Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1010236 -

"It makes no difference to me if some predator I've never met hates me, loves me, or is indifferent to me."

cool, well i try to work for the happiness and enlightenment of ALL living things. if there is hate in this world, then i do care. how can you rest knowing your fellow man is full of hate, we must work to dispell this hate, how? by responding with love, obviously murderes and violent criminals are a threat to our saftey, but our prisons breed more hate, there is no rehabilitation there. there must be another way.....im not claiming to have all the answers, but i know this much, that predator or hater is just another extension of myself, and you....


--------------------
if you can't find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?

this is the purpose

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1010257 -

Hitler did NOT try this. Not even close.

yawn..

Oh yes he did. He introduced the death penalty on a massive scale, summary execution was standard practise. It didn't work.

If you know so little about Hitlers germany why try and argue about it?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Xlea321]
    #1010579 -

In reply to:
Hitler did NOT try this. Not even close.

yawn..

Oh yes he did. He introduced the death penalty on a massive scale, summary execution was standard practise. It didn't work.

If you know so little about Hitlers germany why try and argue about it?


Alex, apperently you weren't aware of this but Hitler instituted gun control for the masses. Now, Pinky's option #2 stated, "Universally publicize the fact that those who attempt to harm others will be killed instantly, ideally before they can swing their baseball bat or pull the trigger, but at any rate before they can harm more than a single victim." Riddle me this, if a person is not armed, how could he/she instantly kill an offender?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1010651 -

Fine. Replace the computer with God and lightning bolts, then.

I was not talking about God. I was talking about your idea to use computers to inforce someone's law.

Option 1) Allow the predators to perform violent acts at will, and offer no physical resistance to them. At the same time, those who haven't yet been killed by the predators attempt to reason with them, to coddle them, to provide them with love and compassion in the hopes that they may see the error of their ways and eventually stop harming others.

With respect to you, I think you are over simplifying my beliefs in an effort to discredit them. Once again, this is not a plan to stop murderer's currently, it is a plan to stop future murders. Not allowing the type of environment where murders are born will, IMO, stop the violence.

Option 2) Universally publicize the fact that those who attempt to harm others will be killed instantly, ideally before they can swing their baseball bat or pull the trigger, but at any rate before they can harm more than a single victim.

IMO, this HAS been tried before by a lot of people. It is already against the law to murder AND if it is discovered that someone is ploting a murder, they are immediately put in jail, before they can hurt anyone. The truth is, IMO, this system still doesn't destroy the hate because this system is working without love. People ARE murdering the murders but NOT murdering the hate, that is how I see it. By not casting out the hate you are making a breeding ground for murderers of the future. In my humble opinion, option two isn't working...

Your approach (option 1) is a cast-iron guarantee that the violent will shortly own the planet.

First off...do you know all ends? I think you are passing off an opinion as fact. Second, by the way you characterized "Option 1" I don't believe you understand my plan, and I DO NOT say that because you don't agree I say that because your version of Option 1 was not what I was suggesting.

My approach (option 2) is a cast-iron guarantee that there will shortly be no more acts of violence.

Once again, do you know all ends? I think you are passing off an opinion as fact. Second, you are saying that your opinion is right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and just doesn't see the "truth". After all you are saying your way is a "gaurantee" for peace and my way is a "gaurantee" against it. IMO, this is a dangerous attitude because it is the attitude of all famous and not so famous dictators.

Don't you wonder why your ideas keep making people think of Hitler?

I know you believe your opinions are fact, but like me you are just one man and we are fallable people. That is why a one man Government has yet to work. If you adopt the attitude of your opinion is fact and everyone else is wrong this is the textbook attitude that makes people reject totalitarianism, dictatorship and most organized religions. Everyone of those things simply believed that their way was the only way...that if other people did not agree with them they were idiots and WRONG.

That is why I am not saying I am right. I am merely saying this is the way I see it. I am also not saying you are wrong. Because I don't believe in my way versus the wrong way...I believe in the will of the people.

Much love to you . :smile:


--------------------
Shroomalicious - :smile: I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one :smile: - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi

Edited by Shroomalicious (10/31/02 03:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1010670 -

So what? It makes no difference to me if some predator I've never met hates me, loves me, or is indifferent to me. All that I care about is that he not harm me. His motivation for letting me go about my life without being harmed by him is a matter of supreme indifference to me.

The non-violent philosophy is that if a predator hates you, even if that predator leaves you alone, allows hate to continue and breeds a new generation of hate and predators.

Once again, non-violence, is a solution for the long run...a way of stopping future terror.


--------------------
Shroomalicious - :smile: I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one :smile: - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Shroomalicious]
    #1010688 -


Fight hate with love!


:wink:




--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Evolving]
    #1010707 -

Alex, apperently you weren't aware of this but Hitler instituted gun control for the masses

Is this what you learn in NRA 101?  :grin:

If only they'd had gun control before Hitler, he'd never have risen to power. The fact that gun control wasn't in place meant he could arm his own private armies and stormtroopers. Gun control would have prevented the second world war. That's something to think about.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Xlea321]
    #1010726 -

In reply to:
If only they'd had gun control before Hitler, he'd never have risen to power. The fact that gun control wasn't in place meant he could arm his own private armies and stormtroopers. Gun control would have prevented the second world war. That's something to think about.


Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt! Did your imaginary alien contacts tell you this, or did you think up this bit of fantasy on your own?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Edited by Evolving (10/31/02 03:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Shroomalicious]
    #1010728 -

Don't you wonder why your ideas keep making people think of Hitler?

I think pink is a little bitter because he got socked in the jaw a while back. He was saying that if he'd had his gun he'dve been able to shoot the guy - save a bit of his wounded pride by blowing someones son/brother/father away. Very Hitlerian way of looking at the world - if you kill someone you hope you won't feel insecure anymore.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Evolving]
    #1010741 -

Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt!

No they won't, but that doesn't alter the fact that if Hitlers stormtroopers had been denied access to arms Hitler would have had a fraction of the power and influence he had and almost certainly never have reached the chancellorship.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Xlea321]
    #1010962 -

How about amending the idea of blowing violent people's minds up. If the technology becomes available to monitor peoples violent thoughts, then the following model may have merit, although it may be difficult to implement at first. The AI or program created to monitor violent thoughts doesn't need to blow peoples minds up. I would prefer to make it as powerless as possible. Imagine using a balance of power model for society. There would be three sections.

1) The general population. Everyone would be implanted somehow with a chip that could monitor their thoughts. These thoughts would be transmited to an AI that would filter out normal thoughts and only throw up a "red flag" when someone was having regular violent thoughts of harming others. The AI would then contact the authorities who could investigate the situation further.

2) The authorities. The authorities would be members from the general population who are "respected" and have "good" intentions. These people would also be implanted and monitored just as the general population. They would have the job of investigating people who have violent thoughts and intentions and taking action if necessary. If the authority figures have consistent violent thoughts or malicious intentions of modifying the AI then the general population would be informed of their intentions and could have them removed.

3) The AI(Artificial Intelligence) . The AI would have to be very carefully designed and programed to work effectively. It would be far smarter and rational than any human could be because its parameters would be strict and it could compute huge amounts of data to come to a logical conclusion about someone's thoughts and intentions. It would be the mediator between the authorities and the general public.

With these three elements described, there are a few rules that must be followed for the system to work.

1) Everyone must be involuntarily implanted and connected. This would make things "fair" and would not allow for anyone to dominate others.

2) If the AI needs to be modified for any reason, it can only be changed if at least the majority if the population and a majority of the authorities agree to change it. This will prevent anyone with malicious intentions from altering the AI to give himself an unfair advantage.

3) The AI must be benevolent and completely powerless except to transmit info between the authorities and general population. It must be carefully designed because it will be very smart and control the flow of information.

These are the basic guidelines for this system. I'm sure people will want to comment on this idea. Please post you ideas and criticisms of this idea. Please just assume that it is technologically feasible and comment on its weaknesses or strengths as a system.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Xlea321]
    #1011075 -

I think pink is a little bitter because he got socked in the jaw a while back. He was saying that if he'd had his gun he'dve been able to shoot the guy - save a bit of his wounded pride by blowing someones son/brother/father away.

Goodness but you are a bitter, bitter, little creature, aren't you? As you are well aware, that is not what I said at all. In the post to which you refer, I stated that it would not have been necessary to fire the gun; merely brandishing it would have been sufficient. It may surprise you to know that those who visibly carry pistols here are never mugged.

To further clarify things, I don't own a firearm or even a machete. My most lethal weapon is a slingshot I use to scare off pesky roosters who insist on crowing before the sun rises. For the record, even roosters are smart enough to stay away from those with slingshots.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Shroomalicious]
    #1011136 -

I was talking about your idea to use computers to inforce someone's law.

SOMEONE'S law? The prohibition of the initiation of violence is pretty much a universal law in every society on earth, is it not? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you were also in favor of eliminating violent behavior. We both agree on that point. We merely disagree over how it should best be accomplished.

It is already against the law to murder AND if it is discovered that someone is ploting a murder, they are immediately put in jail, before they can hurt anyone.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. They are neither IMMEDIATELY jailed nor are they always kept in jail until the trial is over. That is what the concept of "bail" refers to. Further, there are innumerable cases of convicted murderers being released on parole who murder again.

The truth is, IMO, this system still doesn't destroy the hate because this system is working without love.

Irrelevant. First of all, the "system" is in place to protect victims of predators, not to make predators feel good. Secondly, hatred is an emotion, and as such is not in itself harmful to others. It is only ACTIONS that harm others. You must be aware that murders are committed for motives other than hatred. Greed, lust for power, sexual pleasure and misguided love being just four I can think of offhand. And that is only for murder. Add assault and rape into the mix and the field widens.

The truth is, IMO, this system still doesn't destroy the hate because this system is working without love.

I think it's pretty clear to the readers of the forum that pretty much everything expressed in these threads is someone's opinion. To save space, I rarely bother to type "in my opinion" each and every time I state one -- I just presume people can come to that conclusion on their own.

I don't believe you understand my plan, and I DO NOT say that because you don't agree I say that because your version of Option 1 was not what I was suggesting.

I misunderstood, then. I must have missed the part where you said that a violent response to unprovoked aggression was okay by you. Let me review your posts in this thread.... hmmm... still can't find it. Maybe you could point it out to me? However, I would be happy to have you edit my phrasing of Option 1 into whatever form you feel comfortable with.

I think you are passing off an opinion as fact.

Please explain to me how violence could continue to exist if every time someone initiated an act of violence he ceased to exist? Is it not a given that in order for violence to occur there must be people willing to initiate acts of violence?

Second, you are saying that your opinion is right...

Are you not convinced YOUR opinion is right? If not, why do you continue to defend it?

this is a dangerous attitude because it is the attitude of all famous and not so famous dictators.

Do you not also hold that attitude?

Don't you wonder why your ideas keep making people think of Hitler?

Only those people incapable of thinking in fundamental principles. The opinion of anyone who thinks advocating a plan to stop all violence at the source bears any relationship to Hitler's well-documented life of virtually unceasing initiation of violent acts is not worthy of consideration by anyone capable of rational thought.

That is why a one man Government has yet to work.

There have been many one-man governments in recorded history that worked just fine. Depends entirely on who the man is and what fundamental principles he chose to govern by.

Everyone of those things simply believed that their way was the only way...that if other people did not agree with them they were idiots and WRONG.

I don't think my way is the ONLY way to end violence, just the quickest way, with the least loss of innocent lives. Note my modification of the "brain-mush" concept to the "instant temporary unconsciousness" concept for the more squeamish reader. I find it interesting that you skipped right over it.

Finally, I don't think you are an idiot, but I do think you are wrong.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!)... [Re: Shroomalicious]
    #1011148 -

I totally agree with your first post, shroomalicious.. right on.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Xlea321]
    #1011383 -

Alex123 writes:

If you know so little about Hitlers germany why try and argue about it?

I had quite an interest in how Nazi germany could arise in a seemingly enlightened, "civilized" country, so for many years I read extensively on the subject. Here's a list of most of the books I have read on Nazi Germany and the reasons it came about. I have undoubtedly forgotten a few, but not many. The list is probably pretty complete:

Hitler's Mein Kampf, Rauschning's The Voice of Destruction, The Mind and Face of Nazi Germany by J. Murray, Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, Finer's Mussolini's Italy, Fromm's Escape from Freedom, Atanassio's Nazi Culture, National Socialism by Raymond Murphy et al., The Crisis in German Ideology by George L. Mosse, Three Faces of Fascism by Ernst Nolte, Mythus - The Nazi Years (edited by J. Remak), Rader's Germany Reborn, The Origins of Totalitarianism by Harcourt et al., Wilhelm Stapel's The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism , Communism, Fascism and Democracy (C. Cohen, editor), and -- of course -- Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

I would be happy to check out any you have read that I haven't. Any suggestions?

pinky




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1011860 -

I stated that it would not have been necessary to fire the gun; merely brandishing it would have been sufficient.

And I said what if it wasn't sufficient and the guy kept coming. You said the laws against killing people wern't as strict in the US as the UK anyway.

Any suggestions

Try the psychopathic god by waite, Fest's biog of Hitler, Hitlers Vienna and Into the darkness by Gitta sereny for a good basic introduction.

But if you keep on insisting that Hitler didn't use strict capital punishment then I'm afraid I will have great doubts that you have read a single book.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1011945 -

There have been many one-man governments in recorded history that worked just fine

Names please.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
    #1012098 -

SOMEONE'S law? The prohibition of the initiation of violence is pretty much a universal law in every society on earth, is it not? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you were also in favor of eliminating violent behavior. We both agree on that point. We merely disagree over how it should best be accomplished.

What I meant by someone's law is that your philosophy would include SOMEONE'S definition of violence. Now obviously most everyone thinks murder is violence, however there are other matters wich some people don't agree is violence. Some people think killing a killer is justice, others think it is violence, just for one example.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. They are neither IMMEDIATELY jailed nor are they always kept in jail until the trial is over. That is what the concept of "bail" refers to. Further, there are innumerable cases of convicted murderers being released on parole who murder again.

I guess what it comes down to is I trust the current system more than I trust a computer. Strickly opinion.

Irrelevant. First of all, the "system" is in place to protect victims of predators, not to make predators feel good. Secondly, hatred is an emotion, and as such is not in itself harmful to others. It is only ACTIONS that harm others. You must be aware that murders are committed for motives other than hatred. Greed, lust for power, sexual pleasure and misguided love being just four I can think of offhand. And that is only for murder. Add assault and rape into the mix and the field widens.

My opinion is irrelevant? I didn't know that. I don't think your opinion is irrelevant.

Hatred is an emotion, the emotion that gave fire to Bin Laden...hatred as an emotion may be harmless if it was always kept to itself, unfortunetly hatred leads to all "hate crimes", hence the name.

I think all those other crimes you speak of, grew out of hatred. Would you say that a raper has no hate in his heart? I would not say that.

I think it's pretty clear to the readers of the forum that pretty much everything expressed in these threads is someone's opinion. To save space, I rarely bother to type "in my opinion" each and every time I state one -- I just presume people can come to that conclusion on their own.

Well, when you said that your plan was an "iron clad gaurantee" it didn't sound like an opinion? See what I am trying to say, friend?

I misunderstood, then. I must have missed the part where you said that a violent response to unprovoked aggression was okay by you. Let me review your posts in this thread.... hmmm... still can't find it. Maybe you could point it out to me? However, I would be happy to have you edit my phrasing of Option 1 into whatever form you feel comfortable with.

The reason you cannot find that, is because I never said that...nor did I feel that or think that.

My version of "Option 1" - Create a world, one by one meticulously with patience, in which there is no reason to hate. Where murders are kept watch on, but ultimately treated as humans. Kept from murdering, butbeing "rehabed", instead of murdered or just thrown into a cell and forgotten about. When crime happens it is learned about and understood and then steps are taken to see that those conditions that lead to the crime, namely hate, are not duplicated. Disliking the sin, but not the commiter of sin. Not returning hate with hate, but creating a world in which hate has not place.

Please explain to me how violence could continue to exist if every time someone initiated an act of violence he ceased to exist? Is it not a given that in order for violence to occur there must be people willing to initiate acts of violence?

Hypothetically, if your system worked exactly the way you say it would, then aside from destroying freedom, it would result in much less violence and if you somehow defined violence "perfectly" then it would destroy it. Unfortunely I find that technology to be unrealistic and subject to errors, meaning loss of human life, which I find unexceptable.

Are you not convinced YOUR opinion is right? If not, why do you continue to defend it?

As I said in the last part of my post, I do NOT think my opinion is right. I believe it is, and that is not just some insignificant nick-nack choice of words in my opinion. Words reflect my mind, I believe in my opinion but I do not think it is right and everyone else is wrong because everyone else has a mind, body and spirit (or not, if you do not believe in that) so we are all even, and nobody's opinion is anymore creditable then the next guys, IMO.

Only those people incapable of thinking in fundamental principles. The opinion of anyone who thinks advocating a plan to stop all violence at the source bears any relationship to Hitler's well-documented life of virtually unceasing initiation of violent acts is not worthy of consideration by anyone capable of rational thought.

Once again, you are saying anyone who holds an opinion contrary to your beliefs is "incapable of thinking in fundamental principles". Not only accusing them of being stupid but of being immoral, simply because they do not share your opinions. How is that not arrogant? You said yourself we both want peace, we just have different ideas as to how to get it. I don't mean it as a slam, I am being serious...I want to know. I am truly sorry if that is an insult as you deserve no insult, but I think it is a question I need to ask you.

Furthermore, nobody said Hitler didn't kill anyone. We are merely saying that he decided what was morally right and then FORCED others to abide by it, even if it included others dying...not unlike your plan?

Yes, I know you believe you are right though, and since your philosophies, in your opinion, actually are right and so that makes forcing them on others okay...that too is what Hitler believed.

There have been many one-man governments in recorded history that worked just fine. Depends entirely on who the man is and what fundamental principles he chose to govern by.

I really can't use that information without you supplying specfic names. Being a student of History I cannot remeber this working for long at all...however, that does NOT mean it didn't happen. It just means I find it hard to believe and I need names to confirm it.

I think it is important that you know I am not playing devil's advocate and I do not wish to irritate you, however my beliefs differ from yours so I feel the need to explain so I can better understand you and vice-versa. We have a difference of beliefs, no need for hatred. I do not think you are hating me, but just to make clear I am not hating you. I am not irritated and I still have nothing but love for you as a fellow human.


--------------------
Shroomalicious - :smile: I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one :smile: - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi

Edited by Shroomalicious (11/01/02 01:53 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!)... [Re: Traveller]
    #1012154 -

By the way, feedback both negative and positive is appreciated!

Thanks very much!


--------------------
Shroomalicious - :smile: I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one :smile: - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!)... [Re: Evolving]
    #1012228 -

non-violence does not mean doing nothing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* nonviolence and its violent consequences NiamhNyx 1,927 9 08/08/04 11:59 PM
by Mushmonkey
* the need for violence spewed 4th 1,027 6 11/08/02 11:08 PM
by Zero7a1
* Why is the world a violent place?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Droz 2,618 43 12/06/03 03:56 PM
by Shizpow
* Tell-a-vision Programming!
( 1 2 3 all )		 Adamist 3,995 57 03/02/06 09:15 PM
by Ravus
* violence or non-violence that is the question... Anonymous 1,218 12 02/14/03 12:18 AM
by Anonymous
* Jealous Rage - Pathology or Primal Programming? Swami 1,202 8 01/28/04 06:51 PM
by silversoul7
* Sex, Violence and the search for Intimacy NiamhNyx 1,176 9 01/30/04 12:56 AM
by NiamhNyx
* So Much Violence
( 1 2 all )		 Kiafi 3,183 22 11/10/03 02:05 PM
by Ped

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
12,163 topic views. 2 members, 519 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.