Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 812 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
TURIEL (205 D)
09 Nov 11 UTC
Live Game-Players needed
Begins in 25 mins.
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=71911
0 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
09 Nov 11 UTC
ACRON's at it again (still?)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/acorn-officials-scramble-firing-workers-and-shredding-documents-after-exposed/?intcmp=obnetwork
1 reply
Open
SantaClausowitz (360 D)
09 Nov 11 UTC
Writing a book
Has anyone here written a book? Once I finish another project I am working on, I am mulling over writing a biography of a secondary figure from the early American Republic. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with publishing a manuscript before.
7 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Spending, deficits, and debt
Federal spending has grown from 20.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2008 to 25.3 percent last year, its largest share since the end of World War II
7 replies
Open
binkman (416 D)
09 Nov 11 UTC
Something fishy
Seems like something fishy is happening in this game: gameID=70935
4 replies
Open
semck83 (229 D(B))
09 Nov 11 UTC
NBA lockout
What do people think?
10 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
08 Nov 11 UTC
Even Ali Has To Be Feeling Sad Right Now...
http://sports.yahoo.com/box/blog/box_experts/post/-8216-Smokin-8217-Joe-Frazier-loses-his-battl?urn=box-wp849

The death of one of the greatest boxers who ever lived, and a huge part of the sports and cultural scene of the 1970s...may the epic Ali/Fraizer fights live on forever, and Joe be forever Smokin' Hot. RIP
6 replies
Open
SantaClausowitz (360 D)
08 Nov 11 UTC
Humans can already beat a killer astroid?
Who knew? I feel much better about civilization averting asteroid apocalypse, but then again Global warming is going to do us in anyway. Too bad...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45192148/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.TrmBJLIb5Zc
7 replies
Open
jdog97 (100 D)
09 Nov 11 UTC
new game
Join World war 3
0 replies
Open
SpeakerToAliens (147 D(S))
07 Nov 11 UTC
Erasing the signs of aging?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111103120605.htm

Thoughts?
5 replies
Open
gman314 (100 D)
08 Nov 11 UTC
Not CDing
See inside.
8 replies
Open
faded (100 D)
08 Nov 11 UTC
Rules/order clarification
Ok, so can someone help me work out what the outcome of the following orders would be?

5 replies
Open
Diplomat33 (243 D(B))
06 Nov 11 UTC
The game. www.losethegame.com
You all loose.
8 replies
Open
Zarathustra (3672 D)
08 Nov 11 UTC
Rule question! Retreat edition!
Just looking for a quick reminder (I'm still working the rust out of my long absence). If Austria's Vienna Army supports its Army in Bohemia to Tyrolia and Italy moves its Tyrolia army to Bohemia, can an Austrian Army dislodged from Silesia retreat to Bohemia?
11 replies
Open
Cockney (0 DX)
02 Nov 11 UTC
NFL Pick Em: Week 9
I thought I would help out, add scores and do my turn this week (a bit early)

If i have missed anyone out - apologies-oh and i wont say there are lots of "blow outs" as everytime someone says that on here, something weird happens like the Rams beating the Saints!
49 replies
Open
Cockney (0 DX)
07 Nov 11 UTC
tedious....
gameID=71677

surely a draw?
144 replies
Open
Sicarius (673 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Are you an anarchist?
The answer may surprise you.
Page 1 of 5
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Sicarius (673 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist – you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life:

* If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent – which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist – even if you don’t realize it.
Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free – and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

* Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society – at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway – and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist – anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society – that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others…” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?

* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no’, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles-which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.
Sicarius (673 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/David_Graeber__Are_You_An_Anarchist__The_Answer_May_Suprise_You_.html
Putin33 (111 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
There is nothing democratic about anarchism. Anyway, if anybody has illusions about how anarchism works, please try participating in an anarchist-run organization. It's enough to make you pound your skull against the wall.
why did Anrarchists blow up the world trade center then?
Putin33 (111 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Al Qaeda are anarchists?
AtomicOrangutan (95 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Anarchy seems nice. But how practical is the idea in actuality? And on a national level? Maybe in small groups, like you said sports teams. But even sports teams have coaches, and in schools they are under a high school athletic association. Or on club teams they still have rules. To say that athletes act like anarchists is not very accurate. Perhaps you're right, maybe we all demonstrate characteristics of anarchists, as being humans we display a great variety behaviors. But I don't see anything wrong with government, at least until politicians corrupt it. How long will a society based upon anarchist policies last? I would venture to say not very long.
krellin (80 DX)
06 Nov 11 UTC
The very idea that you have had to tell the masses what anarchism really means...i.e. try to tell them that what THEY believe they are believing is wrong....indicates that most people have no clue what "anarchism" means. Therefore, the generally held consensus about anarchism - for example, disorder and violence - is therefore the true, modern definition of anarchism. If 90% of the morons in the "Occupy" movement call themselves anarchists, and these same 90% believe that anarchism involves violence, then, in fact, by modern definition, anarchism is a violent movement. Your ancient philosophy be damned.

I understand what you are suggesting....i also disagree with it in principle. that people lining up for a bus generally act in kindness towards one another has nothing to do with inherent anarchist beliefs. It has much more to do with the fact that, based upon personal experience, you know that somebody will probably clobber you if you act like a dick. Alternately, C.S. Lewis would suggest that it is the inherent morality of God instilled in man that causes you to act decently without thought. So....trying to pin this behavior on anarchists beliefs in simply asinine....just as you will say it is asinine to blame it on the inherent knowledge of God inside of all men.

By the way....a fag used to be a bundle of sticks.....now it is a derogatory term regarding homosexuality. Gay used to mean happy...now, it is on par with fag. In the same way, what you classically define as "anarchism" is NOT accurate by modern usage.

You are wrong.
krellin (80 DX)
06 Nov 11 UTC
And no, Al Queda is by NO means an anarchist organization. anyone that thinks so is woefully ignorant....WILLFULLY ignorant, in fact.
Tom Bombadil (4023 D(G))
06 Nov 11 UTC
@ Sic: What if I wait for the bus without causing a fuss, but some asshole behind me pushes his way to the front. What happens then? Just because I am a reasonable person does not mean that everyone is. To me, this is a hole in anarchism.
krellin (80 DX)
06 Nov 11 UTC
last thought....Anarachism fails at the outset, because all humans are NOT inherently decent, and all humans are NOT inherently prone to equality. That idea is simply stupid, and flies in the face of the whole of human experience. Perhaps you go to school...or have heard of schools...or have EVER watched children at play. Ever heard of BULLYING? You know, this manufactured moderm American crisis of youthdom? BULLYING is the opposite of your ridiculous notion of anarchism being natural peace and cooperation.

Good God...
AtomicOrangutan (95 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Also when you give someone power they may abuse it. But the level of abuse varies with the person. People will try to gain power anyways, and then most likely abuse it. Plenty of corrupt leaders merely grabbed power when the situation presented itself. I feel that anarchy would just make it easier to obtain power and the abuse it. Until humans evolve into a higher state of mind, and selfishness ceases to exist in contemporary society, anarchy will continue to be too idealistic to implement successfully.
I'm with you Sic. +1 for explaining Anarchy well and showing ppl what is what. Ignorance be damned, that has never been an excuse.
I wanna be.....ANARCHY!
krellin (80 DX)
06 Nov 11 UTC
@Atomic -- It is interesting that you use the term "evolve"...implying that we come from loser spiecies. Without dragging this into a religious discussion/evoution debate, assume what you say is true. There is really no example of this idea of anarchy in nature. And if we evolved from nature, and still do not demonstrate this "noble" trait of anarchism, then we are incapable of doing so....it is not within our nature, it is not within the evolution of the survival instincts that are bread into our consciousness. that we have bullies, that we have a distinct segmant of society that will *always* use and abuse power, means that it is an impossible goal due to the very functioning of our evolved minds. Further, if we band together to eliminate the bullies....then we have ceased to be anarchists....catch-22, anarchism loses.
carpenter (645 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
@Putin33: wow, what a relevation! Two words with different meanings actually mean something different, glad you explained that! But yeah, general conscent is not typical for anarchists. Other people do not need to agree with you, but it's nice to know other people think alike.
@On topic: I think that only very few people are pure "anarchists". It not only means that you want to overthrow every level of the government (including the whole justice system and national defense), but also that you respect to a certain extent private property. Because anarchists also throw out the public judges, I think a biased state will emerge. I haven't really thought how criminals would be judged in a 'humane' way, but just being against this makes me a libertarian, not an anarchist (though maybe an anarcho-capitalist, which is not regarded as anarchism by a lot of anarchistic groups).
Some last remarks, that Q3 is extremely suggestive. To Q4&5 I'd answer: I always expect people to lie to me (yes, even my parents), but should be able to take their own decisions (how stupid some of these decisions are).
carpenter (645 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
@myself: *revelation*
acmac10 (120 D(B))
06 Nov 11 UTC
If you take capitalism to its fullest sense, it is essentially a rebranded name for anarchism.
Putin33 (111 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. You cannot have capitalism without private property. You cannot have private property without the state.

And I frankly don't know what Carpenter is referring to when he addressed me. Is he referring to my comment about how anarchism is undemocratic? Well the reason for that is they insist on "consensus" decision-making, they actually think democracy is authoritarian. Democracy implies majority rule, instead they empower every individual to block decisions that are made. Also, rarely to anarchists actually abide by the will of the group. If they want to split off and do their own march, they happily do that and think nothing of it. If they want to engage in direct action or property damage, they go ahead and do that and rarely ask the whole group about it.

Anarchists are referred to as "manarchists" for a reason. They tend to be very male and very petty bourgeois. They're getting better on the gender issue but this is still a trend.
Putin33 (111 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
"If you take capitalism to its fullest sense, it is essentially a rebranded name for anarchism."

Not at all. What capitalists call "anarchism" is proprietarianism. The right has hijacked both the term libertarian and the term anarchist. Libertarian had always meant leftwing anarchist. Now it means capitalist reactionary who wants to privatize the world with the guns of the state.
krellin (80 DX)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Let's see....7 **BILLION** people on planet Earth. I guarantee that there will ALWAYS be at least one that wants to:

1. Subjugate people around him
2. Will find people willing to be subjugated
3. Will therefore direct those people to gather resources to themselves
4. And will therefore "better their lives"....via food and/or comfort
5. blah blah blah.....Anarchism is stupid, becuase until you can convince ***7 BILLION*** human beings that anarchism is the right way, you will fail.

I can't believe this discussion has even lasted this long. It is sooo fucking stupid.
Putin33 (111 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Then do us all a favor and stop participating.
Invictus (240 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Good work on the citation, Biff.
Yellowjacket (835 D(B))
06 Nov 11 UTC
tl;dr
acmac10 (120 D(B))
06 Nov 11 UTC
Private property implies public property, not necessarily a state. Hell, if I thought people wouldn't piss on people's cars for fun in a lawless world, I'd believe anarchism would be the way to go.

On the other hand, the government provides protection from the people, but if there is no government, there would be no threat from other nations.
Putin33 (111 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Good luck enforcing property rights without courts and police which enforce contracts and defend property. Also, allocations of private property would be impossible without a state. There's no way to privatize anything without state authority. Instead everything would be held in common.

Why do you think Siccy was criticized for home squatting. That's anarchism right there. Rightwing "anti-statists" are poseurs. They've been bitching about encampments on public property for months now, and now they want to lay claim to the anarchist label. Give me a break.

There's a reason why Ron Paul condemned OWS, even though many Paulies are in the movement.
krellin (80 DX)
06 Nov 11 UTC
You know who LOVES Anarchy? RAPISTS. And Thieves. Scoundrels of all sorts.

Not surprisingly, the "Occupy" movements are FULL of allegations of rape, sexual indecency, thievery.....and....here's a BIG surprise (NOT!!!) they have kicked out and shunned the "bums"....the homeless...the TRUE disenfranchised 99%ers....


Fuck you and your idiotic arguments for anarchy.
krellin (80 DX)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Without courts and law, Putin, enforcing my property rights becomes really fucking simple. It comes at the end of a .45 or maybe a 12 guage. If I don't have the law to fear then it is realy fucking simple to exercise my rights to property.

In fact, there is a very strong argument to be made that modern American law has LIMITED an individuals rights to property.
krellin (80 DX)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Putin...you are truly an ignorant fuck...you know that?
Putin33 (111 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Since when did conservatives care about rape or theft?
Putin33 (111 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Good luck with your .45 or 12 gauge, considering people without property outnumber people with property by a very large number, I don't think you'll last very long.
Putin33 (111 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
And how do you exchange in trade or market transactions or enforce contracts without the state? Simply going to shoot everybody? Capitalism truly is a gangster's paradise.

Page 1 of 5
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

122 replies
totya (100 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Magyarok ide!
Nem tudom van e már ilyen topic, de jó lenne, ha egy jó kis csapat összejönne. :)
5 replies
Open
SpeakerToAliens (147 D(S))
07 Nov 11 UTC
A couple of questions about American courts.
In the UK, when a jury has a verdict the judge asks them what the verdict is and they say it out loud. In the 'States, once a jury reaches a verdict, they write it down on a piece of paper and hand it to the judge, He or she reads it and then hands it back and someone in the jury reads it out.

Why do they hand it to the judge first? What does this achieve?
11 replies
Open
Ges (292 D)
04 Nov 11 UTC
WebDip Book Club?
Since there are so many well-read, historically-minded, opinionated members on the site, I thought it might be fun to read and discuss a book with anyone who is interested.
17 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
06 Nov 11 UTC
What are some good songs to sing unaccompanied (that aren't that hard)
When the sun goes down in the village there is nothing to do, so sometimes my family asks me to sing for them.. know any good songs?
26 replies
Open
Lando Calrissian (100 D(S))
04 Nov 11 UTC
Movember
Does this exist in other parts of the world?
13 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
07 Nov 11 UTC
the embodied mind
also interesting stuff... Mind is more than just brain, a bigger step away from dualistic thought.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/11/04/a-brief-guide-to-embodied-cognition-why-you-are-not-your-brain/
3 replies
Open
goldfinger0303 (3157 DMod)
07 Nov 11 UTC
The Masters Rounds 7 and 8
So I've spent pretty much the whole weekend working on the spreadsheets and finding out how TrustMe did it, but now I've got everything I need to become (temporary) TD and with Geofram's help get this thing back up and running.
6 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
04 Nov 11 UTC
The Biggest Threat To Liberty is _____ (?)
I say a Lack of Education:
It was with more education we got out of the Stone Ages and into the Greco-Roman era...and then when education made a comeback, we had the Renaissance...and then the Englightenment...and then Civil Rights/Suffrage movements...cured diseases, more production...but currently my home state is 48th in education and the West is most of my doctors ARE from India...what's your take? Biggest threat is...what?
88 replies
Open
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
05 Nov 11 UTC
New Ghost Ratings up
tournaments.webdiplomacy.net
61 replies
Open
Tolstoy (1962 D)
06 Nov 11 UTC
Question: Are battles really, when it comes down to it, historically important?
See inside.
15 replies
Open
goldfinger0303 (3157 DMod)
06 Nov 11 UTC
A Question on the Masters
See below
19 replies
Open
Favio (385 D)
07 Nov 11 UTC
Probably not new game play idea, maybe for tourneys
Is there a tourney here that we could do a Triple vs Triple deal with a rogue Italy? I think if we have enough players that would be a fun thing to do. I think best would be 7 players or 49. Could be fun. Let me know if anyone is interested or has a way to make it a better idea.
7 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
05 Nov 11 UTC
How to be an American College Student
My own work.
45 replies
Open
Page 812 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top