This thread makes no sense.Everybody is crazy. It is like Mechman just walked into a old dive bar with sticky floors and a sticky table, and some crusty old sailor is saying "Everything is shit around here. You got that. Shit." And then some quiet girl in the corner says "I don't like you!"
This is very weird. Very weird.
And then the crusty old sailor says, "and if you think its not shit, then shit on you."
The quiet girl says "get out!"
Weird.
Socionics -
the16types.info
Originally Posted by Saberstorm
This thread makes no sense.
This is very weird. Very weird.
And then the crusty old sailor says, "and if you think its not shit, then shit on you."
The quiet girl says "get out!"
Weird.
I heard the music and just had to check it out.
hardy har
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Kassi, you have your mind made up, you're not open to other ideas; you're not interested in other ways of doing things which is VI-ing; you're not taking into consideration that although VI is not your way of doing things it is A WAY of doing things and you're discounting that, hence making you devalue.
Mechman, you value
You both ignore each other's functions; Kassie, you are making demands on him and Mechman avoids making demands on you; Kassie wants him to do things her way and because Mechman ignores Se, and says "No" she declares her dislike for him because she can't "control" his decision. Tsk-tsk.
I would suggest you two stay away from each other.
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Nice breakdown of the play by plays.
I don't know that I value Ne very much, though. I'm not usually open to new ideas if something already works fine. I came in to Socionics thinking this was a decent chunk of it, so I'm not really accepting anything new within Socionics. It came with the turf. And to be fair, it's taken probably 4-5 months for me to get to a point where I can accept VI isn't completely bogus(based on personal experience within that timespan). When I first heard about it I thought it was complete nonsense.
You are open to new ideas, the fact that you entertain the possibility that they might exist means you are open to new ideas; and the proof is what you said, it took you a while, but eventually you did, which means you're not a closed minded person. And, when a new idea is accepted after it's working possibility is established shows a pragmatic preference; Ne valuing means that you value new possibilities and ideas but Ne base means you are one, you just are more of a realist to your dual.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I'm not sure what, "base" and "value" mean? I assume "base" probably is referring to 'x' being the first function.
Also, how exactly does that tie in to being an SLI?
Base Ne means the person has Ne in their 1st function making them either IEE or ILE types
Valuing Ne means the person belongs to Alpha or Delta quadrants; you, as an SLI, are in the Delta quadrant and value ideas and possibilities in a pragmatic way.
Your dual (half, match, mate, etc) has Ne base.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Unlike yourself I'm quite distant from being "a little heated", so you're trying to divest yourself of "hurt feelings" over a commonly misspelled word by mistakenly projecting your feeling onto me. Pro-tip: Locate target first, pull trigger second.
Ah, you're animated by a poet's soul. Duly noted.
I pushed a button, you produced a reponse. Good times, no?
Bear in mind that since only you know your thoughts, what's clear and factual in your mind might be unknown/unclear and mere opinion from someone else's POV. As for the facts as I see them in this case:
- You claim to be new.
- You've given me no reason yet to suspect you're un-new.
- 1+2 lead me expect that diam0nd, Maritsa33, and their reliability are unknown to you.
- You claim to be unfamilar with socionics.
- You've yet to present evidence that you're particularly familiar with or conversant in socionics.
- In your initial thread you rapidly agreed with the type assessments provided by unknown person through a typological system of which you've confessed little familiarity.
- Since VI is not only a constituent of socionics but also, despite its widespread use, an often controversial one, this plus 4-6 lead me to expect you're unlikely to be familiar with VI, its reliability, or usefulness either.
- I personally have a skeptical view of VI from still photos, and I use it only with reservations, and only in conjunction with other forms of evidence, such as writing.
- 1-8 cause me to wonder why you so quickly yup-yup-yupped to unproven analyses offered by persons of unknown reliability who are applying a dubious technique of identifying types within a system of questionable validity that you've yet to learn.
- I said nowhere in this thread that either Maritsa nor diam0nd were incorrect, yet you leapt just as quickly to the false conclusion that I had.
In other words, slow your roll until you know who and what you're dealing with.
5w6 and 6w5 are pretty common for SLI, though I'd still rather wait to see what new information might appear to corroborate or undermine any of those typings.
By the way, are you now or have you ever been a juggalo?
That doesn't mean it's reliable, useful, or effective. I heard a story on the radio about a teenager who'd become pregnant and when asked if she knew how it'd happened she said, "Uhhhhhhhh, maybe we used the condom too late?" So, employing a prophylactic contraceptive after ejaculating semen in a vagina is, in fact, "A WAY of doing things", but do you think it's reliable, useful, or effective?
Nah.
I still don't get where you're getting this "hurt feelings" stuff. I already made it clear that I was in no way personally offended by anything posted in this thread. In fact, if anything your post about my spelling error neutralized whatever frustration I was experiencing because at that point I realized that you were blatantly ignoring my side of the debate.
This kind of segways into the enneagram. Counter-phobic 6's react aggressively due to anxiety/fear. I reacted out of frustration. It's the same kind of deal as trying to stick a piece of thread through the hole of a needle. You try and try and try and regardless of what you do, the thread just doesn't seem to get through the hole, so you become more and more aggravated until you finally realize, "it's not worth it."
Right, as is yours.1+2 lead me expect that diam0nd, Maritsa33, and their reliability are unknown to you.
Right, because the function descriptions, mixed with the profiles I read on SLI pretty much hit the nail on the head. And the more I read on SLI the more I agree with it.In your initial thread you rapidly agreed with the type assessments provided by unknown person through a typological system of which you've confessed little familiarity.
I took a brief test a while back and that also came out SLI(although back then I did no research on it). So it all added up. Edit: Just to add to this, you act like setting my type on a forum makes it set in stone. "Don't set your type, you don't know everything there is to know about Socionics yet." I can change it down the road if it turns out to be a fluke, but I don't see that happening.
You're assuming I take VI seriously. There is some validity to it(based on my experience), but I'm still skeptical about it. This thread was made more out of curiosity than serious inquiry.1-8 cause me to wonder why you so quickly yup-yup-yupped to unproven analyses offered by persons of unknown reliability who are applying a dubious technique of identifying types within a system of questionable validity that you've yet to learn.
No, but you implied it. You basically said, "you're talking out your ass."I said nowhere in this thread that either Maritsa nor diam0nd were incorrect, yet you leapt just as quickly to the false conclusion that I had.
5w4.5w6 and 6w5 are pretty common for SLI, though I'd still rather wait to see what new information might appear to corroborate or undermine any of those typings.
I prefer to keep my occupation a secret.By the way, are you now or have you ever been a juggalo?
Last edited by Mechman; 03-19-2012 at 04:20 AM.
That's not a good comparison.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Try here when you got angry, which caused me quite a laugh:
Next.
Kindly tell me how that computes, unless your idea of listening is agreeing.
More projection with "you you you" when you're actually talking about yourself. I don't have the sort of motor coordination issues you're volunteering with this example, nor do many other people.
Now I'm curious if you're generally wary of those who advise thoughtful decisions.
If that's the case then why are you confused about fundamentals like the following:
Took a test + didn't research = all added up. What? I'll charitably assume you mean it made sense when you looked into SLI at a later date.
Projection again. This is your false interpretation, not anything I've said or even implied. It isn't unusual for people to change type a time or two until they get it right. A minority continue switching from one to another without ever settling anywhere for long. People also make errors in typing others and are forced to revise their opinions in the face of countervailing evidence. I am not exempt from error myself. But at the same time I try to avoid being wrong by allowing enough evidence to appear that it produces a sufficiently suggestive or coherent pattern before I pipe up too loudly.
Have at it, just be careful not to let it taint your understanding of the theory in the meantime.
God damn, man. Project-o-Rama 2012. I'm already losing count of how many times you've confused what you think that I think for what it is that I actually think.
Glad to hear it, but if you don't know the theory too well than how is one of its controversial identification techniques (i.e. VI) put into experiential use? Let's say you're flying on a jetliner and the pilots and flight attendants are whisked away by a UFO's teleportation beam, leaving the passengers stuck onboard without an air crew. Someone has to land the plane safely or you'll all die in a flaming wreck. There are no pilots onboard of any sort, but some motherfucker says, "Let me in that flight cabin! I've seen Top Gun 40 times and I know from experience how this plane works." Do you trust the aforementioned motherfucker to know what he's doing?
Finally, a valid inference without undue projection. Kudos, my man. Personally I don't know Diam0nd for shit since she (???) has a rather low profile, and as for Maritsa, well... If you stick around the forum let's just say that you'll either continue agreeing with her or you'll try to keep at least one piece of furniture between her and yourself.
If you reject 6 on the basis of it being fearful/anxious it's strange you'd prefer the equally fearful/anxious 5. And 4 wing on top of it? We'll see about that.
I was talking about ICP, not OPP, but congrats on either being innocent of the former or fronting that you don't know what it means.
The more detailed posts are appreciated, by the way.
Explain why.
Why? Is it not enough to hear me judge what you wrote?
What you wrote has a negative side effect.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
No, a simplistic good/bad opinion only indicates dislike, it doesn't explain why that dislike has arisen.
So does misleading people with crappy type identification, VI-based or not. This is especially true when their knowledge of socionics is undeveloped and they're looking for "expert" insights.
You're serious? Didn't we already say there is no "good" and "bad" type? I can make any sequence of Vi type letters and none would indicate that I want them to result in a negative side effect; there is only good and bad relationships.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
I'm gonna try to respond coherently to this whole thing, despite being up for way too long.
That's not me being angry. If I were really pissed off/projecting, which rarely happens, I'd make sure you'd know it. I say stuff like that all the time. I said just what I meant, basically that you were sitting there giving everyone crap and not backing anything you said up/actively contributed yourself. So I made it clear that was that.
Not sure what you're getting at here. I stated multiple times what the issue was, that you were criticizing but not participating/giving any explanation, and you ignored that and continued debating that they didn't know what they were talking about. I.E.-I was looking for something more than, "They don't know what they're talking about" and you just kept saying, "They don't know what they're talking about/how do you know their judgments are valid?"Kindly tell me how that computes, unless your idea of listening is agreeing.
Not wary, no. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with them though. Also, I generally don't appreciate un-solicited advice from random people.Now I'm curious if you're generally wary of those who advise thoughtful decisions.
Just because I don't know a few labels means I don't understand enough(when reading about the functions and how they work for SLI) to say, "that's me?"If that's the case then why are you confused about fundamentals like the following:
That was part of that whole post. I took a test a while back, got SLI, tonight I did some serious research mixed with past intermittent research(not in-depth) mixed with some mild analysis and everything points to SLI. It all added up. I didn't decide just based on 1 or 2 factors.Took a test + didn't research = all added up. What? I'll charitably assume you mean it made sense when you looked into SLI at a later date.
Then why even bother criticize me for choosing SLI so rapidly? What does it matter to you?Projection again. This is your false interpretation, not anything I've said or even implied. It isn't unusual for people to change type a time or two until they get it right. A minority continue switching from one to another without ever settling anywhere for long. People also make errors in typing others and are forced to revise their opinions in the face of countervailing evidence. I am not exempt from error myself. But at the same time I try to avoid being wrong by allowing enough evidence to appear that it produces a sufficiently suggestive or coherent pattern before I pipe up too loudly.
Again, not projecting. If you don't think I'm taking this seriously, why even bother to post? It's a waste of time.God damn, man. Project-o-Rama 2012. I'm already losing count of how many times you've confused what you think that I think for what it is that I actually think.
Because there's some validity to it, based on personal experience... not within Socionics, but elsewhere. That's a bad example by the way. Knowing how to fly a jet by watching a movie=/=knowing how to type a person via their appearance.Glad to hear it, but if you don't know the theory too well than how is one of its controversial identification techniques (i.e. VI) put into experiential use?
Now I will say I thought VI was based solely on the face, and I do think you can type people accurately via the face 9 times out of 10. Not based on stupid things like bone structure though. You can't equate personality to someone's heritage/physical genetics, but there are subtleties in people's faces that give away distinct features about their personality.
Communication error. You're missing what I said. I choose my words carefully. "Counter-phobic 6's react aggressively due to anxiety/fear." I said nothing about not being a 6 because they experience anxiety/fear, I said I'm not a counterphobic 6 because I don't react aggressively out of fear/anxiety. All head types 5, 6 and 7 have a common theme of anxiety.If you reject 6 on the basis of it being fearful/anxious it's strange you'd prefer the equally fearful/anxious 5. And 4 wing on top of it? We'll see about that.
And that was my bad. Gettin pretty tired and slipped up, thought you were trying to be sarcastic/funny by asking if I were a "Jiggalo." Made that giggalo/jiggalo mistake before. Haven't heard anyone bring up "giggalo" in years.I was talking about ICP, not OPP, but congrats on either being innocent of the former or fronting that you don't know what it means.
No I don't listen to ICP.
He just likes engaging me because he gets a rise out of my reactions. It's my fault for letting him, really.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
exactly. if you read what you wrote, sometimes, you might start adding two and two together.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Fi
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I'm beginning to think he just likes to argue for the sake of arguing.
Every once and awhile I'll forget people actually do that and wind up getting wrapped up in a bunch of endless wordplay.
Either way, you got my last response Ekpyrosos. There's no point in arguing about this stuff...it's going nowhere. All that you're doing is saying, "This is wrong and they don't know what they're talking about" without providing any evidence to support your claims. Based on what I know, VI has some validity and unless you plan on actually giving me some solid material on why VI isn't valid, I'm done.
You can go to Ekpyrosos profile, look on the left hand side and you will find a option to place him on ignore. You might find that you are better off not seeing his posts.
Socionics -
the16types.info
To prevent further derailment here I wasted time responding to Maritsa elsewhere. If I skipped addressing portions of Mechman's post it was to avoid playing pattycake over nothing for a week. Roll the tape, Jojo...
What I did was to challenge two people who said "looks like SLI" to provide a standard of measurement for what SLI "look like", and they've both yet to whip it out. If you're even remotely familiar with, say, building trades, you know that guestimating everything without using a standard of measurement like a tape measure will just produce crap results that don't fit the plan. And my questioning of your two respondents was intended for them and the practice of VI, not necessarily aimed at you, even though it took place in your thread. This is really a distraction so if you like we can call it a crossfire and drop it.
Got it.
I'll overlook the 90% bit but I do think that people's facial expressions, neutral and animated, do provide useful clues to their general mentalities and demeanors. However that information should be viewed alongside other availble data, unless of course you're having a staredown with a hostile individual who might be armed, or involved in another time-critical situation where the luxury of rigorous analysis is denied.
Alright, but I don't think a CP 6 is aggressively reactive exclusively to anxiety/fear, especially if an aggro attitude assumes a prominent aspect of his general demeanor and/or public face. For instance, a friend of mine who fits SLI CP-6 sx/sp (mountain climber, international hiker, wants to skin children and bathe in their screams and blood, etc.) is most violently and frequently hostile toward weak, dependent, and stupid people. Existential concerns don't make him aggressive, they lead him to drink. Secondly, however you happen to be defining it, I think that simple uncertainty, confusion, and even non-thtreatening "WTF?" moments provide sufficient internal tension to qualify as enneagrammic fear/anxiety. Pants-pissing isn't required, but response is likely proportional to the strength of the disconcerting stimuli and the subject's mental health.
Back to socionics on a similar point: if you're sold on SLI then examine the nature of Fi in the Mobilizing or 6th function, sometimes called the Hidden Agenda. That and Fe in the 4th or Vulnerable function should have a fair correlation with the stressors to which your eannatype of choice is susceptible.
OK, I'll award you +50 not-uncool points for that. Thanks again for taking the time to state your case in a detailed and up-front manner, and welcome to 16chan.
Holism can be anyone's fren 4 life.
Nah, I'm not big on the ignore feature. I rarely, if ever use it.
Besides, I'm half of the reason this whole thing lasted as long as it did. He was just responding to my responses.
I strongly relate to both. Maritsa had me check out this page: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=SLI and everything is pretty much spot on. It's almost uncanny.
You're just going to have to trust me when I say I'm a 5. Like I said, I've been looking into the enneagram for well over a year and 6 is not a possibility(I have put a lot of consideration into 6, as well as 7, 8, 9 and slight consideration into 3).Alright, but I don't think a CP 6 is aggressively reactive exclusively to anxiety/fear, especially if an aggro attitude assumes a prominent aspect of his general demeanor and/or public face. For instance, a friend of mine who fits SLI CP-6 sx/sp (mountain climber, international hiker, wants to skin children and bathe in their screams and blood, etc.) is most violently and frequently hostile toward weak, dependent, and stupid people. Existential concerns don't make him aggressive, they lead him to drink. Secondly, however you happen to be defining it, I think that simple uncertainty, confusion, and even non-thtreatening "WTF?" moments provide sufficient internal tension to qualify as enneagrammic fear/anxiety. Pants-pissing isn't required, but response is likely proportional to the strength of the disconcerting stimuli and the subject's mental health.
Too much emphasis on feeling insecure, constant worry, "foreseeing future pitfalls" blah blah blah. None of it's me.
Thanks for the welcome, btw.
This thread just triggered my super-ego!
I look for eyes for an indicator of I versus E and N versus S, with focus being less in the former than the latter in both; I vs. E in the eyes being fixated on a specific object (E) or not (I), and N vs. S in the skin/muscle/whatever around the eyes (tenser in S, more relaxed in N).
I get pointed towards temperaments by bodily movements, postures, talking, etc.; the more angularity in all of the aforementioned, the more I'm inclined to go J over P. This one doesn't do great in still shots...
I'll also look at the pool of typed people I have, and I draw parallels wherever I can. I will get false positives, and the more data I heap up, the more things should self-correct. If they don't, I'll be wrong, I'll fix that, and what I'm doing's gonna be more solid from there on out.
As for Handiace, the long hair pics look a hell of a lot like the first SLI drummer I had, and the short hair pics remind me of Te-SLI Page Hamilton, Te-SLI force my hand (from what I recall), and the one ILI guitar guy I know who's obsessed with aliens and black metal. With my coordinates set and my leanings to S over N far and wide, I'm good with putting the dude at SLI
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
You're referring to mechman, not me, correct?As for Handiace, the long hair pics look a hell of a lot like the first SLI drummer I had, and the short hair pics remind me of Te-SLI Page Hamilton, Te-SLI force my hand (from what I recall), and the one ILI guitar guy I know who's obsessed with aliens and black metal. With my coordinates set and my leanings to S over N far and wide, I'm good with putting the dude at SLI
It's called Vortical-Synergetic cognition - several pieces of information, that usually have been haphazardly picked up prior, get overlaid on top of each other, and their combination or sum 'adds up' to a particular answer - exactly as he is saying. There are only four types that think in this style: IEI, SLI, LIE, and ESE. Provided Mechman has gotten his quadra and valued IEs right, what he described so far about his reasoning and decision making further confirms his SLI self-typing.
Koprsey, what's the matter - you're out of milk?
Yesdamn what the hell is it with these "I fix stuff" names blending together in my head, thanks a lot Delta quadra
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Hmm, my eyes aren't as yours, I can't be SEE.
LSE:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...Ecnn0QGh7vijCQ
http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl...j1l12l0.frgbld.
ESE:
http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl...j1l13l0.frgbld.
http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl...5j1l9l0.frgbld.
SLE:
http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl...j1l10l0.frgbld.
http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl...1j6l7l0.frgbld.
SEE:
http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl...j2l10l0.frgbld.
http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl...j1l11l0.frgbld.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
That was half-serious. I was referring to that eyeliner?
Thanks, anyway.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Okay
What an overreactivity-filled thread this turned out to be. One point towards E6.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
