of stagnation anyhow. I had proposed the idea of moving the thread in case you guys thought it was a better idea than staying here. I really have no idea what would interest me, but I'm willing to learn just about whatever you'd like to talk about. I love history, it's just that as soon as I hear the word military I think "People finding reasons to kill other people - ugh".
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
I'm up for changing it to a Ask Us and starting it anew. As for something interesting in military history, a little bit of stage magic helped the Allies in the 2nd World War.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
All of our problems would be solved, if we just had a WWII thread again. Every derail has been about WWII. How about we just change the subject of this thread to be about war history before WWII? And if we have to make new threads, we could make two, one about WWII and more modern and one about other war history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Did you like Pirates of the Caribbean? There was a privateer named Pierre Maisonnat who happened to be my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather. He liked to pick fights with English warships and deliberately beach his ship, because everyone knows you can't sink on land. One time this didn't work out very well and he had to walk hundreds of miles through hostile territory on the Eastern Seaboard to get back to Acadia. He was a folk hero with the Acadians and Native Americans for liberally sharing stolen English loot. Queen Anne personally ordered the execution of all pirates after he was captured in Boston, but his supporters threatened to attack the city if he were killed. After his release he fought in Queen Anne's War and helped to arm more pirates. His last historical act was choosing the site for Louisbourg Fortress, and after that point quietly fades out of the history books. He had at least three wives we know of, including at least two at the same time. I was descended from one of the women he married in Acadia, while his wife from France was still alive. In an odd coincidence, one of his crew on the Bonne was my ancestor on the other side of my family.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:30
|
|
SilverSliver posted:I am all for you guys staying in here period. I'll be honest with you. What I'm doing here is either breaking up the current conversation which is the same people talking about the same things and it's starting to make problems, or starting a new thread wherein hopefully new posters would come take a look see and generate interesting conversation. I honestly don't understand why some are so opposed to the idea of a new thread since every successful thread gets a 'part 2' after a couple hundred pages for the reason of stagnation anyhow. Then just close this one and someone will make a new thread. Nothing is going to change except we'll be on page 1 instead of page 332 and there will be a new OP. Progress! Hogge Wild posted:All of our problems would be solved, if we just had a WWII thread again. Every derail has been about WWII. How about we just change the subject of this thread to be about war history before WWII? And if we have to make new threads, we could make two, one about WWII and more modern and one about other war history. How is discussing military history in the military history thread a derail? It may not interest you, but so what? vains fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
For new content, what kind of payload did catapults/trebuchets/other pre cannon thrower-type weapons typically use? Was it bears? Bears driving tank destroyers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:31
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:All of our problems would be solved, if we just had a WWII thread again. Every derail has been about WWII. How about we just change the subject of this thread to be about war history before WWII? And if we have to make new threads, we could make two, one about WWII and more modern and one about other war history. Also, not a bad suggestion. We did have a Cold War specific one in the past. But the WW2 thread would need some special rules to keep it from descending once more in the abyss. daveftw posted:For new content, what kind of payload did catapults/trebuchets/other pre cannon thrower-type weapons typically use? Depends on the era and what nation as is this is a pretty broad question. With the trebuchet it was pretty much any drat heavy/rotten and disease ridden/quicklime smeared thing you could fit on it. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:34
|
|
|
Actually I don't think we've covered that much post-WW2 stuff, that might be an interesting direction to go in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
SilverSliver posted:And you have little concept of fun and humour. SaltyJesus: funkiller. :P Noooooo, I do joeks, I swear!  I'm just a little touchy about being called misogynist for reasons that do not belong in a milhist thread.I'm thirding the WWII thread suggestion, most of the stale discussions this thread circles back to seem to be from WWII.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:38
|
|
I'm a man and I loving love the cut and design of most military uniforms. And not ashamed to admit it. Look at these dapper dudes. Also, guess the country and era of said uniform for bonus points.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:41
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Also, not a bad suggestion. We did have a Cold War specific one in the past. But the WW2 thread would need some special rules to keep it from descending once more in the abyss. This is kinda what I was getting at. I had assumed it was just big-rear end rocks, but it seems like that wouldn't really do that much damage unless you moved the catapult every time you fired.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I'm a man and I loving love the cut and design of most military uniforms. And not ashamed to admit it. Japan circa Russo-Japanese war? It looks like they're trying to imitate some aspects of Western uniforms but some other aspects aren't really there. I don't know the right terminology so it's hard to explain, am I close?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
Sort of right about the emulation of European fashions, they are Chinese soldiers and officers from the early Warlord Era of 20th century era China which hasn't been covered in depth by this thread yet. EDIT: Apparently, they are Imperial Chinese Soldiers too. I think they are Nationalists or a better off Warlords lot. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
Didn't we have a WWII thread a few months ago? It went to poo poo in about three posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I'm up for changing it to a Ask Us and starting it anew. Y'know, both the landsknecht's conspicuous garderobe and modern camoflage remind me of how there is a wildlife equivalent to everything...  HEY LOOK AT ME YES YOU CAN SEE ME BEWARE I'M BAD FOR YOU   wot, a hunter? here?? no sir, it's totally safe here...   LMFAO I'M INVISIBLE THIS IS FUCKIN AWESOME YOU CAN'T SEE ME  Hogge Wild posted:All of our problems would be solved, if we just had a WWII thread again. Every derail has been about WWII. How about we just change the subject of this thread to be about war history before WWII? And if we have to make new threads, we could make two, one about WWII and more modern and one about other war history. I don't think this is a workable solution. History is an evolutionary process, you can't just rule out discussion about events post-1930's if you want to talk about, say, WW1 infantry, tank, submarine and air doctrines. If anything the split should go ca. Russo-Japanese war or some other point. Besides, this sounds like the "WW2 and modern war history" thread would be just an endless spiral of heated debate over US tank destroyers. What good would that do? Why not just ban discussion on specific topics if they irritate folks so much?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:00
|
|
|
SilverSliver posted:A person with no military history is modding this thread. Theres dozens of threads in ask/tell, you don't need to be an expert on all the topics to handle problem posters. Theres probably many more threads you aren't interested in. I don't see how its relevant as a moderator's personal topic interests really shouldn't have a bearing on anything. SilverSliver posted:I am all for you guys staying in here period. I'll be honest with you. What I'm doing here is either breaking up the current conversation which is the same people talking about the same things and it's starting to make problems, or starting a new thread wherein hopefully new posters would come take a look see and generate interesting conversation. I'm really confused as to what the problems are. You said you've been getting a few reports over the last few days. This obviously isn't a recurring constant sore of a problem as people are rarely if ever probated in this thread. So I'm asking you why handling a few reports once from this thread that doesn't usually generate reports is such a problem that you need to nuke it. quote:I honestly don't understand why some are so opposed to the idea of a new thread since every successful thread gets a 'part 2' after a couple hundred pages for the reason of stagnation anyhow. quote:but I'm willing to learn just about whatever you'd like to talk about. I love history, it's just that as soon as I hear the word military I think "People finding reasons to kill other people - ugh". ClemenSalad fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:12
|
|
|
We don't actually have Tank Destroyer discussions anymore, it's just become an in-joke for the thread. And the original TD discussion was actually quite informative and an important part of an interesting discussion about the rapid evolution of armoured warfare in the 40's and the different branches everyone took. e: ^^ it's also just wrong. Politics is people coming up with reasons to kill each other. Military history is explaining how they did it. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
ClemenSalad posted:The reason people are so weary of you is you come into the thread saying it needs to go and "oh by the way, I have zero interest in the thread topic but entertain me". You then proceed to poo poo on the people humoring you throwing out ideas for you learn about and even implied someone is a misogynist for showing you some uniforms. Maybe this is a little harsh. Not everybody can be interested in all the topic of an Ask/Tell forum and I don't see the mod challenge as a terrible thing either, just incentivizes people to effortpost and bring their best stories. I don't think this thread is problematic and would like it to stay but I am not opposed to the idea of a fresh and expanded OP with highlights and discussion rules. Alchenar posted:e: ^^ it's also just wrong. Politics is people coming up with reasons to kill each other. Military history is explaining how they did it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
I could tell you a story of a forgotten battle in a land far away, the battle of the Korsun Pocket. Or I can give you my Chinese propaganda on our glorious Party's backstabbing by the traitorous Guomindang rats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Maybe this is a little harsh. Not everybody can be interested in all the topic of an Ask/Tell forum and I don't see the mod challenge as a terrible thing either, just incentivizes people to effortpost and bring their best stories. I don't think this thread is problematic and would like it to stay but I am not opposed to the idea of a fresh and expanded OP with highlights and discussion rules. Well yea, if she came in and asked us for some cool stories that'd be awesome. But she was asking us to justify this thread's existence with stories while loudly saying she doesn't care about any of this. Its fine that she isn't interested in military history, theres lots of threads I don't care about, but it shouldn't be a reason to lose the thread. The thread isn't taking up forum's real estate, its frequented by many users, and doesn't cause many problems. What needs to be changed? ClemenSalad fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Actually I don't think we've covered that much post-WW2 stuff, that might be an interesting direction to go in. There's already a pretty good Cold War thread in TFR. Nenonen posted:I don't think this is a workable solution. History is an evolutionary process, you can't just rule out discussion about events post-1930's if you want to talk about, say, WW1 infantry, tank, submarine and air doctrines. If anything the split should go ca. Russo-Japanese war or some other point. Events post-1930s had no effect on the infantry, tank, sub or air doctrines of WWI. Where the thread belongs is really a question of how you want it modded. You can say history is a discussion blah blah but the key point is that history is something people look at through the distorted lens of their perceptions of the present, and different fora are going to be myopic in specific ways regarding this material. A lot of people with subject matter knowledge, particularly more recent stuff, were active duty military at some point and don't go into D&D because they get tired of being called babykillers. Similarly there are plenty of people who feel strongly about history who won't go into TFR or GIP because they get tired of getting banned for calling people babykillers. I'm no A/T regular but the modding can't be too bad in here if the thread's made it to 300+ pages and isn't rife with forums cancer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:43
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:There's already a pretty good Cold War thread in TFR. Its more that WWII is often discussed through the lens of WWI. Examining change over time is history.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Events post-1930s had no effect on the infantry, tank, sub or air doctrines of WWI. Yet the conduct of WW2 was a direct result, one might even say "perfection", of the doctrinal studies initiated during or before the Great War. Take the Gallipoli campaign, for instance: it just begs comparison to how amphibious operations were conducted 30 years later, or today. And it goes the other way: you can't discuss the Manstein Plan without comparing to the Schlieffen Plan. It'd be a very artificial separation. Hell, people can't even come to agreement over when and where WW2 started...
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Yet the conduct of WW2 was a direct result, one might even say "perfection", of the doctrinal studies initiated during or before the Great War. Take the Gallipoli campaign, for instance: it just begs comparison to how amphibious operations were conducted 30 years later, or today. And it goes the other way: you can't discuss the Manstein Plan without comparing to the Schlieffen Plan. It'd be a very artificial separation. D-Day is really better viewed in the light of the Dieppe Raid and Anzio though. People forget that the Allies conducted fairly major amphibious assaults in Europe in 1942 and 1943 and screwed up both horribly (though you also have Sicily and the initial Italian landings as a counterpoint).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
I don't really like the idea of splitting off a WWII thread. (a) WWII is such a key transition point in the history of warfare, marking the switch between the sort of massed infantry tactics of previous wars and the mechanised dominated battles and/or guerilla warfare of later conflicts. It is difficult to discuss earlier and/or later conflicts without reference to it, and difficult to discuss WWII without the context of the wars before and after it. Separating out WWII would be highly artificial. (b) The particular 'derails' were not really the fault of WWII. It was more the issue of it raising deeply held beliefs in particular readers, and it only arises in WWII because a lot of people are interested in it. Long term arguments can easily arise without WWII (see for example the cavalry charge debate), and the inclusion of non-WWII history means that we actually have something to break up the usual WWII circular arguments. (c) WWII itself is an interesting conflict, because it covers such a wide range of different theatres with different types of battles and combatants. There's plenty of stuff to talk about re: WWII that has not been spoken about before. As a counterpart to (a), putting it all in one thread creates a false impression that there is actually a rigid division between WWII and pre-WWII war, when there was in fact a huge divergence between how all the different sides saw the conflict and aimed to fight it. Snowdens Secret posted:Events post-1930s had no effect on the infantry, tank, sub or air doctrines of WWI. Comparing the tank, sub, or air doctrines of WWI to later doctrines forms a very interesting and important way of examining them and their failings. If that becomes inherently 'off topic', you're discarding a major strand of history. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
The problem with WWII-chat is that it drowns out the rest of the milhistory. I'm a lurker but what I'm noticing is that you sometimes have pages of discussion about varied topics from different eras and locations and then somebody inevitably brings up a WWII subject and you get hundreds of posts about that single subject and nothing else. To me that tells me there are people who are very interested in discussing WWII milhistory but not much else and that's why a separate WWII thread for those posters might be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
fspades posted:The problem with WWII-chat is that it drowns out the rest of the milhistory. I'm a lurker but what I'm noticing is that you sometimes have pages of discussion about varied topics from different eras and locations and then somebody inevitably brings up a WWII subject and you get hundreds of posts about that single subject and nothing else. To me that tells me there are people who are very interested in discussing WWII milhistory but not much else and that's why a separate WWII thread for those posters might be a good idea. I don't know enough about Norman stirrups to contribute to a discussion on them, however I still find all of that fascinating. I suspect this stands true to many ITT, we all have our little niches and for a lot of people that is WW2 history (or some specific parts of it). But I don't know if that's such a problem, except of course when a thread is very busy it becomes harder to really read through all posts. But then again it's easy enough to PgDown to more interesting topics. If only there was a way of tagging posts so you could just glance through pages to find your points of interests... eg. a post prefaced by  = pre-20th cent/cavalry chat = WW1/human wave chat = WW2/tank chat = British chat
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
The debate over what subforum to move this thread into misses the point. TFR, GiP, D&D, or GBS are all poor choices for reasons I won't enumerate here. The only solution is to make a new subforum for military history discussion, then move the other military history thread from GiP, A/T, and TFR into that forum. Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:The debate over what subforum to move this thread into misses the point. TFR, GiP, D&D, or GBS are all poor choices for reasons I won't enumerate here. The only solution is to make a new subforum for military history discussion, then move the other military history thread from GiP, A/T, and TFR into that forum. I like this idea. There's enough interest, I think. We could have an ultimate tank destroyer throwdown thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I don't know enough about Norman stirrups to contribute to a discussion on them, however I still find all of that fascinating. I suspect this stands true to many ITT, we all have our little niches and for a lot of people that is WW2 history (or some specific parts of it). But I don't know if that's such a problem, except of course when a thread is very busy it becomes harder to really read through all posts. But then again it's easy enough to PgDown to more interesting topics. Speaking also as a lurker, it seems like there is no other topic that comes up in this thread that generates responses like a WW2 topic. It definitely seems like it,s more than capable of sustaining its own independent thread, especially when compared to any other single period. I think splitting it off would give other topics and periods a chance to be talked about a bit more before it gets drowned out by a multi page discussion about whatever WW2 topic just came up (not to say it's not interesting it just has a tendency to overtake the discussion). Also this thread has been so awesome and informative that I just want to say thank you to everyone for sharing your knowledge! A question: how did the training of tactics and military knowledge work during the early modern period, like say the thirty years war or maybe the Italian wars? Was it just kind of learn on the job as an officer (or noble) or did military schools start to develop? Were there conferences or something or did military leaders just kind of make it up as they went along?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
For all of the reasons that Fangz posted a sub-Forum for military history, even if it were viable, would be bad because it doesn't deal with the fact that the very reason there are different threads across different sub-forums is precisely because people who want to discuss military history in a certain way don't want to interact with people who want to discuss it with an incompatible agenda.Fangz posted:The advantage of staying in ask/tell is that it invites a certain attitude. While some things come up repeatedly, the overall attitude is that questions are asked, answered, and people want to move on to new topics. This is distinct from D&D where people feel that long term debates are welcome and consider backing down to be tantamount to cowardice. And being here means that people who aren't interested in guns, and who aren't part of the military can feel more welcome. Perhaps a general history forum might be viable but that still has the same problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
SilverSliver posted:1) You have 48 hours to make me interested in Military History.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Another lurker here, I would also like to chime in for a History Forum (or sub-forum). This thread is my top three must check every day, and I hope to continue reading it in a few years when they discuss about gay black Nikolaos Michaloliakos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
A History sub-forum would be kicking rad. I know a lot of goons who'd love it.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
SilverSliver posted:A person with no military history is modding this thread. I'm going out of my way to try to work with you guys here. Maybe make it fun as well. I am not opposed to learning about new things. Bro for 6 months I've been posting about a war in which Buddhist monks armed with soap powder fought alongside "Wolf-men", soldiers in the "Mandarin Duck" formation, mercenaries called frogmen and a dude who wore a jacket smeared red with virgin blood against Christian samurai musketeers counselled by Jesuits. A lot of people got eaten by tigers, there was a 3 story castle ship with a fake mountain made of piled rice on top, and there were boats shaped like turtles that shot cannons out of their mouths. And that's some of the worst and least interesting content in this thread. WW2  No history subforum, it will just drown under WWII chat and have too many megathreads without enough posters in each. New "Ask Us About Military History Thread" in A/T please. This is the best thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Also, not a bad suggestion. We did have a Cold War specific one in the past. But the WW2 thread would need some special rules to keep it from descending once more in the abyss. Do you have a link to this thread? The cold war one?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:A History sub-forum would be kicking rad. I know a lot of goons who'd love it. It would be pretty awesome, and I would post in it extensively. Edit: interesting tales in military history, eh? How about highly impractical weapons and highly implausible exploits, tanks that are as huge as they are stupid, and some weapons rumoured to be obsolete making a comeback? I'd still like the subforum, though. Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:Bro for 6 months I've been posting about a war in which Buddhist monks armed with soap powder fought alongside "Wolf-men", soldiers in the "Mandarin Duck" formation, mercenaries called frogmen and a dude who wore a jacket smeared red with virgin blood against Christian samurai musketeers counselled by Jesuits. A lot of people got eaten by tigers, there was a 3 story castle ship with a fake mountain made of piled rice on top, and there were boats shaped like turtles that shot cannons out of their mouths. Yeah, gotta change my vote to this. Throw up a new thread in here and that'll alleviate the admittedly circlejerky nature of this thread. Also unban Agesilaus he was fun
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 18:18
|
|
