RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Winoes.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Beer.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

  1. Has anyone heard of this - "Femitheism"? (20:10, 22 Aug 2014)
  2. How many high-level U.S. government officials are idiots? (23:02, 21 Aug 2014)
  3. Article on Searle's Chinese Room (20:53, 17 Aug 2014)
  4. Innocence of Muslims (14:33, 14 Aug 2014)
  5. What makes logic valid? (21:49, 13 Aug 2014)
  6. There seems to be a LOT of people who hate us. (21:36, 13 Aug 2014)
To do list


[edit] Robin Williams

I felt remarkably sad yesterday upon hearing this. I shall burn some oil from my lamp tonight for him. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] PZ

On the other hand, I cannot believe somebody wrote this. It just drips with disrespectfulness. You can care about both things at once. Why does this need to be an article that was written? Zero (talk - contributions) 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're acting like there's something mysterious about this. PZ Myers is a shrill prick who does a disservice to the skeptical movement. FFB and his comments sections are an echo chamber. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, if I may ask, are you one of those "They are dividing the atheist movement with their radical feminism!!one!" people?Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
While I disagree with Nutty's comments about the man and FTB in general due to my fondness for evidence and truth, this is a pretty crappy piece on PZ's part. I understand the idea, but at the very least he should give people twenty four hours before writing something like this. Mourning a beloved entertainer is not a journalistic conspiracy. User:PsychoGecko 18:58, 12 August 2014
I don't get it, after all one can just take it to the next level and argue that the shooting of Brown is media distraction from the even much larger political and humanitarian crisis caused by ISIS as ignore every rule of international law and human decency in their efforts to purge anyone who doesn't fit their pure ideology. As bad as things are in Ferguson, it isn't shit compared to northern Iraq.
But wait, can't the media and people discuss more than one topic? Well of course they can. Just because they talk about Robin Williams, doesn't mean suddenly no one is talking about the police killing in Ferguson, or the crisis in Iraq, or the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, or the current Israeli-Hamas ceasefire, or Net Neutrality, and so forth. Every one of those subjects were covered in the hour of news radio I listened to on the way to work.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Things are being done about ISIS and there is a lot media coverage. What is being done about Ferguson, except sweeping motions that point to the underside of a rug?Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
PZ didn't need to write it with such disrespect towards Robin Williams, I agree. This whole thing just makes me think that the news is a big waste of time, politics is always dishonest, celebrities shouldn't exist, cynicism deteriorates people and depressing things can hit the most cheerful-seeming of people. Nullahnung (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
PZ's criticism is that the media is saying, in effect, "Don't look over THERE, look over HERE!" Unfortunately, in my opinion PZ's post is guilty of exactly the same thing. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
"Don't 'forget' to look over here" would be a more accurate representation of his point, although he probably could have worded things better.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think PZ does share this sort of aspect with Dawkins from time to time. I can understand the message that he's trying to give -- unfortunately, it's the delivery that can be problematic. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, what everyone above said, especially the point about starting a ridiculous oneupmanship over the perceived gravity of news issues. PZ is also showing uncharacteristic parochialism here (from what little I know about the guy); as serious as the Ferguson shooting is, it's a national issue whereas Robin Williams has a global following, so there's probably something of a feedback loop between news agencies as more and more people go on the record to pay their respects. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(EC)A famous person died -of course some people try to make it all about them --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock )Moderator 21:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Look and me! I'm so not racist and you're racist for remembering Robin Williams' death! The article in a nutshell. What the fuck. Some people seem to not abide by the whole "due to the dead".|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg If you ceased to exist yesterday / I'll erase yesterday from existance 22:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think there's a difference between "remembering Robin Williams' death" and using it to eclipse other important issues?Shadow Nirvana (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I quite enjoy FTB and many of its contributors (Ed Brayton in particular). PZ and the strange creatures that inhabit his comments section, however, is a blight on that fine site. PsyGremlinSiarad! 00:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'm looking for too many connections but I see shades of Dawkins' 'Dear Muslima' and I think that both are aspects of the Not as bad as fallacy.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's an article that was in my Twitter feed. And speaking of Dawkins, he disagrees with Myers on this as well. Woodgod (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't like how that article started out with the message "Let's focus on joy, laughter and the hope of getting over depressions!" and then ended on a negative note and outrage, reflected in the comments section as well. HowDoIArticleStructure? Nullahnung (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I also think it's a bit premature to assume that this is all about depression -- the Coyne piece notes he had no formal diagnosis that he ever went public with, and at this stage an accident can't be ruled out. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Accident can't be ruled out? Perhaps, but being found dead with a belt around his neck is not a likely position reachable by accident. But, yes, we are still in the stage where the reported facts and the underlying truth may not have adequately converged. MarmotHead (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Man, I've lost count of how many times I almost accidentally strangled myself with a belt. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg A single piece of bread is just an open-face universe sandwich 21:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. You'd probably never believe where I find my shoelaces sometimes. It's just not hygienic!!! MarmotHead (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd have much rather been spending all this time looking up the continuing evolution of the informal Robin Williams bench memorial than have to both condemn PZ's piece and sift through the rabid anti-PZ hivemind that hijacks almost anything at the mention of his name. As for the cause, it's pretty normal for funny people to suffer depression or other mental anxiety. I wouldn't rule out depression. I'd just rather be watching the man's work right now. User:PsychoGecko 20:17, 13 August, 2014 (UTC)
Yah, any of you ever have a close friend or relative kill himself? Do you have a clue how much guilt that selfish act leaves behind to survivors? You keep telling yourself, "If only I were there...", or "what could I have said or done in the past that could have encouraged him...", or "where was I when he needed me...". Clueless motherfuckers. nobsOne who's been there. 01:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Rob, everybody knows how painful suicide is for others, guilt just one awful thing. Yours isn't exactly a unique insight. But what we're looking at here is the culmination of a terrible illness, the end result of which was Williams's death. Tragic, yes. Horrible for those close to him some of whom may be going through those sentiments you describe. But it doesn't mean Williams was selfish. It does mean he was ill. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I think he was condemning PZ's piece, but that may be me projecting. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg A single piece of bread is just an open-face universe sandwich 20:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Psychoanalysts for nearly a century theorized depression was caused by repressed anger; then Big Pharma got involved in the early 80s and said, "no no no, depression is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. Here, take a pill". This should be of major interests as an inquiry into junk science.
My younger cousin, raised like a brother to me, killed himself in 1980 while I was 350 miles away. All this theorizing about disease doesn't relieve the angst and guilt my family feels when we gather for Thanksgiving or Christmas 34 years later and collectively feel we all failed him. nobsOne who's been there. 16:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "Make a wikipedia entry"

So for this semester one of my courses was "Historical Methodology" which is, more or less, a intro to being a history major course. I was looking through it's syllabus just now and noticed our final project: "4. Creation of Wikipedia historical entry. You must use Chicago Style Manual for citations and bibliography. The subject if of your choice but make sure to clear it with the instructor. Your entry must vary significantly from any similar or existing topic, term, or concept in Wikipedia. 20% of the final grade. Though that last part seems a bit iffy, most of what I would write is probably already covered by wikipedia. In depth.--Miekal 19:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds more like a drive to beef up Wikipedia than a real academic exercise. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 19:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
What if you write a great article but they delete it for lack of notability? Abed Nadir (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds more like a lazy instructor trying to crowdsource the evaluation of students' work than a real benefit to the encyclopedia. Every now and then a topic I watch on WP gets a flood of "school project" editors. More often than not, it is a disastrous cluster fuck, but it can be fun to watch them interact on their user talk pages. At least once I've seen the professor's account exhorting one of the students to increase their word count. Yeah, right, like that's a valid measure of quality.
On a positive note, your wiki-experience will most probably be helpful to you. (p.s. by which, I mean: the familiarity with wiki markup & procedure that you've gained at RW will ease the learning curve for editing the other wiki. sjc 12:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Possibly lazy professor. OTOH, researching and writing up a Wikipedia article good enough to survive will definitely be good for you ... and help your ability to add article content to RW :-D - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like a contradiction. Use the Chicago manual of style for the wiki? Whatever happened to this? Zero (talk - contributions) 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
...for citations and bibliography. See wp:Wikipedia:Citing sources #Citation style.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Gosh kid, I envy you. Wikipedia has exactly jackshit about the famous, notorious, breathtaking Robinson-Rubens affair, and it's not for lack of sources. nobsOne who's been there. 17:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Life's greatest mystery is at last solved.

Go home, everyone. We've cracked the code. --Madman (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)The Madman

"The revelation leaves open the possibility that the series could be revived on screen." Why would it need to be revived. It ended. the story was over. --Miekal 04:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You know Hollywood.--Madman (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)The Madman
"Why would it need to be revived." - $£¥€₱฿, etc. Compro01 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, but this was q question to the article writer, not the industry. I know their reason.--Miekal 15:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Sopranos 2: Pasta Fazul Rising starring the resurrected corpse of James Gandolfini. NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not referring to [1]? (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Easy Meat by Peter McLoughlin (Islamic Grooming Accusations)

I have a family member who is posting a lot of very suspect anti-Islamic rants. A recent one seems to refer to this on Scribd. Does anyone know anything about this guy or about this document. Can anyone point me to a decent article (or the like) that looks at these accusations more generally. Googling brings up the usual right wing tripe so thought I'd see if the hive mind of RW might save me some time. I've seen this RW article already.--Barryjon (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not aware of any because really there still a lot of uncertianly. There are a few things to consider:
  1. The crown prosecution service will only take cases where there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. The problem is in most of these cases the only evidence is the testimony of the girls in question. Since most of the girls were, well the prefered term is "vulnerable", the defence would have been able to shred them without much effort. Thus no reasonable prospect of a conviction. Rolling all the cases into one was a bit of an inovation that finaly got around that problem.
  2. In the early 90s it was pretty common for the white "Jack the lad"s to be chasing after girls as young as 13 or so. Social shifts have probably reduced that.Geni (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] When two heterodox schools of thought meet

The results can be rather strange. Anyone else wonder how it is that to find an ALFer who is also a libertarian? There's just something interesting about what bringing two schools of outlier politics together would produce. I feel like locking Mises or Rothbard or Rand in the same room with several other wingnut/moonbat specimens would be so entertaining. — Melab (Talk) 06:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ugh... look at that background. Not even seamless. This CLEARLY violates NAP.~epixSay What? 06:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, there was the flirtation with the New Left by figures like Rothbard and Karl Hess back in the day. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Libertarians have long tried to woo others. Let us not forget the Cato Institute, with Brink Lindsey's "Liberaltarians", too things that would struggle to be further apart. I very much doubt they will find many friends in the ALF though - and I can't figure out how any self-respecting libertarian can sqaure his "money has feelings too! non aggression against property" with the ALF's penchant for burning stuff down. --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Circumgender

Anybody else hear about this? Tumblr is up in arms again. Apparently there's a user claiming that she was born female but identifies as a trans woman and has coined the word "circumgender" to describe this. And then trans people say she's not actually trans/unable to appreciate what a trans woman goes through without being born male/appropriating words from the trans community/etc. And then there's TERFs claiming that all the arguments against "circumgender" are just like the arguments that they (TERFs) make against trans women, except with "trans" replacing "woman/female" and thus trans people are hypocrites. It's all very confusing and painful to read. (I couldn't find the original tumblr post but here is a TERF complaining about it with a screencap of the original.) Abed Nadir (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a handy list of Latin prepositions. May as well start ringing the changes, since it seems in the fullness of time all will be found needful by someone: antegender, contragender, prætergender, postgender, supergender, clamgender, infragender. I've decided to call myself a simulgender. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 20:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
(EC) That's one of Cathy Brennan's sites, and it clearly links to the original Tumblr post. Having read through a few pages of their Tumblr, I see this is apparently a 13 year old, who (since this original post) later backed down from identifying as trans, and has also written about self-harming in response to this drama & getting therapy. There's a distinct possibility that the whole thing was a bad taste hoax from somebody stirring up trouble, but either way it's best to let this blow over. This is the first I've heard of this (as somebody who rarely pays any attention to Tumblr), but I see this was all over a month ago and over in a matter of days - is Tumblr really still up in arms about it? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Tumblr Dramr. Meh. SophieWilderModerator 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And the Oppression Olympics continue...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Stinks of /pol/ trolling Tumblr's SJ sphere, volume 89,256,741. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Maaaayyyybeeee you'll think of me when you are all alone 23:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the reasons why I generally stay away from the SJ-y aspects of Tumblr, where anyone can post anything and it will be believed or swallowed up by someone. (Like, seriously, nonbinary gender identities for haunted animatronic robots?) Noir LeSable (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The TERFs are right. You can't say that identity is king and say that parts matter. But it does read more than a little bit as trolling. And no one likes being trolled. Ikanreed (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Less than a dozen works with atheist themes per medium on wikipedia, and a list but no category for fictional atheists.

All they have is atheist authors and with books with atheist themes. Compare that to the category Christian novels. That means according to wikipedia there are no atheist novels, just atheist themes.

I really wanted to make this category on Wikipedia, I just wasn't sure on what the definition should be. I'm thinking it should be for works where it is shown there is no afterlife, rather than works without deities. However I don't that definition would fit Star Trek the Original series where Gene Roddenberry said they are all atheists in the federation, and Star Trek is a definitive atheist work.

This would fit a lot of sci-fi as well as fantasy I would think. In death note there's no afterlife for anyone, the death gods can die. I'm pretty sure the Cthulu mythos should count as well, it's not even considered a series with atheist themes by Wikipedia. In Farscape the main character talks about not believing in the afterlife after almost dying from air loss or something, but that's not listed.

I know this is because the absence of god doesn't constantly come up as much as main character who are gods, so the one or two times it gets brought up are said to be off comments when the reboots have to appeal to everyone.

So, what other works of fiction should be considered atheist fiction? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

what is the difference between atheist themed fiction and atheist fiction? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Christian X is an entire subculture of media, and to a degree, society. They have that category because Christian is it's own genre. Also, "I'm thinking it should be for works where it is shown there is no afterlife,", what, on earth, does that have to do to qualify something as "atheist" fiction--Miekal 22:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I know the actual definition would be works which expressly mention that there are no gods, but I wanted to include death note which expressly mentions there is no afterlife but has things called gods. I know atheist fiction isn't publishing genre like Christian fiction is. Also because the creator specifically said so and so many scientists love it. It's a category Star Trek really needs to belong to to show atheists produce fiction with atheist themes. There were almost chaplains aboard the Enterprise bridge but Roddenberry fought it, I think that shows atheism is central to Star Trek even if it isn't mentioned in the show. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This part of what you fail to grasp about categories on Wikipedia or here for that matter. Simply because it is written by an atheist and contains some themes related to atheism does not make it fit for a category called "atheist literature." The Hobbit was written by a Christian and is filled with Christian themes, does it belong in "Category: Christian novels"? --Marlow (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
'Christian X' is a mostly American evangelical phenomenon. For some reason some evangelicals get it in their heads that while ordinary hair metal is the Devil's music, we can have our cake and eat it too by creating Stryper[wp]. There are Christian themes in lots of literature, but when I think of 'Christian fiction' I think mostly of sexless romance novels about Bible-thumpers. Atheists haven't assigned large areas of popular culture to their spiritual enemy, so they just don't need anything this goofy. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 01:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
", I think that shows atheism is central to Star Trek" I don't think you understand star trek if you think lacking a belief in god was central to the show.
@smerdis, I mostly meant american evangelicalism, just didnt specify as i figured most people who'd care to read this would know that.--Miekal 01:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, Star Trek didn't say much one way or the other about religion. Neither did Lost in Space, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon or any other mainstream TV sci-fi shows of the mid-twentieth century. This doesn't make any of them "atheist fiction", and neither does that the fact that Gene Roddenberry said something (outside the show and decades afterwards) about seeing Federation inhabitants as atheists. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
there are a couple of religious things in Star Trek. a line from Who mourns for Adonais - "Mankind has no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate."interesting that, having learned the Greek Gods were simply Aliens, Kirk does not apply the same idea to Jehovah. And the whole plot of Bread and Circuses (aka The Roman One), where a group of persecuted heretics claim to worship the Sun...until at the end when it's revealed that they actually worship the Son. SophieWilderModerator 14:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what Atheist Fiction would be. Let's take some SF examples to see why there's a problem here. Spoilers!
Surface Detail is the Banks space opera about (among other things) a war on Hells. Banks did not believe in (the Christian idea of) Hell, but the story posits many civilisations sharing the idea of an afterlife of punishment for the wicked and (once their technology is capable of doing so) making that idea come true. But then the story also features characters who have been reborn figuratively (Special Circumstances agent Yime has agreed to have her memory wiped so that she can work in another part of the Culture under cover) or literally (such as the lead protagonist Lededje, who has been murdered by her rapist and owner but is reborn on a Culture GSV). Symbols everywhere. So, is this Atheist Fiction?
The Diamond Age is an early Stephenson post cyberpunk novel. I don't know anything about Stephenson's religious beliefs. The books discusses a lot of concepts that are more recognisable today than they were when it was written, most particularly of course the Primer itself (which today you could explain as an SF extrapolation from Wikipedia and the iPad, but this was written in 1995) itself. But it doesn't really talk about God or religion at all - the Mouse Army doesn't worship Nell, they are her willing and enthusiastic subjects. Is this implicitly Atheist Fiction?
Solaris is the most famous of Lem's works. Lem was raised Catholic but eventually identified as atheist. The characters in Solaris do speak about religion, but I'd argue (and I wouldn't be alone) that Solaris isn't about that, or about the "human condition" or any such thing, but about his central thesis that we would inevitably lack a common reference with any aliens that is needed for us to understand each other. In my view Fiasco and some of the short stories do a better job of getting this across, but people love Solaris enough to keep trying to make movies of it. Anyway, is this Atheist Fiction? Tialaramex (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Star Trek as a whole probably wouldn't count since it depends on the writer. The Next Generation had everyone in the Federation refuse to consider Q a god but merely a being with god-like powers, and Picard refusing to take advantage of his perceived godhood to Command an alien race to be good. The wormhole aliens in Deep Space Nine are treated the same way (noncorporeal transdimensional beings of non-linear existence - outside of time and space, just as Swinburne describes God), but are accepted as gods for the sake of being culturally-sensitive. Perhaps 'humanist' is a better term than 'atheist' in some of these cases.-- Forerunner (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Star Trek voyager has the episode Barge of the Dead where it is strongly hinted that Gre'thor' (Klingon hell) and its counterpart Sto'Vo'Kor (Klingon heaven) are real, which means at least some form of the afterlife likely exists in the Star Trek universe.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I now see there's enough onscreen comments on Star Trek contradicting Gene Roddenberry, and they don't really talk about atheism on the show enough times to warrant labeling a single episode of Star Trek atheist fiction. Unfortunately I cannot think of a single example of a work where atheism is actually central to the plot and not just inferred from the authors atheism or the lack of priests aboard space ships. I believe the minimum amount of entries needed for a category to be formally proposed is generally at least 3 at Articles for Creation.

Currently Wikipedia's atheist fiction categories are so small, they can't be an accurate reflection of what's out there. Books with atheist themes include 9 works, television contains 6, half of which are episodes of Southpark, there is no atheist themes in video games category.

The list of fictional atheists page includes Dr. House, Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Who and about 50 other fictional atheists who are not labeled as such, unlike religious characters. Some of the references used are questionable, like a single line suggesting Homer Simpsons an atheist; however in other cases it's less debatable, like the several episodes of House that deal with his atheism, (House vs. God). Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do we care about wikipedia catagories, exactly?--Miekal 15:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Inasmuch as WP is only used here as a source of references, I would suggest that we couldn't give a flying fuck what categories they have. Scream!! (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] About the Spider-woman model

I've heard that the interpretation itself is a rather poorly-rigged case. Here is a much more reasonable interpretation.--DoomTay (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannerism Vajrapani (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools