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.
Friends.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Drinks drunk.gif

What is going on?

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

  1. The Talk About Club (23:03, 23 Nov 2014)
  2. 2014 American Midterms (00:03, 21 Nov 2014)
  3. Plant neurology? (19:21, 20 Nov 2014)
  4. Academia edu (04:44, 20 Nov 2014)
  5. WIGO World Archives (07:37, 19 Nov 2014)
  6. Is there any truth behind the book Grain Brain? (14:28, 18 Nov 2014)
To do list


[edit] Laughing at conservative Americans

There has recently been a series on Finnish TV called The Norden where Americans have been given a taste of Scandinavia, so far they've done Prisons and Religion. The Religion one took a fundamentalist preacher from Georgia and exposed him to Swedish godlessness, enjoy the incredulity. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating Moderator 00:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting for you to talk about incredulity as regards Scandinavia, especially considering that Sweden has the harshest pot laws in Europe, to no avail. Incidentally, libertarians, who you guys always bash, have been at the forefront of prison reform. In any case, when it comes to violent crime, violent crime went down in the US when the more lenient approach by the Warren Court was reversed. I also wasn't aware that Scandinavians believed fundamentally different things than most Americans. I also didn't think there was much anti-US sentiment in those countries; as opposed to say France. Burkean (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just watched the religion one. I can't really say that Pastor Marty McClane made me laugh (except when he said "MOOS-LIM"). It looks like the programme makers went out of there way to choose a very calm Conservative Christian preacher who wasn't going to yell at people that they were going to Hell because they didn't believe the exact same thing as him. I did find it interesting that all those Swedish people said "No" without hesitation when they were asked if they believed in God. I'd like to see something similar done in Britain. I'm certain you'd get a lot more people thinking about it for longer and a lot more people saying "I'm not sure" and things like "I believe in something but I don't want to call it God". Spud (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
And before this section disappears off the page, I'll say that I've just seen the prisons one too and didn't find the American in that one funny at all. Still, it was an interesting programme and i'd like to see more from that series. Spud (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The point was not about humor per se, but the incredulity of the Americans when confronted with a functioning, and in some ways more successful society that is the antithesis of what they believe in. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 08:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I can see that. It did strike me that the American prison officer should have (dare I say it) been a bit more open-minded. I think it's one thing to say, "This wouldn't work in America", and another to just think that it shouldn't be done in Denmark, Norway or Sweden either. Anyway, thanks for pointing me in the direction of those videos, Genghis. I did enjoy watching them. Spud (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] We've upset the American Thinker

Perhaps we should talk about it on the American Thinker page. Apparently we don't pick on Leftists or left-wing conspiracy theories at all. ClothCoat (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

American Thinker - link added to save anyone else the physical exertion of typing it in. I assume that is a commode that AT is sitting on? Very appropriate. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The American Thinkers series on the Cloward-Piven strategy some deem prophetic. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 23:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
So, so prophetic. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
By "prophetic" I assume you mean "fucking retarded." Leave the thinking to the big boys, Robby; you suck at it. DickTurpis (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you gonna tell me the Obama amnesty isn't based on Cloward-Piven? can't any of fucktards read? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
He's not granting them any social benefits. Troll Osaka Sun (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, a greencard, driver license, voter registration, EBT, the Obamacare refundable tax credit and taking jobs from blacks and minorities who already suffer high unemployment isn't a social benefit? You don't have a fucking clue what your talking about sitting there in London or wherever the fuck, reading your commie talking points from commie rags. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
And trust me, if there's any truth to this, my church group and me will be working with them personally very soon as they come up here from Carlsbad to get out of the cold weather. We provide food and shelter for the homeless, and our shelter has longtime been used as an overnight stop on the underground railway for illegals heading north. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 06:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Providing food and shelter for the homeless? That sounds awfully Communist to me. What would Republican Jesus think? --Ymir (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
FFS, Ymir, Rob's politics may be a shade to the right of Attila the Hun but that doesn't mean he isn't a decent human being. His work with the homeless has been long documented on this site and even Repub Jesus is for feeding the poor. It's just socialised medicine he's against. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's one group we work closely with; there is a history of feeding Albuquerque homeless somewhere on the internet I wish to update if I could find it. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, while it is nice to do some for those in need I think it still makes someone a monster if they actively campaign against other things that help. I understand one person can only do so much to help. It's a problem to say it's okay to feed/shelter those in need...but if they are sick, in need of helping finding a job, or need more than temporary food/shelter fuck them. It only prepetuates the issue instead of providing a solution that causes more frustration, pain, and despair for those in need which almost seems like torture. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Random article edit race

How about an edit race? A non participant names an article to improve and we see who can actually research it and have the article updated the fastest. I have articles in mind if everyone else wants to compete for teh honorz. Edit racing is far better for the community than template drive by edit gang wars. Which category jeopardy category sounds better; science, religion or politics? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to name the American Thinker given their horribly half-assed attempt to refute their article but I'm not sure if much else can be said about them. ClothCoat (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want to improve the articles of the wiki, why do you need to have somebody tell you which direction to go or "race to improve it!"? Wouldn't it be better to just go improve them without any fancy theatrics? --Miekal 00:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Cool cloth coat; I'll look into it in a few weeks when I'm free, hopefully someone other than you or me adds something to it before than. I wanted to see what other people wanted Miekal, is their no existing forum for request edits? The sport of requested reference racing is a bit unnecessary, and so is theater, which would be the mock trial for the drive by templating of Robots and Star Trek. I was just thinking of ways to actually gauge how good an editor is here in case my competence is questioned by people who don't read the religion articles here. It takes time to go through all of a users edits and statistically analyze how many were good edits, counting on popularity contests that don't send out equal invitations isn't a very good gauge.

What's your opinion on the robots article by the way from a historians view point? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this what you are looking for?--TiaC (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the page link TiaC, I see mostly new religious figures, websites, newspapers, films, and books on that list. Some look interesting though, But that was the old testament, caste, fair trade, and child labor. Feral child could reference theologicus auto didactus. I think the information added to Zombie would make sense for the lobotomy page as well given it requires the removal of brain matter; as would a link to Egyptian mummies. I assume brain transplant wouldn't be mentioned as none of the sci-fi you have pages for feature brain transplants and you don't care who Tezuka Osamu is, not having a page even for anime.
What's your opinion on the robot article? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, a lot of what you just said reads as word salad. There are things on that list that probably should have a page though. E.g. Fair trade, An Inconvenient Truth, Ballotpedia... As to the robot article, it should exist, but what we have is rambling and could be better connected to mission. --TiaC (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
How would you suggest it be better organized without deleting information? It's taken from an encyclopedia not written as 5 paragraph blocks like in grade school. I'll keep my posts shorter so you can follow. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What about charity? Would anyone please help me with my recent edition to that article. In football it's called an assist when together you get it past the goal keeper. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] How does one get sysops privileges back?

Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably by not asking for them. >.> (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Convincing people you deserve to have them. Doing things like going "either remove mine or theirs!" in the coop and that long complaint about your detractors on your userpage aren't good ways to start that process off. --Miekal 05:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
He deserves them more than you do. He adds more than he deletes and he knows how to read. Nutty Roux (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been a man on the outside of this, but why isn't Exiled Encyclopedist a sysop? They seem to try hard and want to get things done. Sure, not every edit of theirs has been quality, but that doesn't exclude them from being a sysop. Why, specifically, did they lose sysop rights? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
His "charity" addition just got removed as plagiarism. Pretty sure that doesn't count as adding usefully - David Gerard (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
He cooped Weaseloid, ZooGuard, and WatcherIntheDark over a content dispute. He goes on the talk pages of such users, asking them to prove they are better editors than him. He shows little understanding of the overall tone and mission of RW; many of his additions might seem suitable on a serious encyclopedia: see.for example, Robot. WP got tired of his tendentious ways and banned him. Look at the history of Censored Scribe there, but be prepared to spend some time doing so. Early in his RW career, he went on a bronzing spree that seemed to be based on counting the number of references in an article, and determining whether it had content not covered on WP. In my opinion, this is the kind of editor who takes a lot of cleaning up after. Miekal finally sysopped him to silence his whining (or bleating, as Psy called it) but I think that was a mistake. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
To answer RNS's question specifically, what prompted me to remove EE's sysop rights was him saying, in the coop, "it's time to remove someones sysops privileges until they prove they deserve them again, decide if it's Zooguard and Weasaloid or me." He literally asked for it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What exactly does this man have to prove? What purpose did removing his sysop bit serve? Can he now not do something destructive with his sysop bit that he was previously doing? Do you have any evidence that he was going to do anything objectionable with it? I don't think you do.
"In my opinion, this is the kind of editor who takes a lot of cleaning up after." So do it. Oh right, you don't actually do anything but talk and push buttons. But somehow people are supposed to listen to you, right? Leave the heavy lifting to people like Gerard who know what they're doing and ... do it.
"He literally asked for it." No he didn't. He said something you didn't like and you removed his bit. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
...and all Nutty does is bitch about the permissive atmosphere RW now enjoys. Way to build a community, jerk. His assessment of my activity here is as flawed as many of his other readings of RW events. Nutty is an authoritarian dick, an unreliable narrator, and a capricious abrasive asshole, who carries resentment towards anyone who challenges his authoritah. Fuck off. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
On a more serious note, what is EE prevented from doing that he would need sysop rights to do? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
He's actually more tiresome to clean up after than Pr*x*ma. It turns out that editors who get banned from Wikipedia and immediately come here without changing their ways may be more trouble than is worth indulging - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What does his not having sysop privileges prevent him from doing that is problematic? None of the items above are prevented if he still edit. You still have to "clean up." The contrast between who some of you are insistent on the community being permissive toward and who you want to micromanage is appalling. Sterile (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If by "who some of you are insistent on the community being permissive toward" you mean Brx, where is the "insistence"? He's history. Also, did you know someone drew a dick on your user page? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Wearing my Moderator propellor beanie: Can't say I'm fussed either way, FWIW. Did he actually abuse them in any way, or was he just annoying in text? - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it was right before or right after his "strip me or them!" statement, but he dropped a 3 month block on zooguard for vandalizing his edits. --Miekal 13:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
In Genie terms, I did ask for someone to have sysops privileges removed. David Gerards assessment is accurate in as much as I was kicked off of Wikipedia specifically for fiction and I lost sysop privlidges here after a drive by fiction templating; the comparison ends there though. My categorizations of sci-fi here have been an improvement for Farenheit 451, 1984 and Handmaids Tale.

Sysops privileges would greatly assist me in unblocking myself, which based on my block log and everyone else's happens fairly frequently, if only as a joke between people with the power to unblock themselves. The biggest problem seems to be clean up and rewording a bit more, the references are all fine even if the way I use them isn't always. Most of my edits brought up at the chicken coop managed to get through Watchers goalie net though, like early eugenics support from Presbyterian Episcopal and Methodist churches. I'd like to think we are all on the same team here and that there's no need for 1 on 1 edit edit races, or flash mob gang wars on discussions.

In summary, don't drive by template or mass categorize, use correct grammar and proof read to prevent double posts, and reword what ever arbitrary amount Watcher decides is enough to get the reference past their goal tending. I'd like to think we are all on the same team and judge one another on our abilities to fulfill all the roles, defense, offense, center and assistance; not just the ones we like to do and are good at. I'm good at center offense, but it's time to try another position. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

EE, you got sanctioned for doing maintainance work and adding content? Jesus. When is this site gonna get on mission and take on the European Union for banning bovine growth hormone with quack science. Jobs are at stake here, ya know. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this community, but from what I've seen, +1.
Cut'n'pasting text and shuffling a few words is plagiarism and in this case appears to have been copyright violation. I would suggest this is a good reason to leave you blockable - David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh wikidrama, where would the world be without your mostly reasonable editors and the fights they pick as if to prove that they're not always reasonable? Ikanreed (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Troll Advertising.


Whoever put this advertisement on the front page of World Net Daily is a maximum troll.Greatnecro (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Culturalmarxism.net

I just found this site, and I cannot figure out if it's a Poe or not. Help. --Gulik (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism or Cultural Bolshevism seeks to destroy everything good about a society...."; "Muslim nurses in the UK have finally been given what they’ve demanded—the right to not wash their hands before medical procedures...; "Man Goes To Mexico To Kill Himself, Spends Week Doing Coke And Banging Hookers, Decides To Keep Living"; "Men Imprisoned for Throwing Pig’s Head At Mosque While Muslims Continue Throwing Human HeadsWherever." ; "The U.S. House of Representatives Bows to Allah (complete with pic of Osama Bin Laden in the Speaker's chair." I would say Poe. I would also say I can't believe you had to ask this question. (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Cosby rape allegations

I personally think that these allegations are a load of crock. The idea that someone as famous as Bill Cosby could perpetrate serial sex crimes for 45 years with no journalist getting wind of it until now is simply laughable. Of course, it's not going to matter because in the court of public opinion everybody thinks he did it. What do you guys think on the matter? Greatnecro (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ammen. Bill Clinton could stick his dick in every girls face he got behind closed doors for 25 years, so what's the big deal as long as he's not a Republican. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Troll Osaka Sun (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, because it's not like it's ever happened before. At all. Apart from all the times it happened.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 02:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Read this, please. End of discussion. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's a video of Have I Got News for You discussing how Jimmy Savile got away with abusing kids for decades. This kind of thing has happened before. As Ian Hislop points out in the video, the only people who knew about it were the people to whom it happened; and they tend to be at a disadvantage, as in not really in the mood for a court trial etc. (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Can I just point out that we should all probably stop assuming that he did/didn't do this stuff until we actually know for certain? Like, there's a difference between "I think he did X" or "if he did X, then Y", and "he did X so therefore Y". Just saying.
Can somebody please get rid of Rob already?--Madman (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)The Madman
It's all but confirmed he's a troll so who cares? ClothCoat (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Also I would like to point out how it is super convenient how these women are all coming out now, now that there is no chance of any evidence being found to prove innocence or guilt. I could understand waiting a year or maybe two to screw up your courage to report something like this, but 45 years and nobody told anyone? This just reeks of attention whoring and sensationalist journalism. Greatnecro (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Which is exactly what they said about Jimmy Savile (yes, it's the same link as the one above) Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The rate of false reports for rape is, apparently 2-8%, which is about the same as the rate of false reports for all crimes. Bearing in mind that these figures include as 'false' allegations which have been withdrawn due to intimidation and/or police indifference, suddenly the 'attention whore' angle looks a whole lot more idiotic. Realistically, it's no less likely to be true than any other reported crime by a celebrity. Sure, wait until the legal system has coughed up enough evidence to make a better grounded decision, but with just what we know at the moment the smart money would be on 'true'. Queex (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Many of Cosby's alleged victims told police years ago. Cut it with the "why did they wait" argument and ask "Why were they ignored" and "why didn't I already know this" - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Amazing how good his PR team is at damage control, isn't it. Almost scary, really. --Madman (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Thanks for the blast from the pre-Operation Yewtree past, Greatnecro. "The idea that someone as famous as Bill Cosby could perpetrate serial sex crimes for 45 years with no journalist getting wind of it until now is simply laughable" "it is super convenient how these women are all coming out now, now that there is no chance of any evidence being found to prove innocence or guilt" - yeah, I remember when people used to say stuff like that in the UK. Grumblejaws (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
And, of course, let us not forget the distinction between 'no journalist getting wind of it' and 'no editor prepared to sink their publication publishing it', which is kind of how famous and influential predators operate. Queex (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As I said before, I will pass judgment when the media circus is over. Tensions are high and the media is just gobbling it up. I am beyond caring until somebody calms down. Zero (talk - contributions) 21:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As I've said on Facebook, there's nothing surprising about the way this is unfolding. Sexual abuse accusations have been made against Bill Cosby for years. However, he has categorically denied them or remained silent about them. Most of the women stepped down from the spotlight quickly after the media pretty much ignored them. However, things are changing and they are speaking up again. It is not unusual for victims of sexual crimes to wait years before reporting them. There is a lot of shame and guilt associated with being the victim of a sex crime. Many women are still told that they're somehow to blame or that they really wanted it somehow, that it was somehow their fault. Also, it is not surprising given Cosby's power and influence. Who would believe that Bill Cosby could rape anyone? He made everyone laugh. He's so nice. There are a large number of factors that contribute. I don't know if he sexually assaulted anyone. However, there's a lot of commonality among the stories and some verified weird stories (David Letterman staffers were required to sit and watch him eat curry for him to appear on the show) that are clear warning signs of someone who has some issues. This is really going to explode in the next couple months. AyzmoCheers 21:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
What influence? Cosby is a comedian, he has next to no political influence. he certainly does not have enough influence to squash multiple police investigations.Greatnecro (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
are you just not reading any of the multiple links that people have posted? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that the false rape allegations are rare in the general public, is it not reasonable to assume, that they might be somewhat higher in the cases of celebrities, where there are certain amounts of gain available (via media attention, book deals, paid interviews etc.), which is of course not the case with 'ordinary' people.--Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 10:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Austin Murphy (American Thinker guy) "replies"

That guy who wrote the American Thinker piece replied to our reply. This guy's so over the top I'm tempted to give him his own page.

"It also mentions my accusation that RationalWiki doesn't have a piece on left-wing conspiracy theories: it doesn't. However, in response to that it supplies a link to a piece on “moonbatery”, which is certainly not the same thing." (Doesn't mention that his original piece also basically said we never criticize leftists)

"The worst aspect of RationalWiki's riposte is to conflate anthropogenic-global- warming scepticism with“pseudoscience” and “conspiracy”."

"However, I suspect that the average RationalWiki writer is between 17 and 24 and is either a university student or a recent graduate. (I may be wrong: that assumption rests only the pieces I've read.) Hence the smugness and juvenile politics."

Also he really likes Uncyclopedia for some reason. ClothCoat (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried to leave a comment under "anonymous" (but telling him I was from Rationalwiki) explaining where he was wrong and it's now gone. In fairness I'm not sure whether it's because of the shoddy design of the site or because Murphy actually deleted it. ClothCoat (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any conservative slanted media of any sort that don't delete disagreeing comments. It's my default assumption that a forum for the right-wing will have a de-facto ideological purity test. This isn't hyperbole. I honestly can't think of any. Ikanreed (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyone else read "Counter-Jihad" and think "Counter Currents"? Lol. This guy is great. BlackProg (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
These guys really live in their own little world of fantasy. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
ClothCoat's comment was deleted, but the moronic insult remained -Murphy is feeding his persecution complex --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock )Moderator 23:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] The Huffington Post Union of Bloggers

Has the information in the section, " The Huffington Post Union of Bloggers been checked for accuracy? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this what the talk page for the article is for?--Miekal 14:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Isn't part of the Saloon Bar's purpose to help gather editors for things that might need them? Ikanreed (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but Proxima already made a section about this on that talk page. We've tended, in the past, afair, to not like having multiple discussions like that across pages--Miekal 14:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the website itself though, It's a bunch of crank conspiracy bullshit with some actual articles seemingly hidden on other pages. --Miekal 14:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Andrews Quiverfull Podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fee6eqIDACw&list=UUeYP27qLtfUMY1b1Cyy3WdQ You guys seen the new podcast The Thinking Atheist has on the Quiverfull movement? — Unsigned, by: Greatnecro / talk / contribs 21:55, 25 November 2014‎

Personal tools