It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ignoring. Rude but effective.

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

What's even more aggravating is when posters sink an OP's battleship in one page, but they come back and argue every which way from Sunday about how wrong those posters are and how right the OP is. With not a single shred of anything to back themselves up or vindicate themselves at all.
Ignorance may be a bliss, but you're still an idiot when you hit that level of running circles..




posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Sometimes I leave one of my own threads because it has taken on a life of it's own which doesn't necessarily reflect my interest, so I leave it be to run it's own course, and die it's own death.

Otherwise, when have you ever heard anyone say "oh thank you for showing me the error of my ways, I was so mistaken, I wish I'd never made this thread, thank you thank you, I feel so enlightened now since you have spoken".

Just sayin'. Not happening.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

One expects this kind of thing. Someone without the knowledge or wit to be able to substantiate an opinion they hold probably also lacks the wit to abandon that opinion in the light of better logic or evidence. They know they don't have a leg to stand on, but they don't want to change their opinion or admit their error, so all they can do in an argument is repeat their original statements or hold their peace.

The longest thread on Above Top Secret offers plenty of examples.


edit on 20/12/14 by Astyanax because: of the temptation to mention names.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I don't know.... perhaps I am not grasping the specific types of topics that are being referred to?

I have never really related to the whole thing about the Op of a thread being the responsible master of how it evolves, where it goes... though I do my best to respect that position here because it is part of the ATS culture.

I saw some lecture the other day about specifically feminine type of creativity (which yeah that sounded stupid at first). I was surprised to find that I did relate to what was said.

This persons position was that there is masculine type of creativity- which tends more to want to be the "sole" inventor, and then remain in control of the invention (work of art, business, family, whatever) as it continues to live,

Then there is feminine type of creativity, which is more collaborative, tends to seek out others to "mix" ideas with, then leaves the product of that to sort of evolve and grow on it's own, with it's own sort of life.

This could be applied in many different areas of creation, but I found myself thinking about discussion forums, and the way I love throwing something out there, and letting it take on it's life! It might go "off topic" and become something else entirely, it might show to be ill adapted to it's environment and die. (but usually not without spreading some seeds of thought out there first, which might come back later from another, with a slightly different sprout). It might grow some new branches and gain in complexity, getting larger... I guess I like watching that almost organic process.

Once my thoughts and idea's are "out", I feel less attached to their fate. I have detached from them.
That makes a difficulty for those (in RL) who really want to hold a fixed box in head of who I am, how I feel, and what I think- "But you said yesterday you feel like this!"
"Yeah, I did.... yesterday. Then I said it, I got it out, and it changed. Now I feel differently."

Some topics, even if they come up repeatedly through time, each time there are people who haven't heard it before, or haven't analyzed and thought it out before, and it is not because others before them have that they want to be relieved of that process! They might need or want to do it for themselves, because sometimes process is about more than just the eventual product of it.

There are subjects I get into with others for a while, and Once I have had that chance to evaluate and analyze my thoughts on it, it just ceases to interest me anymore, and I see it coming up for others again and again, and just ignore it, because it is up to each one to do that process for their self and discover their self.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: intrepid

when posters sink an OP's battleship in one page


Do you mind if I borrow that? It just sounds awesome


I don't usually make threads. On the few occasions I have, they don't get many replies but I always check on them and make sure to answer questions and reply to those who post. It's like I'm inviting them to my house, I make sure they are comfortable and let them know I'm available if they need anything.

Also, if someone proved me wrong, I'd admit it. It happened once on a thread (not mine) when I posted several pictures of someone and a member pointed out one of the pics wasn't of this particular person. I apologized and posted a correction (not sure if it's the right word in English, sorry) because it was the right thing to do.


edit on 21-12-2014 by Casandra because: Added a thought



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

The serial offenders are the most annoying. They open thread after thread, often about the same topic disguised as something else, each started with a video. I have to wonder why the moderators don't put a stop to this.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

It's not exactly on topic, but I'd be interested to see that article.

Until I do, and find within it a plausible reason for assigning genders to different types of creative behaviour, I beg leave to regard the following stereotypification as tendentious, insulting and ridiculous:


There is masculine type of creativity- which tends more to want to be the "sole" inventor, and then remain in control of the invention (work of art, business, family, whatever) as it continues to live.

Then there is feminine type of creativity, which is more collaborative, tends to seek out others to "mix" ideas with, then leaves the product of that to sort of evolve and grow on its own, with its own sort of life.

I have made a decent living out of my own creativity for over thirty years, and have received the plaudits and recognition of readers, audiences and my peers as a professional writer and editor as well as a performing, improvising musician. Egotistical as it may sound to you, I am well satisfied that I understand the creative process better than most.

I am a man. And yes, it has been and remains my lifelong conviction that no creative work of quality has ever emerged from any kind of democratic or committee process. Great creative ideas are always the children of a single brain. Creative individuals are tyrants born, because we have to be in order to defend our vision and see it fully realized.

Sometimes the ideas we produce can be refined by others, but those others are also very special people with different creative talents of their own: editors, producers, arrangers, coaches, teachers.

In certain fields, subordinates with creative ability are needed to bring a work to fruition: the composer needs musicians to play his works, the choreographer needs dancers, the scientist needs research assistants, the monumental sculptor needs apprentices.

All this is conventional. None of it, however, plays any part in the committee approach to creativity you describe as 'feminine'. That kind of approach results in sloppy, inferior work because the agenda is never to create the best expression possible in a medium but instead to make all participants happy. It is for nurseries, special schools, churches, charitable work with the disadvantaged and planning processes in the multilateral development sector — areas where nobody really cares much about the quality of the creative work produced so long as everybody gets a chance to participate in the process and the final result ticks most of the boxes. It is also popular in certain parts of the business sector because it allows the jokers and clowns who 'learned' 'creativity' in business school to feel their two cents' worth of brainfart or criticism at the 'brainstorming session' helped 'create' a consumer product or a marketing campaign. I despise that form of 'creativity', which is capable only of the sincerest form of flattery and of making good ideas worse. Nothing on Earth can make a bad idea better.

Since I am a feminist as well as a man, I denounce your characterisation of this wishy-washy, ego-stroking creative incompetence as 'feminine'. I agree that there are apparent justifications for the label: women are naturally less competitive than men (except, of course, when it comes to men and to their children) and are therefore less prone to go to the wire in defence of their ideas unless they happen to be real creators. The ones who are any good at it are as fierce as any man, believe me.

There are 'feminists' like Camille Paglia who agree with you ('if civilization had been left in female hands, we'd still be living in grass huts,' she said once); but appearances and opinions are not facts, and unless you can produce some facts to back up this labelling of feel-good kindergarten 'participative creativity' as 'female', I categorically reject the proposition.


edit on 22/12/14 by Astyanax because: if there's one lie I truly hate in the world, it is the lie that 'everybody is creative'.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Bluesma

It's not exactly on topic, but I'd be interested to see that article.


It was some sort of lecture on Youtube, which I can't find again. I had it on while I was mopping the floor, not even sure how youtube hopping landed there, and I was making enough scoffing sarcastic comments during it that I wouldn't really want to steer anyone else towards it. There was just that one part that I found I can relate to




Until I do, and find within it a plausible reason for assigning genders to different types of creative behaviour, I beg leave to regard the following stereotypification as tendentious, insulting and ridiculous:


Okay, understood. I personally find that there are some areas that I like and perhaps need the input of others, and that I also like to " let go" of my creations and watch them evolve without being controlled by anyone in particular.
Making humans, for example? I find I need someone else to help seed them, then my creative efforts really all go in the direction of eventually letting them go so I can stand back and watch them flourish on their own.



I have my husband constantly bugging me to write a book, because he sees I have a passion for writing that makes me soar internally- but I find that I mostly get inspired when interacting with others- alone, with no one else to provoke me to move out of my own fixed perspectives, I lose momentum fast. I guess I get bored with knowing beforehand exactly how it will manifest ultimately- I love the discovery of watching it emerge in surprising ways! When it is a creation of me alone, there can be no surprises about it's growth or behavior- for it will be a reproduction of my own psyche only.

I thought it interesting to hear that called a feminine sort of creativity, and considered how my husband (also very creative) is very adamant about doing it his own way, preferably against any input of others, an also has trouble letting go of his creations. He cannot bring himself to sell them, he wants to possess and keep them forever. I know another man that does that- his home is filled with sculptures, and he has tried to let others buy them but always ends up squirming out of the deal.

But I hear your opposing thought on the feminine/ masculine catagoriation and take note of your disagreement.






I am a man. And yes, it has been and remains my lifelong conviction that no creative work of quality has ever emerged from any kind of democratic or committee process. Great creative ideas are always the children of a single brain.



Okay, I hear that opinion. I can't help but raise the example of human beings again though.




Sometimes the ideas we produce can be refined by others, but those others are also very special people with different creative talents of their own: editors, producers, arrangers, coaches, teachers.


I feel like you have taken a particular strong stance, and now contradicted it with this statement?
I certainly wouldn't choose any guy off the street to make a child with, nor involve myself in a creative writing process with a moron!
-Though, as I will explain further down, even the morons influence the process indirectly, because they may stimulate reflections, simply by examples of what NOT to include, what to avoid, and pushing one to explain things to them, which provokes an internal process of analyzation inside.






All this is conventional. None of it, however, plays any part in the committee approach to creativity you describe as 'feminine'. That kind of approach results in sloppy, inferior work because the agenda is never to create the best expression possible in a medium but instead to make all participants happy.


The person in the video was talking about creativity with one other partner. I am suggesting many can have an influence. But I do not suggest they always KNOW they had a part, nor that they are happy with the process or result. Being part of it often means having been an adversary.

In a thread, only people with an interest or focus on the topic will click on it and participate. Only some of them, sometimes very few, will have insights or ideas that are developed enough to be of interest in the creative process. The others will most likely be ignored, or rejected as trolls, depending upon the sort of input they bring to the table.




Since I am a feminist as well as a man, I denounce your characterisation of this wishy-washy, ego-stroking creative incompetence as 'feminine'.


Gotcha. It was the way someone else saw it, which I found interesting- though I haven't a firm stance on whether these different sorts of creativity are feminine or masculine in nature yet, so I don't feel motivated to debate you on that. I am still in a receiving mode, collecting different perspectives. Thank you for contributing yours!

I will put forth the view that, even when I am creating seemingly "alone", my creations are still products of many, because who I am, my mind, is formed by the millions of experiences I have... and my experiences are influenced by others. So in any case, there is indirect participation by others! You may see a thread be created by me on this or a related subject, and you can say, hey, I was part of that!

If you have grown up in a cave, without contact with other individuals, then I guess you can be sure that your mind has not been touched by those of others, and everything that comes from it is solely yours. I can't say that.
Eh, in person that could be said with humor and we'd both laugh- here, it just seems facetious, doesn't it?
I don't mean it to be. I think you get what I mean though?

I am a product of many, therefore, all that comes from me is a product of many.

But in any case, with the masculine/feminine type of creativity hypothesis, you do get it that it is refering to sides of ALL people? Yin and Yang? Women can manifest their masculine qualities, men their feminine qualities, it is not catagorization based only on physical gender?

To bring this back to the topic, the relevance can be illustrated thus-

-A UFO video, that has been proven to be fake, repeatedly comes back up, with caps in the title. Those who have read it and know it has been blown out of the water roll their eyes and grind their teeth in frustration.

-But there are other persons who see it for the first time, and they get to have their try at analyzing and researching and forming an opinion,
and that might be a very practical exercise for them, in learning to how to do that; in learning critical thought. We are not all at the same level of experience in all things, and just because one has been there, done that, does not mean that is true for all others, and it doesn't mean all others should be deprived of the experience and opportunity to develop and grow!

edit on 22-12-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I guess your disagreement is provoking a strengthening of my own perspective here.

You claim that the influence of others in a creative process is a detriment to the creation, becoming deformed by the desire to please or fulfill the various individuals, and I am having more and more ways I disagree with that arise in mind!

For example, one ongoing project is a book (which I see actually as a screenplay) which is based on my experiences as an american from Los Angeles settling in rural France. My experiences have been hilarious in retrospect- the misunderstandings, the reactions to such strange and new experiences (and theirs to me), and most specifically, the characters!

Some of the people I have met here are the most amazingly strange people! It seems that once you are out in isolated areas, there is less pressure to assimilate in behavior, and you get individuals with the most original characters! Top that with the cultural differences, of course, and you get a Wonderland type of absurdity.
They are very much part of this creation, and yet, I don't search to "please" them, and I have no idea if they would be pleased faced with my perception of them, but in any case, without having met them, the creativity would not be happening.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Thank you for your considered replies. I certainly don't disagree with you about the influence other people have on creative work and the people who produce it. We are all, inevitably, what the world has made us — or, seen from a different perspective, what we have made of the world. No-one can dispute that.

But when you say that


many can have an influence, but I do not suggest they always KNOW they had a part, nor that they are happy with the process or result. Being part of it often means having been an adversary

you are simply pointing out that a creator sometimes uses human materials in his or her work, and must often overcome or compromise with human obstacles in order to complete it. That is not, I think, what you mean by 'feminine' creativity. I take you (rightly or wrongly; I'm sure you will enlighten me) to be speaking of a process in which a group of individuals consciously and consensually sets out to generate and develop a creative idea, and perhaps also to execute it, but no individual has authority over creative decisions or the final form of the work.

This is not the same as, for example, a company mounting a theatrical production. The company consists of actors, a stage manager, a musical director, a lighting designer, maybe an orchestra conductor and musicians, etc. All these are creative people, and some of them will have team members (stage crew, lights crew, etc.) who are also pretty creative folk in their own right. All of them will cooperate intensively in order to make the show go on. However, this is not soi-disant 'feminine creativity' because the company is organized in a hierarchichal way. The head of each department has a contribution to make and he or she can be as creative as they like within that department — so long as they provide what the director requires of them. And behind the director stand the producers, the money-men who would prefer to have no creative input (if they know what's good for them) but must sometimes make decisions that affect the creative process (again, if they know what's good for them) in order that the show not only goes on, but does good box office. It's a pyramid of creativity with (usually) the director's vision at the summit. And on the set — if not in the producers' boardroom — the director is king. What he or she says goes, no matter what inconveniences, frustrations, discomforts and even at times actual pain is suffered by the rest of the company. It goes even when he or she is wrong. And why is this? Because long experience has shown that even when a director is wrong he produces better work than a committee would.

I have some small experience in the theatre, and have watched many theatre companies — 'workshop' companies — try to develop their own scripts and cooperate over direction and production rather than use a script created by a playwright, submit themselves to a director, or elect one of their own number to write and another to direct. The results, so far as I can see, are uniformly wretched. When they are not, it is because one member of the workshop has the creativity, diplomacy and strength of personality to take over the show without anyone really noticing, and has the knack of directing others without causing resentment. Similarly, I have played in many bands, and never was there one that made good music without a leader — a mainspring, a guiding spirit. Musical democracies nearly always collapse in recrimination and, if there's money involved, lawsuits. I worked for long years in advertising, and for many of those years I was a 'creative diretor' or team leader. In all those years, I never saw a good idea produced by a committee. Good ideas are always the work of one person, not necessarily the team leader. Wait, did I say 'good ideas'? No, all ideas are the work of one person. There are no exceptions. Committees don't have brains.


Making humans, for example? I find I need someone else to help seed them...

Making babies is procreation, not creation. It requires no creative thinking, no special skills. Neither, I make bold to say, does the raising of children. But whether they do or not, making and raising babies have nothing to do with artistic or intellectual creativity. It's no accident that most creative achievements, the finest productions of human civilization, are the work of men. They are the product, ultimately, of male status competition — that is, of male competition for mating opportunities. They exist, as Camille Paglia points out in the short but brilliant interview below, precisely because men can't have babies. The production and raising of children are not relevant to our discussion.

You said the programme you watched was about creative partnerships involving two people. That's a little different. Such partnerships are not uncommon. In many, the partners have complementary skills: in songwriting partnerships, for example, one partner is often the composer while the other is the lyricist. But this is not always the case; John Lennon and Paul McCartney both had overlapping skill sets, and their partnership was one in which each used the other partly as a sounding-board and partly as a competitive whetstone for his own creativity. However, such partnerships tend to be fraught and fissiparous. In longer-lasting partnerships, one partner usually subordinates themselves to the other, as Pierre Curie subordinated himself to his wife Marie's astounding brilliance. The dynamic is very different.

Lastly, I would like to make a small comment on this:


I mostly get inspired when interacting with others. Alone, with no one else to provoke me to move out of my own fixed perspectives, I lose momentum fast. I guess I get bored with knowing beforehand exactly how it will manifest ultimately. I love the discovery of watching it emerge in surprising ways! When it is a creation of me alone, there can be no surprises about its growth or behavior — for it will be a reproduction of my own psyche only.

I'm sorry, but what this paragraph reveals is creative inexperience, and confusion about how the creative process works.

Your husband wants you to write a book. I've written several, as well as innumerable articles, short stories and poems. I assure you that no writer worth her salt ever 'knew beforehand exactly how it will manifest'. Real creativity is always surprising, and to none more so than to the creator himself or herself. When I set out to write a book, I usually start by writing an outline — but the final product never bears more than a passing resemblance to the outline. On a more detailed level, every sentence is a surprise. It has to be. If what I write doesn't make me go 'hey, that's pretty good', I strike it out and write again. If I can't entertain and surprise myself with my writing, how the hell can I expect to entertain and surprise anybody else?

All this is, of course, very much off topic, but I hope the moderator of this thread will let it stand. It seems that all that can or needs to be said about the actual thread topic has already been said, anyway. Now, here's Camille. I need hardly say that I agree with pretty much everything she says here. She's no more a fan of 'feminine creativity' than I am.




posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
That is not, I think, what you mean by 'feminine' creativity. I take you (rightly or wrongly; I'm sure you will enlighten me) to be speaking of a process in which a group of individuals consciously and consensually sets out to generate and develop a creative idea, and perhaps also to execute it, but no individual has authority over creative decisions or the final form of the work.


It seems to me you are taking some other idea and applying it to what I said. Perhaps I didn't develop it enough in my first post, partly because it was so off topic to do so.

What I am thinking is that, it is perhaps more a feminine type of thinking to consider creativity where a more masculine thinking would not see it as being so. I consider each one of us as creating our lives in each second. I consider even the subconscious influences as being part of that creative process.

I do not push aside procreation as "uncreative", nor do I consider the formation of an individual as not creative.
But then you seem to be focusing on the quality of the creation- as if there is some boundry of quality at which the product can be considered a product of creation. I refer to creativity as a process, and as an experience, regardless of the perceived and measured quality of the object produced by that process.

In this context I recognize the writing of a OP in a thread as a creative process. What happens to the product of that OP when exposed to public could be used to measure it's quality, I suppose. That doesn't mean there was no creative process that happened in it's formation.

If you make a film, or a theater production, controlling the publics reaction to it is what I feel would be "not letting go" of the product. Changing reviews that come up online, to reflect what you want people to feel about it, or doing things to make the undesired responses repressed - to make them unavailable for others to see, or to find a way to control the way your audience feels about, interprets, or thinks about your production, is what I refer to.

The creations of others (both good and bad, films, books, stage productions, art work of various kinds, even theories and ideas) all serve as inspiration for others. Therefore, I feel that there is something rather interesting in watching those forms, be they of good quality or lesser, going out and touching others minds. In NOT controlling the way they take on different nuances and interpretations and meanings for others.

This sparks more creative urge in me. Isolating myself in my office for days on end kills that ever growing energy. It is in interacting with others, engaging in life that that motor turns.

I think it is important to recognize these "everyday" acts of creation, because if one does not, they do not consider the materials and pieces they use in doing it. "Anybody can make a baby" in someone's mind encourages them to not be discerning in choosing the partner and context in which they shall choose to it. Anybody can raise a child, does not encourage a person to consider carefully the long term effects of their actions and choices while doing so, and how those will determine the personality of that product that shall be let loose in the world later.

"Anybody can cook, it is not creative", encourages one to not consider the quality of the ingredients they are using- the medium is essential in the quality of the outcome.

I was not talking about committee stuff- I am not familiar with that, I have always assumed any group action requires a hierarchy organisation and a "head" to hold and present the goal and direction. But I kept thinking, after reading what you wrote- you obviously have a great deal of confidence and pride in who you are and what you are capable of- that is good! So how can you be so demeaning towards the people who formed you??? To the people that put together schools and to your parents, the result of their efforts and creativity made- YOU, this artist with the great mind!

Successful artists have value, but the ones that create successful artists are without value? What?
edit on 22-12-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Thank you for your reply and clarification. You've answered my question: that which you call 'female creativity' is exactly what I thought it was. It is neither female (or even feminine), nor is it creativity. You insult both women and truly creative people when you so label it.

For reasons now obvious, I can't expect you to understand why it's an insult to creative people, and that probably means you can't understand why I regard it as an insult to women either. I fear it would be fruitless to pursue this conversation any further.

Good luck with your writing.


edit on 23/12/14 by Astyanax because: that's about it, really.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

LOL!
OKay, note taken of your opinion!
I will continue to hold the opinion that humans are creative by nature, and that there can be varying levels of consciousness of their creativity, there can be varying levels of quality of that which they create as measured by their society, and that the stimulation of their creative urges is a major force of motivation, both in thought and action.

That we all have both masculine and feminine qualities, yin and yang, and that our creativity is largely in how well these two parts of interact and mix together inside of us.

That an appreciation of what each has to offer, is a beneficial part of stimulating creativity to grow.

It sounds to me that you do use the Yin- inside you (you recognize the "surprise", or autonomous factor that your subconscious brings into the process) and outside (you recognize the necessity of others who inject their input into the production).

But you don't want to acknowledge their value. I won't try to guess your reasons- there could be many.

But just try to imagine- take away all those choreographers, sound tech's, editors, producers, directors...
(Along with the teachers they had who taught them their skills, the parents who provoked them to be interested in that activity, the other colleagues around through their life that challenged their personality, etc.)

And where does that get your creation? How does it come out of your head, and become a real thing you can share with the world ?

Take out that subconscious part of your mind, which is made up of various associations formed through your life, both the "positive" and "negative" experiences, the good and bad, the many people and events you witnessed, and interacted with, which brings in the unexpected , unplanned elements of your creation,
and what happens to your creation then?


We're floating from the topic, but to return, the good quality and the bad quality, all influence and shape our personalities and the direction of our thoughts, and people grow in skills and thought through exposure to it all. Adversity and challenge is a major skill-enhancer, so take it out and you get lazy minds and bodies. I think this applies to forums. Critical thought development demands material.


On a personal note-
My grandfather was a cinematographer who was nominated for an Oscar, and hailed for his creativity in many films. He actually came up with quite a few inventions too, which became common usage for cameramen. Yet he just didn't have that Boulimic need for love and admiration that many in the business have (I come from a Hollywood family, I know about that) so he simply lived his creativity without seeking a lot of recognition.

He drew the stylized profile of Hitchcock used in his tv show, and Hitch only started making the false claim it was his creation after my grandfather died. His black hole appetite for admiration and love caused him to take much credit for the creativity of others all the time. That doesn't mean it was realistic or true, or that others part of his productions were not creative people. It just means he devalued them in his own mind for his own purposes of self gratification.


edit on 24-12-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Would you two mind going and jacking another thread please.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

All done, intrepid. Merry Christmas.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

No problem. I had no idea the slight mention of that would set off such a reaction. I apologize.
edit on 26-12-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)







 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join