Home | Community | Message Board

Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Next > | Last >
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: What is love? [Re: Thanatos10]
    #26639659 - 04/30/20 06:15 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
Quote:

Tantrika said:
Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
Plus aren’t there eastern philosophies that argue that what appears isn’t real? So from that point it would seem solipsism isn’t nonsense like everyone says.




Isn't inherently real
what appears is as real as it appears to be while it appears as such

once it is gone, it is gone forever, because at the core it is empty -- when it returns it is no longer the same
but this also means you cannot truly hold on to anything to begin with

the only assurance is ultimate Chaos/Change/Suffering
but because of that, there are means to bring about the cessation of suffering




No I’m pretty sure the people I spoke to meant hard “what appears is not real”.




then what you are saying is that you favour older philisophical systems over those that went on to find answers for their flaws

as stated when providing the Maya definition -- the concept of illusion has had the continual name of "Maya" throughout philisophical history in India
as philosphies evolved, Maya came to be understood as having no intrinsic reality, but a provisional reality that exists while it is experienced


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: What is love? [Re: Thanatos10]
    #26639663 - 04/30/20 06:16 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
I think you’re missing the point I’m making about solipsism and protecting myself. You are trying to apply what isn’t relevant




I think this post is your ego making more excuses while trying to ignore what is truly relevant to lived reality


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThanatos10
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/19/15
Posts: 2,770
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: What is love? [Re: Tantrika]
    #26639680 - 04/30/20 06:26 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tantrika said:
Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
I think you’re missing the point I’m making about solipsism and protecting myself. You are trying to apply what isn’t relevant




I think this post is your ego making more excuses while trying to ignore what is truly relevant to lived reality




I’m not making excuses I’m just trying to accurately portray the issue and why it’s so sticky. Also solipsism doesn’t really have “flaws” per se, even your entire argument can be waves away as just another “mental projection” according to it.


--------------------
As lightless oblivion devours you, drown in the ever-blooming darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: What is love? [Re: Thanatos10]
    #26639698 - 04/30/20 06:32 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
Quote:

Tantrika said:
Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
I think you’re missing the point I’m making about solipsism and protecting myself. You are trying to apply what isn’t relevant




I think this post is your ego making more excuses while trying to ignore what is truly relevant to lived reality




I’m not making excuses I’m just trying to accurately portray the issue and why it’s so sticky. Also solipsism doesn’t really have “flaws” per se, even your entire argument can be waves away as just another “mental projection” according to it.




The entire idea that solipsism is valid can be waved away as just another false mental projection of the ego onto the experienced reality
it only exists in this thread as long as you promote it
and it only exists for you

you can talk all you want about how it makes sense to you and that makes it sticky
but all you are actually doing is making excuses to other people as to why you do not want to try anything else
no one here has been even remotely swayed to the position that solipsism is correct, and every time we leave this thread we go about our time without being impacted by it

and, personally, each time coming back to this thread you have a marginally different definition as to what solipsism is so that you can test your excuses against further ideas
so the concept of solipsism is further represented as impermanent for me -- it changes into something else each time it is encountered

:shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThanatos10
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/19/15
Posts: 2,770
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: What is love? [Re: Tantrika]
    #26639832 - 04/30/20 07:51 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Because you don’t understand it.

What it states is that all that can be known is that I exist in some form. Anything else, other people, you, other minds, external reality, all of that is in doubt and uncertain. I can’t prove that other people exist or that they have minds, as such I can’t really treat them as normal anymore.

The thing is you can’t wave away solipsism, as far as logic goes it’s solid. That’s why it’s so hard to get rid of for me because the logic is solid.


--------------------
As lightless oblivion devours you, drown in the ever-blooming darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: What is love? [Re: Thanatos10]
    #26639847 - 04/30/20 08:04 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
Because you don’t understand it.
...




Then that is the fault of the teacher, by this point

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
What it states is that all that can be known is that I exist in some form...




and on what basis does it make this assertion?

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
...Anything else, other people, you, other minds, external reality, all of that is in doubt and uncertain. I can’t prove that other people exist or that they have minds, as such I can’t really treat them as normal anymore.
...




You choose to assert that other people don't exist nor that they have minds, as such you treat them in the manner you do

You have been told you can choose to change how you treat people, and that by doing so you will change your thoughts associated with them -- CBT 101


If you can't think your way out of it, act your way out of it; you can interrupt the cycle at any point

You make the excuse you can't change how you treat people because you are scared that if you treat them well you will be wasting your time

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
The thing is you can’t wave away solipsism, as far as logic goes it’s solid. That’s why it’s so hard to get rid of for me because the logic is solid.




You say the logic is solid, because you don't feel the need to provide a logic behind the initial assertion
That is why it can be waved away, it does not justify its own basis because it cannot do so using the parameters it provides

the logic is only solid if you choose to ignore the glaring flaws; which you say it is logical to ignore because solipsism starts from a position of accepting the flaws as valid


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThanatos10
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/19/15
Posts: 2,770
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: What is love? [Re: Tantrika]
    #26639884 - 04/30/20 08:25 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism



https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_solipsism.html

I really don’t know how else to explain it. CBT doesn’t work because the initial premises can’t really be argued against. Also doesn’t CBT assume the existence of “others”.


--------------------
As lightless oblivion devours you, drown in the ever-blooming darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: What is love? [Re: Thanatos10]
    #26639915 - 04/30/20 08:37 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_solipsism.html





from here:
Quote:

It is often considered a bankrupt philosophy, or at best bizarre and unlikely. Critics have argued that the very idea of communicating philosophical ideas would be entirely pointless to a true solipsist as, according to them, there is no other mind with whom they would communicate their beliefs. It also goes against the commonly observed tendency for sane adult humans in the western world to interpret the world as external and existing independently of themselves.




Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
I really don’t know how else to explain it...




you did not even attempt to explain it
you were confronted with the logical flaw of the system
and rather than account for it, you provided sources that also fail to account for it
and did not even bother to quote the portions that you felt would answer it


Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
...CBT doesn’t work because the initial premises can’t really be argued against...




the initial premises can't be argued for either
they have to be accepted as true in order for the rest of the logic of the system to work
as soon as they are viewed as being uncertain, and in need of providing support to each other, the entire system breaks down

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
... Also doesn’t CBT assume the existence of “others”.




You assume that CBT requires the existence of "others" so you can take a stance against it

per the chart the only necessary assumptions for CBT are that the self's thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are real
you know, that one thing that you claim solipsism accepts as true
it is absolutely perfect for your situation

but that is only if you are actually interested in making changes rather than excuses


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: What is love? [Re: Tantrika] * 1
    #26639918 - 04/30/20 08:37 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Dr. Dog - we all belong :mushroom2:



--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThanatos10
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/19/15
Posts: 2,770
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: What is love? [Re: Tantrika]
    #26640166 - 04/30/20 11:33 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

I provided a link to explain the argument fully in all the varied ways: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

http://www3.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg0220.htm

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1268447-solipsism

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Also CBT doesn't make the existence of other people any more "solid". Also that little cycle has some flaws to it. Feelings don't exactly create behavior and thoughts don't create feelings (I have several a day and they just drift like wind). Behavior doesn't really reinforce thought. It might make more sense in reverse to be honest.

Quote:

You have been told you can choose to change how you treat people, and that by doing so you will change your thoughts associated with them -- CBT 101




Again, not really helpful if their existence is uncertain.


--------------------
As lightless oblivion devours you, drown in the ever-blooming darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: What is love? [Re: Thanatos10]
    #26640209 - 05/01/20 12:21 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
I provided a link to explain the argument fully in all the varied ways: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

...




But you can't find a single quote from that source, so you link the source again, despite being told that it does not contain content that deals with the presented issue

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
...
http://www3.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg0220.htm

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1268447-solipsism
...




skimmed over these, neither seems to even attempt to address the issue of how the entity can be proven to be real

all discussion contained within starts from the presumption that the entity is real without real proof

arguably the most useful content for you is on the sympatico link where it states:
Quote:

...So even if you think the logic dictates that you should believe in Solipsism, you will never find any like minds who will agree with you.  And you will find it ultimately to your advantage (in terms of pleasure and pain) to actually believe that Solipsism is false.  Which sort of sounds contradictory, even if logically it is not.



which is exactly why my suggestion of CBT was such an important one
it is taking action to put this in to motion
which explains your resistance to it

and in the second link, the message that reiterates much of what you have been told with regards to dependent arising here:
Quote:

Because solipsism is the result of a perspectival stance, it can't be proved or disproved. It's what -happens- when you commit to that stance. Therefore, to show its inadequacy you do not need disproof, but a shift in perspective.

However, a -kind- of disproof that reveals its inherent contradictions and inadequacies as a perspective can be offered along the lines offered by Wittgenstein in the Philosophical Investigations. Wittgenstein showed the absurdity of conceiving of such a thing as a "private language," and that in fact each of us is constituted by a public, shared universe of meanings. The intersubjective is the primary reality; the introspective is derivative from this. It follows from this that there is an inconsistency, a performative contradiction involved in most solipsism: unless you're living in a jungle or a Montaignian tower, you exist by performing in some social reality. Saying: "I am a solipsist," even if only on a piece of paper, is a performative contradiction because you are holding an intellectual position that goes contrary to what you are actually performing, existentially. This position is inconsistent, as well as harbouring a great deal of self-deception.

But even if you do manage to extricate yourself from discourse, even then, solipsism is a form of participation in the universe, just as any other conscious act is. The evolutionary perspective simply annihilates the solipsist stance as illusory: we are organisms constituted by and participating in an environment, if not social and cultural, then at the least natural. But again, for most of us (who are not very accomplished Zen masters), we carry all our interactions into reflection, and shape our inner voice against our past interpersonal experience. When we speak to ourselves, we speak only with a voice already shaped against others. Therefore, solipsism is a double-bind strengthened and made inescapable by a powerful self-deception.

And lastly, folks like Husserl have shown that consciousness is -intentional- in nature. In other words, consciousness is something that -happens- between a subject (one we can isolate merely for analytical purposes) and some “external object.” But consciousness -is- the act, the happening, the in-between connection that flares up across a certain ontic field. It is not some privately held, sealed-off essence. Therefore solipsism can only emerge from a dubious, mental atomist picture of consciousness that is simply not tenable in the light of new science and new philosophical explorations. It is not an adaptive perspective, and it is filled with inner contradiction.

So to finally answer the OP: we are engaged in a continuous interaction with other minds and with our world. We may never be able to fully articulate all that is exchanged, and all that we perceive about others and our world, but these transactions manifestly constitute us at a fundamental level. And in fact, we -are- nothing but the interaction. We don't need technology: we -have- empathy, which only becomes problematic in the light of our artificial, reductionist accounts of ourselves. The continuity of interchange is, not surprisingly, lost in translation. But this is not to say it doesn't manifestly -exist-.





Am not sure you are reading your links before providing them
:shrug:

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
...
I don't know how to make it any clearer.
...




Start by actually facing the issue with the philosophy and answering it with supporting quotes
instead of providing links that, when actually read, continually serve to disprove your position

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
...
Also CBT doesn't make the existence of other people any more "solid". Also that little cycle has some flaws to it. Feelings don't exactly create behavior and thoughts don't create feelings (I have several a day and they just drift like wind). Behavior doesn't really reinforce thought. It might make more sense in reverse to be honest.
...




Unlike solipsism, CBT has a history of serving a practical utility
the fact that you doubt it without trying it does not make it less effective
it just reinforces that you are here to make excuses rather than changes

Quote:

Thanatos10 said:
Quote:

You have been told you can choose to change how you treat people, and that by doing so you will change your thoughts associated with them -- CBT 101




Again, not really helpful if their existence is uncertain.




You don't need solidity or certainty of others at this point tho
what you need is a system that can function within the shitty philosophy you have committed yourself so hard to

That is what CBT serves to do
If you view yourself as the only existing thing, and no way to be sure of the existence of others beyond the reality that they may be mental projections
then you owe it to yourself to be good to others, because it is a literal form of being good to yourself
you don't even have to believe it will have any effect, by being good to others others will become more receptive and interactive with you
the power of the change is in the doing

-if- we suspend all the issues with solipsism and pretend even a portion of it is true
despite its lack of utility, it is possible to apply external utility to it
in this case, Hard Solipsism holds that the person you hate the most in the world with the shittiest ideas you disagree with
is just a projection of your own mind and thoughts, therefore the risk at the end of life is finding out no one existed
and you spent all that time hating on yourself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 5 hours
Re: What is love? [Re: Thanatos10]
    #26640233 - 05/01/20 12:31 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Abundance.


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



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineInnerWisdom
Male


Registered: 08/09/19
Posts: 1,936
Loc: North EU
Last seen: 4 days, 12 hours
Re: What is love? [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #26640260 - 05/01/20 12:49 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

I am starting to think Thanatos lacks empathy and compassion abilities if he really does get stuck in this simple alienating philosophy. I think he needs it to somehow rationally justify himself and his hardships with other people. Like this whole thread started from "what is love?" and he doesn't believe in it or understand it having never experience it. One incapable of giving love can't receive love. Instead of looking at the real problem of "I have problems feeling connection to others and perhaps lack some compassionate skills" he has stuck with this philosophy, which he can't get out of (so he says). HE doesn't want to change so he won't. Anyone with the capabilities to think about the world and test reality as they experience it I don't think would find it valuable to stick with a stupid childish philosophy of "I can't prove anyone else exists so I won't interact with them or the world". I mean it is obvious there is sensory input and there are other humans etc inhabiting this place, whether your mind makes them up or not doesn't have to make a difference to your life at all. It's like the simulation theory: so what if it is true? The guy who came up with the argument Nick Bostrom said it has not changed the way he interacts with the world! It's all still there for fuck's sake


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: What is love? [Re: InnerWisdom]
    #26640394 - 05/01/20 02:53 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

The useful idiom - Learning to come off it, can act as a useful tool to anyone using someone else’s philosophy as a guide to life.  Considering how many there are, and how they’re comparable to being like eloquent prose to the going on’s of the complex mechanics and workings of the world.  Clever and skillful means to help elucidate the both subtle and grossest of phenomena and experience.  One could just as easily fall amiss using mathematics or the sciences , or religion in a way so as to be a substitute for having to develop and cultivate ones own total and current moment to moment life’s experience and wisdom into a working philosophical disposition.

But they are still parts of a whole, not the whole itself.  I find the idea of being able to entertain a certain view without becoming so attached to it that I cannot untangle my identity from it - as being necessary if one wishes to remain impartial in their actual view of all things, and therefore more accurate overall by virtue of having an unlimited amount of ways to understand reality as can be known.  Everyman made attempt to consolidate truth has holes in it, by virtue of it coming from a limited being, and therefore being limited in scope, and from that- limited in its ability to be a pure reflection of truth- thats also including solipsism  and any other system too.  Reality itself contains all the people who contain all sorts of views on reality-  not the other way around.


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Edited by The Blind Ass (05/01/20 03:51 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepixelpopper
Crap Artist

Registered: 09/20/13
Posts: 4,022
Loc: Dreamland
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
Re: What is love? [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #26640432 - 05/01/20 03:45 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Love is a dog from hell


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletyrannicalrex
Strange R
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/24/03
Posts: 38,323
Loc: subtropics
Re: What is love? [Re: Thanatos10]
    #26640811 - 05/01/20 08:56 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

What is all this talk about CBT (cock and ball torture)?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: What is love? [Re: tyrannicalrex]
    #26640838 - 05/01/20 09:12 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Cock and ball torture is one of modern psychology and therapy’s most compelling practices that gets people to stop thinking in an irrational non beneficial way.


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletyrannicalrex
Strange R
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/24/03
Posts: 38,323
Loc: subtropics
Re: What is love? [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #26640853 - 05/01/20 09:20 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

What is love?
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
What is love?
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
What is love?
Whoa whoa whoa, oh-oh-oh
Whoa, oh-oh-oh, uh-uh
Whoa whoa whoa, oh-oh-oh
Whoa, oh-oh-oh, uh-uh (yeah-eh)
What is love?
Whoa whoa whoa, oh-oh-oh
Whoa, oh-oh-oh, uh-uh
Whoa whoa whoa, oh-oh-oh
Whoa, oh-oh-oh, uh-uh (yeah-eh)
Ooh-ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh-ooh
What is love?
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
I want no other, no other lover
This is our life, our time
When we are together, I need you forever
Is it love?
What is love?
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
What is love?
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
What is love?
Whoa whoa whoa, oh-oh-oh
Whoa, oh-oh-oh, uh
Yeah-eh
What is love?
Whoa whoa whoa, oh-oh-oh
Whoa, oh-oh-oh, uh-uh
Whoa whoa whoa, oh-oh-oh
Whoa, oh-oh-oh, uh-uh (yeah-eh)
Ooh-ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh-ooh
I want no other, no other lover
This is our life, our time
When we are together, I need you forever
Is it love?
What is love?
Whoa whoa whoa, oh-oh-oh
Whoa, oh-oh-oh, uh-uh
Whoa whoa whoa, oh-oh-oh
Whoa, oh-oh-oh, uh-uh (What is love?)


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: What is love? [Re: tyrannicalrex]
    #26640862 - 05/01/20 09:26 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Trex, I didn’t know what love was before but now I do.  Thank you 😊 if only Thanatos would give love a real chance and listen to the song that teaches us babes about love.

It’s waiting for you, and all you have got to do is listen with open ears (to the song) ❤️


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletyrannicalrex
Strange R
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/24/03
Posts: 38,323
Loc: subtropics
Re: What is love? [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #26640868 - 05/01/20 09:28 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

The message is clear.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* I Want to Fall in Love
( 1 2 3 all )
ivi 5,116 40 10/13/04 12:15 AM
by GnuBobo
* Noobie Love
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
40oz 6,182 81 11/08/04 10:09 AM
by Ripple
* Love
( 1 2 all )
chinacat72 4,287 24 12/24/04 07:56 PM
by Ripple
* Your First Love
( 1 2 3 4 all )
CherryBomM 13,154 79 06/05/03 12:40 AM
by lucid
* possible to love two girls at once?
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 7,920 51 08/07/04 11:47 AM
by ivi
* Post deleted by Moe Howard
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 5,954 27 02/16/03 08:56 PM
by vivid
* all you need is love
( 1 2 all )
kaiowas 2,124 20 08/30/04 01:30 AM
by CaRnAgECaNdY
* Dirty Love tomatoes 1,669 9 08/22/03 04:46 PM
by tomatoes

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
4,692 topic views. 1 members, 52 guests and 66 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.