Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Illuminati and Freemasons in cahoots....

page: 14
2
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   


Interesting, I'd like to read the thesis of the art historians who claim it was added later. Would you provide a link?

The link would be this thread, it's in the last pages, you got the information in the posts.
edit on 16-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by de1111codEiT
 


most of the things you said in the OP we knew already.

I always like to encourage other people who dare to talk about these connections.

thank you.

wish to hear from you more.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


Interesting, I'd like to read the thesis of the art historians who claim it was added later. Would you provide a link?

The link would be this thread, it's in the last pages, you got the information in the posts.
edit on 16-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)


where?

please link it.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by pepsi78


Interesting, I'd like to read the thesis of the art historians who claim it was added later. Would you provide a link?

The link would be this thread, it's in the last pages, you got the information in the posts.
edit on 16-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)


where?

please link it.


I chose a masonic source, to make it more ironical.


freemasonry.bcy.ca...
The same attention to realism is also evident in the careful representation of the group of objects forming a still life on the table.
The eye of God, painted above Christ’s head, is a later addition.



The eye of God, painted above Christ’s head, is a later addition.


edit on 16-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


How about a link to an art historian? It would make the claim more credible. I am not trying to give you a hard time about this, but I am skeptical by nature so I would prefer to hear from an art historian who has been trained to detect forgeries, etc. Recall that art historians have used infrared reflectography to detect an unknown Da Vinci sketch beneath another painting.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
I've often wondered if this site is based upon Masonic symbolism for these reasons in particular:

1. Above Top Secret and Below Top Secret = As above, so below.


A) "As above, so below" has no meaning in Masonry.

B) The purpose of Above/Below Top Secret is to make a distinction. It is "as above, not so below".


2. You can either go dark or go light regarding screen colors = checkerboard floor


At night, everything's Masonic.


3. One of ATS's mantras about Trusting the Crowd Wisdom as challenged in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...


That's a weird one. I don't believe it either. It's also not Masonic. Trust in one's brethren is encouraged, but knowledge is to be found through diligent search.


It's rare that I've ever seen a Mason speak out against their organization.


People don't degrade things they like? YOU DON'T SAY.


There are some websites that are centered upon the experiences of former masons.


With varying degrees of honesty, both in the factual and rhetorical sense.


One situation in particular is the fact that it's frowned upon to mention the name of Jesus within the lodges because it may offend. So, knowing this, the Crowd Wisdom dictates that the name of Jesus is offensive.


There's a difference between divisive and offensive. As an example from the other relevant paradigm, I'm not offended by people who want to slash our public education budgets, but a conversation on the matter with me could lead to very uncivil conversation. Also, as stated before, "follow the crowd wisdom" is not Masonic.


I've noticed that the Masonic threads seem to have the same masons that rarely are ever seen on other threads. It's almost as if the Red Phone rings for them so they know to engage.


Or, you know, people don't talk about things that don't hold their interest.


I've always found this behavior to be suspect.


This is the best place to talk about Freemasonry on the Internet. I've learned more on the subject from the Masons here (and a select few non-Masons) than anywhere else. I'm not particularly knowledgeable in any of the other subject areas even if I am interested, so I don't say much. I'm sorry if my reason for being here doesn't meet your arbitrary standard of who's allowed and who isn't.


So, I would now like to ask a question because I want to know the truth and this site encourages seeking the truth.


But that couldn't be why Masons come here, could it?
edit on 16-6-2011 by OnTheLevel213 because: can't get the format right, and ATS preview is being glitchy.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by no1smootha
reply to post by pepsi78
 


How about a link to an art historian? It would make the claim more credible. I am not trying to give you a hard time about this, but I am skeptical by nature so I would prefer to hear from an art historian who has been trained to detect forgeries, etc. Recall that art historians have used infrared reflectography to detect an unknown Da Vinci sketch beneath another painting.


It's no claim, it's a well know factor



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by pepsi78


Interesting, I'd like to read the thesis of the art historians who claim it was added later. Would you provide a link?

The link would be this thread, it's in the last pages, you got the information in the posts.
edit on 16-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)


where?

please link it.


I chose a masonic source, to make it more ironical.


freemasonry.bcy.ca...
The same attention to realism is also evident in the careful representation of the group of objects forming a still life on the table.
The eye of God, painted above Christ’s head, is a later addition.



The eye of God, painted above Christ’s head, is a later addition.


edit on 16-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)


I was wanting you to link to the spot in this thread where it was. Please do that.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by no1smootha
 


Here is another source.



www.holyfaithchurch.org...
The painting depicted above is by Jacopo Pontormo, who did this
painting in 1525, called Supper at Emmaus. In this painting, Pontormo brings out
the Eucharistic theme of the story told in today’s Gospel in Luke 24:13-35 (see
also today’s Eucharistic Spotlight). There is only bread and wine at the table and
Jesus is blessing the bread in the manner of a Priest.
The painting was for a Carthusian chapel, the Carthusians being a type of
monk. In the painting there is the historical inaccuracy of including Carthusian
monks contemporary to Pontormo at this Emmaus Supper! But Pontormo is
making the point that knowing the Risen Christ in the Eucharist is not just a
past event but a present reality as well.

The “Eye of God” in a triangle (signifying the Trinity) was added later
and most critics aren’t pleased with it; but it adds a note of the mysterious to the
scene. See also a note of whimsy in the small dog and two cats in the painting. I
know a parishioner who’ll like the inclusion of the pets.
edit on 16-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 

I gave you a source directrly, if you want to review the thread then you can also do that.
There is no single spot as it was debated at large in the thread starting from page 11.


edit on 16-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by network dude
 

I gave you a source directrly, if you want to review the thread then you can also do that.
There is no single spot as it was debated at large in the thread starting from page 11.


edit on 16-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)


www.abovetopsecret.com...

here it is. I just wanted to know if it was in this thread. I didn't remember seeing it.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
That is only according to some people, there is no real evidence for that.
who added the eye, we know it was not the original artist, then who did it ?


Once again, some is better then none which is what you have. You have NO explanation for it other then to say, "Not everyone agrees with yours." Not good enough. Find contradictory sources or deal with it.


Do you got a source that states he painted the eye and on what date ?


Of course. (under exhibition layout, 2nd page)


His close connection to the Florentine painitng tradition is illustrated in his copies of works by the great masters beginning in the sixteenth century, particularly Andrea del Sarto and Pontormo...



So where is the eye and the triangle ?


I guess you forgot when you said the triangle was not a Chirstian symbol? Do I need to go and pull your quote?


The symbol is not here either


It most certainly is, at the bottom of the image surrounded by angels. Open your eyes.


Where does it say that, who knows when it was painted, there is no date for it just you saying it is.
Churches get updated, or got updated in paintings in gradual time, you got to have precise information on the object you are talking about. No sources just you stating it is so.


It is not a painting it is a tapestry in the Tapestry Gallery. Read the Vaticans website about how they date their aquisitions, they have fairly meticulous records. I will refrain from submitting this piece until I can find it in situ where it is hung in the Gallery to prove that it is indeed displayed there.


That is only your opinion and you can't force it on others, for others it holds value since it comes from a high masonic figure. Of course the opinion of a 33 matters because it's exposure, make sure if he was still alive just like you he would rectify his statement inventing something saying that they "quoted him out of context" or god knows what.


Exactly. It is only my opion just like it is only his opinion. Thank you for proving that point.

Also, a 'high Masonic figure' would be someone in the Grand Lodge who has some real authority to affect legislation, i.e. The Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, etc. Not all 33rd Degree Masons even have them same privledges in the Scottish Rite, which is of course an appendant body and wholly subservient to the Grand Jurisdiction in which it is located. Do not even try to explain Masonic government and hierarchy to anyone here. You are more clueless about this than anything esle you have been spouting about.


Yes Masons along with others planed the great seal yes, they told the designers they want that.
I can't see why it's a figment of my imagination


Because you have no HARD EVIDENCE to prove this. Only your opinion. Meanwhile I have given you the handwritten notes from the Seal's designers and the Illuminati which proves otherwise.

And by evidence I mean items we can actually look at, like this French Bank Note printed in 1656. This can not obviously be the first usage of the emblem so I will continue to locate older items that you will not be able to disprove. Maybe one day you can bring something other than your opinion to the discussion.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Since no truth will be delivered by modern Masons the argument
becomes circular, pointless.

I didn't come into this thread to "out" Freemasons but I can see those
that claim Masonry as their own are not of the character and caliber
of past Masons who were proud of their accomplishments.

Unlike worms, men walk in the light above ground and I see there
are many worms that wish to call themselves men.

I leave you with a gift:

Any good Mason should recognize this fellow,



His name is Jacques DeMolay for any who wish to research.

Take particular note of his clothing, he is dressed in the garb of a
Knight's Templar.

Now have a look at this image,



Templars carrying their "god", good ol' Baphomet with
his snake tail wrapped around the Earth...

Enjoy !






edit on 16-6-2011 by Version100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Version100
 

I don't live in denial. I'm not the one claiming something that just isn't true. I pull all my knowledge from first-hand experience and knowledge of the Craft. You pull from second-hand or third-hand information at best, but at worst you pull information that you or others have twisted to suit some agenda.

How arrogant is someone who says they know more than someone in the actual group. Some pull the argument of "higher ups", but have yet to show how the structure and hierarchy works. How is it a non-member thinks he knows more about the Craft than we do. For a non (or anti) Mason to claim he knows more about the inner workings of the Craft, but claims that there is a higher up, inner circle that low levels don't know about is illogical as by that logic, non-members are even lower on the totem pole of knowledge than the "low level" Masons would be. When we explain how it does work and how our leadership is chosen and rules, we're called liars.

We come in here open about our Fraternity and willing to explain a great deal thereby expelling some of the myths and lies, but you still denounce us. Who's living in denial? Reason would say you are.

The eye in the triangle is not equal to a pyramid. I've never said the triangle wasn't used as you can see in the Royal Arch has it. With your "huge library" can you please show us in what degree the pyramid appears or what its importance is?

It's not that we feel bad or guilty about this image, but we're just pointing out the fact that it is not a Masonic symbol. Too many of you get blinders on and also think symbols are exclusive and only one group has access to it. No one symbol ever has a single interpretation or is ever used by one group. To think so is folly.

I don't denounce the works as wrong, but I do say they are not doctrine or policy of the Craft, but rather just the opinion of that person.

reply to post by Afterthought
 

As above, so below would probably be more a Judeo-Christian theme.

In comparison, there are very few Mason Mods versus non-Mason mods.

reply to post by Version100
 

There are a lot of different ways to express the Holy Trinity. Another one could be the Salem Cross.


Originally posted by Version100
Now have a look at this image,



Templars carrying their "god", good ol' Baphomet with
his snake tail wrapped around the Earth...

Enjoy !

Wow, you really know nothing of the Templars if you truly think they worshipped Baphomet. Also, note that this image of Baphomet was done by Eliphas Levi nearly 5 centuries after the suppression of the Knights Templar. It was by the hand of a corrupt French king that the Templars were destroyed and defamed.

Though, I do not see what this image has to do with Freemasonry and the present topic. Also, who drew this image? Who was he? What was his intent? I mean, any swinging dick can draw a picture and in today's world it can be found on the web.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   


Once again, some is better then none which is what you have. You have NO explanation for it other then to say, "Not everyone agrees with yours." Not good enough. Find contradictory sources or deal with it.

I don't have to find any sources, you do.



Of course. (under exhibition layout, 2nd page)


His close connection to the Florentine painitng tradition is illustrated in his copies of works by the great masters beginning in the sixteenth century, particularly Andrea del Sarto and Pontormo...



It speaks of no picture name, no eye and triangle, only that he done some replicas. Not that he added any eye and triangle on that picture. There is no such thing, only you inventing things.

There are a lot of replicas done by a lot of great artists on that picture.
There is no mention of the eye and triangle because no one is sure when and who. If it would be otherwise you would find an abundance of information on what you are searching for.


I guess you forgot when you said the triangle was not a Chirstian symbol? Do I need to go and pull your quote?

It is not a Christian symbol, like all other things it was forged into Christianity. All these symbols were added by the roman empire. I must note that Jesus was a simple man, I don't think Jesus drew eyes and triangles and instructed people that it is a symbol of Christianity. These elements came later.





It most certainly is, at the bottom of the image surrounded by angels. Open your eyes.

It is not a painting it is a tapestry in the Tapestry Gallery. Read the Vaticans website about how they date their aquisitions, they have fairly meticulous records. I will refrain from submitting this piece until I can find it in situ where it is hung in the Gallery to prove that it is indeed displayed there.

Yes, no date for it, zero evidence, just you sustaining stuff without any backup.



Exactly. It is only my opion just like it is only his opinion. Thank you for proving that point.

His opinion in a masonic book



Because you have no HARD EVIDENCE to prove this. Only your opinion. Meanwhile I have given you the handwritten notes from the Seal's designers and the Illuminati which proves otherwise.

I already provided my points, of course it's evidence.



And by evidence I mean items we can actually look at, like this French Bank Note printed in 1656. This can not obviously be the first usage of the emblem so I will continue to locate older items that you will not be able to disprove. Maybe one day you can bring something other than your opinion to the discussion.

That is the series number, not the year, with this you made a big joke out of everything.

Here, french currency, 206 E. series.


It is probaly dates after the french revolution, made by french masons, with the masonic eye on the note.

edit on 17-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I don't have to find any sources, you do.


Wait. Now I have to do research to disprove my own arguement? Are you insane? If you do not like the point I presented find contridictaory arguements, do not ask me to do your work for you. How lazy.


It speaks of no picture name, no eye and triangle, only that he done some replicas. Not that he added any eye and triangle on that picture. There is no such thing, only you inventing things.


It is in line with other art historians who feel it was added after the Council of Trent. If you have evidence it was added at a latter date then post it.


There are a lot of replicas done by a lot of great artists on that picture.


Such as? Feel free to list them but I am fairly certain you will not find anyone who was attributed with working on Pontormo's works then Chimenti.


It is not a Christian symbol, like all other things it was forged into Christianity. All these symbols were added by the roman empire. There was no art work of eyes triangles back when Jesus was, these items got inserted by the roman cahtolic, roman-empire institution later and originate from antiquity such as the triangle and the eye.


Who cares about where it came from. You constantly forget that you assert something, "Christians did not use the triangle", and then it appears on a painting entitled God the Father by a well known painter of religious artwork. Was he a Muslim or Buddhist? No, he was Christian. You are wrong, AGAIN.


Yes, no date for it, zero evidence, just you sustaining stuff without any backup.


I did not offer a date and said so earlier, stop being obnoxious. It will be fairly easy to find out when it was painted once I determine when that part of the Vatican was constructed.


His opinion in a masonic book


What? He wrote a book that was his OPINION, it does not make it any more legitimate then another person's opnion. Do you mindlessly follow everything that YOU read? Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to....


I already provided my points, of course it's evidence.


You offered nothing but conjecture and opinion, "This looks like that so it must be the Masons" is the best you have. No writings, no drawings, no inscriptions. Only, "Saturn is everywhere! I hate Rome! Masons are evil!" OPINION.


That is the series number, not the year, with this you made a big joke out of everything.


I may have the exact date wrong but the French term Sol was used only in the 17th Century, prior to changing to the Sou. So it is in the time period, my mistake on the exact date. I will investigate this further.


Over the 17th century the term sol was, apart from in a few instances, progressively replaced by sou, reflecting its pronunciation. source



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Version100
 


I asked you for some clarification on the previous page. I would appreciate an answer, thank you.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   


Wait. Now I have to do research to disprove my own arguement? Are you insane? If you do not like the point I presented find contridictaory arguements, do not ask me to do your work for you. How lazy.

No, you have to do the search so you can show/prove otherwise.



It is in line with other art historians who feel it was added after the Council of Trent. If you have evidence it was added at a latter date then post it.

They feel it ? bahahaha , others don't feel the same way, no exact date, no artist (god knows who added it)
There is no proof of what you speak.




Who cares about where it came from. You constantly forget that you assert something, "Christians did not use the triangle", and then it appears on a painting entitled God the Father by a well known painter of religious artwork. Was he a Muslim or Buddhist? No, he was Christian. You are wrong, AGAIN.

I don't see how I'm wrong, you have to provide the eye and the triangle with the date and the author. So far you have failed to do so. As for what you speak these are just drawings with no time stamp.



I did not offer a date and said so earlier, stop being obnoxious. It will be fairly easy to find out when it was painted once I determine when that part of the Vatican was constructed.

You go do that.



What? He wrote a book that was his OPINION, it does not make it any more legitimate then another person's opnion. Do you mindlessly follow everything that YOU read? Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to....

What was the name of the book ?



You offered nothing but conjecture and opinion, "This looks like that so it must be the Masons" is the best you have. No writings, no drawings, no inscriptions. Only, "Saturn is everywhere! I hate Rome! Masons are evil!" OPINION.

I'm sorry but you must review my points, 1,2, and 3.
1 Masons put it on the dollar bill
2 Father saturn and the virgin, where they got the texts for the seal and what the inscriptions on the seal means , also connected to the statue of liberty.
3 They all made the same drawings, they were told what to draw from the start it was this idea with the eye and the triangle/pyramid from the begining.

4th coming into view, the triangle and eye comes from secret sociaties/masonry and it is implemented in religion, on bank notes, on everything, the seal of united states is from the masonic/establishment at that time.


Maybe you really think the seal is what you think it is. so I'm going to tell you a a nice little story.
It must be noted that this is in fact what happen with the statue of liberty and with other things as well as the seal of united states. The french revolution to overthtrow the people in power at that time, same happened in united states with the Brithish, to overthrow the people in power, the french and american revolution was about the same aspect, independence.

To connect the two events, the french made a big statue and offered it as a gift to united states, it's called "the statue of liberty"
It is clear that the french and american revolution came from secret organisations.sociaties such as free masonry
at that time, we already know it played a very big role in the french revolution. There for the eye on the french note, and the pyramid and the eye on the dollar bill.

These items on the seal of united states are masonic, not only masonic but part of the establishment that was at that time, the revolutionaries behind the vale that came into ruling.

What is today is even worst, if they hated each other guts in the past, the secret sociaties, the revolutionaries VS the roiality that was in power at that time, today in stead they are colaborative and friends and run this big circus as in partners. There is no difrence between roiality and secret clubs today. Today it's all in one same people that run the world.

The illuminaty connection would also be the same, the same goal as illuminati had, the overthrow the rules of that time, to make a revolution. This concept happened in the french revolution, american revolution and at it's base we had elements such as free masonry.




I may have the exact date wrong but the French term Sol was used only in the 17th Century, prior to changing to the Sou. So it is in the time period, my mistake on the exact date. I will investigate this further.

No it's not in the time period, here let me help you: 25 sols note is issued in January 4, 1792 after the french revolution, probaly masonic. Maybe you should read the inscriptions on the money note, it reads liberty or death, and it is about the french revolution, look up to my nice little story for you in my last quote.

www.atvroom.com...
edit on 17-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
No, you have to do the search so you can show/prove otherwise.


No, I do not. If you disagree you are the one who needs to prove otherwise.


They feel it ? bahahaha , others don't feel the same way, no exact date, no artist (god knows who added it)
There is no proof of what you speak.


And there is no proof to dispute otherwise. If you have it show it.


I don't see how I'm wrong, you have to provide the eye and the triangle with the date and the author. So far you have failed to do so. As for what you speak these are just drawings with no time stamp.


The painting was not a drawing without a 'time stamp'. It is a well known painting by a well known artist of the 15th Century. There is no disputing the artwork, it is tangible and accepted.


What was the name of the book ?


Hall wrote many books, which one do you want?


I'm sorry but you must review my points, 1,2, and 3.
1 Masons put it on the dollar bill


Your opinion. I think Romanians put it there. Is there evidence for either?


2 Father saturn and the virgin, where they got the texts for the seal and what the inscriptions on the seal means , also connected to the statue of liberty.


Irrelevant. Latin inscriptions taken from a Roman poem are not Masonic.


3 They all made the same drawings, they were told what to draw from the start it was this idea with the eye and the triangle/pyramid from the begining.


Not all of the designs incorporated this motif including the one-Thomas Jefferson-you insisted was a Mason. Franklin (the only Mason on the committee) did not even come close to using anything Masonic in his design. The rest is your arrogant opinion as you apparently know what people where told to do 200+ years ago by inference.


4th coming into view, the triangle and eye comes from secret sociaties/masonry and it is implemented in religion, on bank notes, on everything, the seal of united states is from the masonic/establishment at that time.


As well as Christian iconography which is where they borrowed it from since it predates it by centuries and is explained in their HANDWRITTEN notes why they included it.


For a nice little story.


No one cares about your futher fairy tales involving your self-invented mythology. Opinion is not fact. Learn the difference.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   


No, I do not. If you disagree you are the one who needs to prove otherwise.

I don't have to, there is no evidence to sustain your claim.



And there is no proof to dispute otherwise. If you have it show it.

Yes so it must be concluded that what you talk about is unknown, show what ? there is nothing to show because the timing and the artist is unknown, what do you want me to show you ?



The painting was not a drawing without a 'time stamp'. It is a well known painting by a well known artist of the 15th Century. There is no disputing the artwork, it is tangible and accepted.

Source with date, artist and the eye in the triangle please. I await.
Please quote the object/text from the source here along with the source of course.





Hall wrote many books, which one do you want?

The one with where he says it's a "item from antiquity borrowed by masons"


Your opinion. I think Romanians put it there. Is there evidence for either?

We all know it was franklin delano roosevelt who put it on the dollar.



Irrelevant. Latin inscriptions taken from a Roman poem are not Masonic.

They hold a connection to saturn and the virgin, well known masonic icons. Statue of liberty, father time and the virgin, we have been thru this points before. The writing on the seal and where they got it is just about that.



Not all of the designs incorporated this motif including the one-Thomas Jefferson-you insisted was a Mason. Franklin (the only Mason on the committee) did not even come close to using anything Masonic in his design. The rest is your arrogant opinion as you apparently know what people where told to do 200+ years ago by
inference.

They all made the same thing, triangle/pyramid and eye. They were told what to do.



As well as Christian iconography which is where they borrowed it from since it predates it by centuries and is explained in their HANDWRITTEN notes why they included it.

But you have failed to provide that at that time. You failed with your examples, painting. You have yet to provide accurate information about one single item.



No one cares about your futher fairy tales involving your self-invented mythology. Opinion is not fact. Learn the difference.

It's the truth, you don't like it I know.
edit on 17-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join