|
computer parts posted:These seem contradictory. They aren't. Try reading my post.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:They aren't. Try reading my post. Your post assumes that there's some qualification that minorities don't have that universities are ignoring in AA programs. This would seem to contradict the idea of "there are many more qualified candidates than seats available, and minorities are in this group of qualified candidates".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Your post assumes that there's some qualification that minorities don't have that universities are ignoring in AA programs. This would seem to contradict the idea of "there are many more qualified candidates than seats available, and minorities are in this group of qualified candidates". Yeah, I posted links which said that underrepresented minority admits to universities on average have lower test scores. If you would have read my post, you would have picked up on that. If minority students were held to the same admission standards as white students, there would be no disparity. Edit: Are you trying to twist my posts into me being Literally Hitler, and that I am trying to say that there does not exist a potential underrepresented minority admit who could get into a university without the benefit of lowered standards for underrepresented minority students? No, of course I am not saying that. You are an idiot. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, I posted links which said that underrepresented minority admits to universities on average have lower test scores. That doesn't mean anything, unless they have lower than average test scores compared with the people who didn't get in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That doesn't mean anything, unless they have lower than average test scores compared with the people who didn't get in. Lol, what kind of delusional thinking is this? Yes, I'm sure that's very likely that there is a gap in rejected white applicants test scores which perfectly lines up with the disparity in white and URM test scores. Do you honestly believe what you are posting? Look, growing up in a rural area, I'm sure that I have received the benefit of, not exactly Affirmative Action policies, but admission policies which lower standards for kids not from the East Coast or West Coast or major metropolitan areas. I'm not afraid to admit it and am not ideologically committed to denying that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
It has been established for some time that SAT scores are poor predictors of college performance, which is why more and more colleges have stopped accepting them. http://www.mtv.com/news/2280344/top-tier-colleges-no-sat/ http://www.mtv.com/news/2283748/hampshire-college-drops-standardized-testing-admissions/ quote:Lash wrote that the school considered several factors before making the decision to drop standardized testing from its admissions requirements. “Standardized test scores do not predict a student’s success at our college,” Lash wrote, adding that “Some good students are bad test takers, particularly under stress, such as when a test may grant or deny college entry. Multiple-choice tests don’t reveal much about a student.” Instead, the school will “look for an overarching narrative that shows motivation, discipline, and the capacity for self-reflection.” SAT scores look meaningful because they're numbers; you can tell that a 470 is different from a 500. However, you can't tell whether the 470 is going to do worse in college than the 500. The SAT isn't measuring college-worthiness. It's measuring timed test-taking skills. It's a signifier that doesn't have an underlying meaning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Lol, what kind of delusional thinking is this? Yes, I'm sure that's very likely that there is a gap in rejected white applicants test scores which perfectly lines up with the disparity in white and URM test scores. Do you honestly believe what you are posting? Maybe "rejected" is too strong of a word, but yes I can easily see that. Imagine there are three groups: White people* who are easily accepted (A), White People who are borderline for being accepted (B), and disadvantaged minorities (C). The easily accepted people are more qualified, or else they wouldn't be easily accepted. Therefore, we can probably conclude that A's scores are on average higher than B or C. It's also unlikely that B is going to score significantly lower than C, at least not enough to make up for A's advantage. This means that the average of A & B is going to be higher than C, regardless of what B & C's scores end up being. For example - say A has an average SAT score of 2000, and B&C each have an average score of 1600. Because A&B are both "white people", their average (1800) will end up being higher than C (1600), even though B&C have the exact same score. tl;dr - your statistics are not granular enough. *You can also include "non-disadvantaged minorities" in here too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Lol, what kind of delusional thinking is this? Yes, I'm sure that's very likely that there is a gap in rejected white applicants test scores which perfectly lines up with the disparity in white and URM test scores. Do you honestly believe what you are posting?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Comparing averages to averages misses the whole point, you compare number of white students with below X score admitted to number of minority students below X score admitted. You will find in the majority of cases more white people admitted with scores below the threshold you pick than minorities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Comparing averages to averages misses the whole point, you compare number of white students with below X score admitted to number of minority students below X score admitted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Now, before you say "a, ha, ha, diversity", look up. Look at the previous paragraph that talks about whether high SATs give a more successful population. They don't. Now look down. Look at the resources available to the children of middle-class and up parents that are not available to poor kids. You can teach a student to do well on standardized tests, given enough time and access to previous tests. Those students aren't better prepared for college; they just look good as numbers. If you would have read my posts in this thread, you would have found disclaimers: silence_kit posted:Again, you can make the argument that the SAT/other admission standards are racist, classist, imperfect tests of applicant quality, etc. etc., but to deny that colleges do not lower the usual standards to admit minority students is magical thinking. You aren't telling me anything I haven't heard before. I won't get into the debate on this. Except to say the obvious thing below . . . Arsenic Lupin posted:The SAT isn't measuring college-worthiness. It's measuring timed test-taking skills. It's a signifier that doesn't have an underlying meaning. Come on, to say that they are totally meaningless is not true at all and is a knee-jerk response in the other direction. I know someone who teaches nursing at a pretty low-tier private university which accepts a lot of people educated in rural high schools who get ok/good grades in their schools but who have horrendous standardized test scores. She constantly complains that her students do not know how to read very well or do not know how to do basic math to calculate drug doses (scary!) and many do not have the ability to pass the standard nursing boarding exam. Many of them fail the boarding exams. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you would have read my posts in this thread, you would have found disclaimers: quote:You aren't telling me anything I haven't heard before. I won't get into the debate on this. Except to say the obvious thing below . . . Colleges routinely accept students who are less-qualified on paper to suit the college's goals. Competitive basketball and lacrosse players. Children of alumni. People whose parents donate large sums of money. They accept all these students because they advantage the college in some way. If those choices are legitimate, then so is the choice to admit less-qualified on paper students because one of the college's goals is to help give underprivileged students a step up into the middle class. In particular, one of the goals of the UC system is to get all California students to be more-educated, because long-term that benefits the state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:You can't caveat something that contradicts your premise. No it doesn't contradict the premise. If you would have read my posts in this thread, I have continually admitted that you could make an argument that the usual admission criteria is racist, sexist, classist, micro-bigoted, macro-bigoted, hyper-bigoted, giga-bigoted, whatever. But to deny that the usual admission criteria is lowered in the case of URM students is totally delusional and is wishful thinking. Arsenic Lupin posted:"I am going to continue to put forward my ideas, and I'm not going to address ways in which they may be mistaken." SATs are meaningful only if they correlate with college performance. If they don't correlate with college performance -- and I've provided citations saying that world-class colleges don't think they do -- then they have nothing to do with whether a college should accept particular students. This is totally wrong. Do you think that standardized tests actually are quizzing students on Hollywood celebrity gossip trivia? To outright state, which you did, that standardized tests are totally meaningless and are only tests of test-taking ability is delusional. You ignored the following part of my post and didn't address how the following anecdote fits into your worldview: silence_kit posted:I know someone who teaches nursing at a pretty low-tier private university which accepts a lot of people educated in rural high schools who get ok/good grades in their schools but who have horrendous standardized test scores. She constantly complains that her students do not know how to read very well or do not know how to do basic math to calculate drug doses (scary!) and many do not have the ability to pass the standard nursing boarding exam. Many of them fail the boarding exams. Arsenic Lupin posted:Colleges routinely accept students who are less-qualified on paper to suit the college's goals. Competitive basketball and lacrosse players. Children of alumni. People whose parents donate large sums of money. They accept all these students because they advantage the college in some way. If those choices are legitimate, then so is the choice to admit less-qualified on paper students because one of the college's goals is to help give underprivileged students a step up into the middle class. In particular, one of the goals of the UC system is to get all California students to be more-educated, because long-term that benefits the state. This isn't news to me either. I have actually stated in this thread that I support affirmative action because it is an excellent form of social welfare. Are you putting any effort into reading my posts? Also, I doubt that people in this thread would bend over backwards and go through chains of tortured logic to explain away why athletes and legacy students get accepted into universities with worse grades, lower test scores, etc. Most likely, they would just accept that schools lower admission standards for these types of applicants. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:No it doesn't contradict the premise. If you would have read my posts in this thread, I have continually admitted that you could make an argument that the usual admission criteria is racist, sexist, classist, micro-bigoted, macro-bigoted, hyper-bigoted, giga-bigoted, whatever. But to deny that the usual admission criteria is lowered in the case of URM students is totally delusional and is wishful thinking. quote:This is totally wrong. Do you think that standardized tests actually are quizzing students on Hollywood celebrity gossip trivia? To outright state, which you did, that standardized tests are totally meaningless and are only tests of test-taking ability is delusional. quote:You ignored the following part of my post and didn't address how the following anecdote fits into your worldview: quote:Most likely, they would just accept that schools lower admission standards for these types of applicants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:If you say "you could make an argument that" and then ignore the argument, you're not actually addressing the issue. No, you are wrong. That's not relevant to my argument. The reason why I entered the thread was because lancemantis summarized the Affirmative Action issue while glossing over the most controversial aspect of the policy, which is the lowering of standards for URM applicants to improve URM admission numbers and writing double standards and racism into the policy. He tried to claim that that never happens, which is patently false. All I am doing is correcting that misconception. It is kind of important to correct that misconception, because if you don't, you don't really understand why a lot of people oppose Affirmative Action policies. It's not because people are literally Hitler. Arsenic Lupin posted:Again, the actual colleges are saying that whatever the SAT measures, it's not the ability to succeed in college. Compare the late great Stephen Jay Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man, which concludes that what IQ tests measure is the ability to do well on IQ tests. Let us suppose that you insisted all entrants got a high score on the physics AP. That's certainly quantifiable. It's certainly going to differentiate many of the best students from the very worst. Is it going to forward the college's goal of getting the students who are going to succeed in college? No. SATs are really convenient numbers, and easy to compare, but they seem to be measuring the ability to generate certain facts in a very high-stress environment. Again, see the quotes I cited. OK, I see that you have backpedaled on your earlier claims. I only entered this particular argument to make the obvious statement that it is patently wrong, hyperbolic, and totally idiotic to say that standardized test scores and student quality have absolutely nothing to do with each other, which is what you said earlier in the thread. I'm glad that you now agree with me. Arsenic Lupin posted:But somehow that's an acceptable choice for the college, while lowering admission standards for underprivileged kids is wrong. I never defended lower standards for legacy or for college athlete admissions. You are arguing against a figment of your imagination. I actually have said multiple times in this thread that I think that it is good that we lower admissions standards for URM students. It is an excellent form of social welfare. While it is unfair to white, Indian, and Asian students, the ends justify the means, I think. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
I'm going to start a for profit college that admits people based on the science of phrenology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This is totally wrong. Do you think that standardized tests actually are quizzing students on Hollywood celebrity gossip trivia? To outright state, which you did, that standardized tests are totally meaningless and are only tests of test-taking ability is delusional. The issue is honestly with the type I and type II errors that come into play with the test. Even if you assume that the test roughly "works" for gauging intelligence/ability (a contested assumption but whatever) then you need to ask the question "how well does it work?" As someone who used to do SAT prep on the side for privileged white kids I can tell you that it doesn't work well. Many people take the test multiple times and then submit their highest scores (talk about cherry picking data points!) In addition, the margin of error for any given student (under an environment without multiple testing) can be 120 points or more. Once you include multiple tests it gets way worse. The college board itself uses examples of students that score as much as 220 points higher through multiple testing. I can tell you I've personally seen repeat testers score as high as 400-500 points more on subsequent tries. Now if all of the students were equally being effected by the statistical failings of the test you might be able to argue that there's no racial bias since both URMs and white kids are being mis-categorized equally, but white kids (average and excellent alike) are, as a group, much more likely to re-test until the dice roll in their favor. Also, your nursing school anecdote has multiple possible explanations that have nothing to do with the test, many of which you yourself note. The people that school accepts: 1) Have lower grades and 2) Come from rural high schools. The school itself is also a low-tier school with a reputation that probably creates a self-selected pool of candidates that aren't as capable. There are probably a dozen other factors in there that contribute to that scenario. The SAT scores aren't the issue here. The other factors likely have much greater explanatory power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:It has been established for some time that SAT scores are poor predictors of college performance, which is why more and more colleges have stopped accepting them. It is emphatically not true on aggregate that SAT scores are poor predictors of college performance. There are fairly strong correlations between SAT scores and 4 year graduation rates, for example. Two things are true: 1) Much of the informational value added by SAT scores can be inferred through other data. 2) For a given school, SAT scores may not be a good predictor of college performance. 2) may seem contradictory and is somewhat subtle, so I'll explain why this can exist. Basically, people have relatively consistent preferences on universities, and these universities admit a class which mostly falls within the x-th and y-th percentile of all students applying to universities (where x and y don't differ by too much). For schools that are not on the extreme high end of selectivity, a student with a high SAT score should then be expected to be worse than their peers across other metrics used in the admissions process (if not, they would have gotten into a better school and gone there). (This phenomenon exists across a wide range of contexts. It's at least part of why, for example, people believe that attractive or athletic people are often stupid -- in their social class or workplace it may be true, but the people who are both attractive and smart or athletic and smart often belong to a higher social class, which they don't realize.) computer parts posted:In many universities (certainly the top ones) there are many more qualified candidates than seats available. Why are you assuming that minorities are not in this group of qualified candidates? This particular phrase gets trotted out enough that it's assumed to be true, but it really isn't. What is true is that at (say) Harvard or Stanford, there are well over 10x applicants who are above the median SAT score and median high school class rank of the actual admitted class (presumably this is roughly what you mean by 'qualified'). What is not true is that those applicants are on average as 'good' as the admitted ones, especially the very best ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:What is not true is that those applicants are on average as 'good' as the admitted ones, especially the very best ones. No poo poo, but not every seat is being contested. If you want to be really accurate, the only seats under consideration are whatever seats are filled by disadvantaged minorities in an AA system that aren't filled by them in a non-AA system. These are a fairly small proportion of the seats at large.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
The SAT has plenty of problems, and if I were emperor I would probably try and have it replaced with a better test, but some kind of standardized test is absolutely necessary as part of the college admissions process. Grades are all but worthless in determining student mastery of matieral because the variation between schools is so great. I've worked in a high-need low-income school, and showing up, not being disruptive, and making any kind of effort to learn was enough to get an A from many of the teachers there. Compare that to a student who went to a more rigorous college prep school where you have to bust your rear end to even get a C, and you see how unreliable grades can be as a metric. It's a complicated problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:The issue is honestly with the type I and type II errors that come into play with the test. Even if you assume that the test roughly "works" for gauging intelligence/ability (a contested assumption but whatever) then you need to ask the question "how well does it work?" i can confirm, as a chinese-american uc student hailing from an asian-majority area of silicon valley, that sat prep courses are a huge industry around here i credit my 2230 on the SAT to those courses, which were super expensive
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
I'm really stupid but my folks kitted me out with basically the Undertaker (most powerful) of SAT tutors and through epic gamification and cramming strats I was able to test well above where I should have naturally which was pretty drat epic and now I'm an impoverished college dropout nonprofit administrator so I guess what I'm saying is: I have 3,500 hours of DOTA2 and jack off into a sock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
There is some sentiment that students should be given a certain degree of access to college despite performance. This brings up issues such as students being ill prepared for the rigor of college and how much of that is incumbent upon colleges to remediate. I was accepted to be uni from a poo poo tier school and it was pretty rough. Only a handful of us survived.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:There is some sentiment that students should be given a certain degree of access to college despite performance. This brings up issues such as students being ill prepared for the rigor of college and how much of that is incumbent upon colleges to remediate. I was accepted to be uni from a poo poo tier school and it was pretty rough. Only a handful of us survived. isnt that Literally the Point of Community College? Hell, I been to 4 of em over my many years of academic failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Smythe posted:isnt that Literally the Point of Community College? Hell, I been to 4 of em over my many years of academic failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Smythe posted:isnt that Literally the Point of Community College? Hell, I been to 4 of em over my many years of academic failure. Yeah, I went to a weird Community College/High School combo school for my Junior/Senior HS years, and it really helped set expectations for what a college course load demanded. It also helped me live and get over my "holy poo poo nobody tracks attendance and I can skip class whenever I want!  " phase before going to an Actually Expensive college.  I imagine in California though, there's a problem of CC's being impacted. At least in my experience, the very clear credit transfer from California CC's to UC's/CSU's means tons of people try to pick up 2 years of CC credits to get an easier ride into their uni of choice. The community college I went to also was woefully understaffed in terms of advisors/counselors, so people who didn't have a solid game plan to get out of CC and into Uni ended up meandering around at the CC level for years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Community colleges are fantastic, and are a great option for folks who can't afford or aren't ready for the CSU/UC level. Not to mention the folks entering fields that don't require a four year degree. Plus some California community colleges partner with local CSU's and offer Bachelor's degrees in select fields.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
I have like 300 units of underwater basketweaving from community college. When I started it was $11 per unit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
I went to CCSF before I transferred to SFSU to finish my BA. Community college was fantastic particularly for the first two years of coursework; at a UC or CSU university, your required lower-level classes would have 300 students and mostly be taught by a grad student. At community college, they had 25 or 30 students and were taught by someone with a doctorate who was either teaching part time while having an actual career in their field outside academia, or who was teaching at five different local community colleges in order to assemble a full-time workload because they hadn't yet landed one of those tenure-track university positions (which are at a ridiculous premium because they're so much rarer). Of course, I was on the seven year degree plan, since I had to work my way through school, plus I missed a semester because I was working part time at UPS and we went on strike and so I didn't have money for tuition. When I started, classes were 11 a unit, and they went up to 13 by the time I finished. I transferred 70 out of the 72 units I'd taken directly into SFSU and all of them applied towards my degree, which I was then able to finish in two years of mostly two-thirds-time classes, plus a handful of units over summer break. I don't think that's viable any more. I graduated in 2000 and by then tuition was already starting to hike up by big amounts every year. But even though community college is now expensive enough that you probably have to borrow money to go even if you're working part time unless your parents are paying, it's still a fantastic option for anyone. Your degree from Berkeley doesn't come with an asterisk just because you did half of the work for a tenth of the cost at a community college.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:When I started, classes were 11 a unit, and they went up to 13 by the time I finished. I transferred 70 out of the 72 units I'd taken directly into SFSU and all of them applied towards my degree, which I was then able to finish in two years of mostly two-thirds-time classes, plus a handful of units over summer break. Yeah, by the time I was done with community college it was over $20 a unit. It's close to $50 now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Yeah, by the time I was done with community college it was over $20 a unit. It's close to $50 now. Yup, $46 right now, last time I was going back in ~08-09ish it was $26 from what I remember
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Yeah, I went to a weird Community College/High School combo school for my Junior/Senior HS years, and it really helped set expectations for what a college course load demanded. It also helped me live and get over my "holy poo poo nobody tracks attendance and I can skip class whenever I want! We have one of these in my town. We're a couple years away but I'd like my son to go. Did you have to test into it? Did you lose out by not be able to do extra-curricular a?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:We have one of these in my town. We're a couple years away but I'd like my son to go. Did you have to test into it? Did you lose out by not be able to do extra-curricular a? I had to interview with the principal, a teacher, and two seniors at the school. There was no official testing in, but the school seemed fairly focused on taking in students with high test scores but low grades, which is a category I fit into rather snugly my sophomore year. Also I never minded the lack of extra-curriculars/sports because I was the gooniest goon who ever gooned in HS and spent my free time doing nothing but watch anime and play video games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Wisconsin is the only place where people went to the polls yesterday:The Fresno Bee posted:There was a special election Tuesday to fill the unexpired term of Fresno Democrat Henry T. Perea, who resigned a year early to take a job with the pharmaceutical industry, and it appears all but certain that Kingsburg Democrat Joaquin Arambula will win the race. Just before midnight, his main opponent, Fresno Republican Clint Olivier, conceded. http://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/election/article70056032.htm Just to note that the remainder of the term is only eight months long so I’m sure they’re already gearing up to do it all again. Over a million dollars was spent on this race.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:We have one of these in my town. We're a couple years away but I'd like my son to go. Did you have to test into it? Did you lose out by not be able to do extra-curricular a? It's called "Middle College" where I live; Cañada College application here. Here follows an anecdote. My son comments that of his four friends who did Middle College, all of them high-flying high-schoolers, they wound up as burnouts when they actually got to college.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:It's called "Middle College" where I live; Cañada College application here. Here follows an anecdote. My son comments that of his four friends who did Middle College, all of them high-flying high-schoolers, they wound up as burnouts when they actually got to college. I will say that I have no experience with a four year middle college. The one I went to was originally just Juniors and Seniors, and as mentioned was almost explicitly focused on helping kids with high test scores but low grades turn it around and get into a good college. In that regard, it did a good job and pretty much my entire class either stepped directly into college, or stayed on at the CC for a year after graduating and then jumping to uni. The year after I left however, it merged with an "early college" that only took Freshman and Sophomores to form into a four year middle college. It has, apparently, since gone to complete poo poo and is more focused on taking "gifted" children and posting the highest test scores in the area.  So YMMV, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
I'm in a CC right now for a CS program and it's great because all the CS teachers are dudes who work writing code for a living and just teach two days a week at nights for some extra scratch. They know their poo poo and can tell you when the school work applies in real life and when it wont and they adjust their tests accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
The CSU faculty strike has been called off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Blackhawk has declared the drought is over and lawns should be lush again, otherwise you will be fined
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
lancemantis posted:Blackhawk has declared the drought is over and lawns should be lush again, otherwise you will be fined eat the rich
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 12:03
|
|