Telepathy Has Been 'Scientifically Proven' to be Real... Again

page: 7
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by QMask
reply to post by BlueMule
 


If humans can do telepathy, then why is it SO DIFFICULT for the average person?

...

One has to ask these questions.






You're right that there are a lot of questions worth asking.

But here I'll give you a question for your question: If humans can slam dunk a basketball, or run a four minute mile, then why are THOSE things "so difficult" for the average person?

Perhaps both questions have a similar answer.




posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
You know, if the word "Telepathy" in the thread title was changed to "Motivated Reasoning" then this discussion would be both on-topic and accurate.
edit on 7-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Why bother playing rhetoric games with pseudo-skeptics when I could just, oh I don't know, KEEP PRESENTING ACTUAL EVIDENCE for reasonable people to consider?


There is plenty more, too

Meanwhile, "skeptics" got nuth'n...

Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program


Abstract

Strong correlations between output distribution means of a variety of random binary processes and prestated intentions of some 100 individual human operators have been established over a 12-year experimental program. More than 1000 experimental series, employing four different categories of random devices and several distinctive protocols, show comparable magnitudes of anomalous mean shifts from chance expectation, with similar distribution structures. Although the absolute effect sizes are quite small, of the order of 10–4 bits deviation per bit processed, over the huge databases accumulated the composite effect exceeds 7s (p » 3.5 ´ 10–13).

These data display significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent serial position effects in individual and collective results. Data generated by operators far removed from the machines and exerting their efforts at times other than those of machine operation show similar effect sizes and structural details to those of the local, on-time experiments. Most other secondary parameters tested are found to have little effect on the scale and character of the results, with one important exception: studies performed using fully deterministic pseudorandom sources, either hard-wired or algorithmic, yield null overall mean shifts, and display no other anomalous features.


edit on 7-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 9/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
Why bother playing rhetoric games with pseudo-skeptics when I could just, oh I don't know, KEEP PRESENTING ACTUAL EVIDENCE for reasonable people to consider?


You've yet to directly address any of the rebuttals to your previous presentations of "evidence".

People want to believe in magic. That's cool, maybe it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling to think that they're part of some bigger picture or that the universe gives a darn about them. But why bother trying to justify your beliefs by pretending they're supported by science? They only people who are going to high five you and give you a slap on the back are people who, like you, believe this stuff regardless of whether or not there's any evidence. Anyone who's vaguely aware of what science is all about or has even an ounce of critical thinking skills isn't being fooled by this nonsense. You're preaching to the choir, not looking for a spectrum of opinions on the matter. Why bother posting this stuff in the first place if you aren't interested in debate? Are you that insecure about your beliefs to actually have to rationalise them and put them under the microscope?
edit on 7-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
John, in case you haven't noticed...

...I feel that arguing with pseudo-skeptics is about as fruitful as arguing with young-earth creationists about the age of the Earth...

...so you can continue trying to goad me (which won't work, but you can continue wasting your time of you want)

...or you can go do some independent learning about parapsychology.

~

Hey guys! Thanks to fMRI technology, a number of brain correlation experiments have been performed. The following list may not be exhaustively complete, it is not in any particular order. It's just to give you guys an idea of how much work has been done that no one knows about.



1. Achterberg, J., Cooke, K., Richards, T., Standish, L.J.,Leila Kozak, L. & Lake, J.. (2005). Evidence for Correlations Between Distant Intentionality and Brain Function in Recipients: a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11, 6, 965–971.

2. Duane TD, Behrendt T. Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins. Science 1965, 150-367.


3. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J. & Ramos, J. (1987). Patterns of interhemispheric correlation during human communication. International Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 41-53.

4. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Delaflor, M., Attie, L. & Goswami, L. (1994). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: The transferred potential. Physics Essays, 7,422–428


Source - Entangled Minds Dean Radin's blog

edit on 7-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

From the Terms & Conditions:Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website
edit on 9/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Mod edit: Excessive external quote removed

From the Terms & Conditions:Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website
edit on 9/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
John, in case you haven't noticed...

...I feel that arguing with pseudo-skeptics is about as fruitful as arguing with creationist fundamentalists about the age of the Earth...

...so you can continue trying to goad me (which won't work, but you can continue wasting your time of you want)

...or you can go do some independent learning about parapsychology.

All you've done is berated "pseudo-skeptics" (for the last time, please look the word 'pseudo' up in the dictionary) with baseless ad hominem attacks and not offered a single drop of substance to your claims. How about you actually address the rebuttals made already in this thread? Oh that's right, you won't, you'll just keep throwing insults and calling names rather than address people's arguments. It's the weak way out for those who are incapable of rationalising and defending their beliefs.


Edit: I see you've now resorted to spamming. Saves you the effort of having to string an argument together I guess.
edit on 7-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by BlueMule
John, in case you haven't noticed...

...I feel that arguing with pseudo-skeptics is about as fruitful as arguing with creationist fundamentalists about the age of the Earth...

...so you can continue trying to goad me (which won't work, but you can continue wasting your time of you want)

...or you can go do some independent learning about parapsychology.

All you've done is berated "pseudo-skeptics" (for the last time, please look the word 'pseudo' up in the dictionary) with baseless ad hominem attacks and not offered a single drop of substance to your claims. How about you actually address the rebuttals made already in this thread? Oh that's right, you won't, you'll just keep throwing insults and calling names rather than address people's arguments. It's the weak way out for those who are incapable of rationalising and defending their beliefs.


Edit: I see you've now resorted to spamming. Saves you the effort of having to string an argument together I guess.
edit on 7-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)





You do seem like you're trying to goad, for one.

For two, he used "pseudo" (which is a prefix, not "proper" word) just fine, as far as I can see. And you try to call him out for making ad hominem attacks, then tell him to look up a "word" (which he used properly) as though he doesn't understand it? Maybe you think you're posting straight, and not being underhanded, or maybe you're just fooling yourself way more than us.

Spamming? It looked like he was providing some leads for relevant information, to me. Just because you choose not to go read it, because you've already got your little mind made up, does not make it spam. And your trying to say it is makes it obvious that "pseudo" was a very well placed prefix. A skeptic does not start out with a belief and then deny or dismiss any evidence contrary to their belief. That's what...well... a believer in something does. Seems like you're the one engaged in "motivated reasoning." Some people like to convince themselves they have a "skeptical mind" when really they're just strong believers in materialism. Look that last one up, if you're not familiar. :Q


You talk about people wanting to believe in magic. And I'm sure some people do. However, it's not necessarily "believing in magic" to think that there are human abilities or laws of the universe which we don't yet understand, or haven't yet discovered. If anyone thinks they have it all figured out, they probably have a massive ego problem, aside from being very wrong.

You act like this stuff has been 100% proven to not exist, when the fact is that it simply has not at this time been positively proven to exist. Just because you have failed to prove what color something is, does not mean it is devoid of color... it simply means that you have not understood it or figured it out yet.. And just because you prove that some apples have worms in them, does not make it fair for you to conclude that all apples have worms in them.

I find it amazing that some so-called "skeptics" seem to fail at the most basic logical extrapolation. I suppose bias has a way of doing that to people.



edit on 7-1-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Why would compare a cup of coffee too a human brain? Does this make sense to you?

You missed my point. You speculation that "emitter = receiver" is baseless. There is no more reason to expect the human brain to receive because it emits (and thus more speculation that this equates to psychic powers) than my cup of coffee.



Oh, so your cup of coffee is designed by nature to receive and process incoming data? That's pretty neat.

Is there a "filter mechanism" theory for the way your cup of coffee may reject or ignore certain incoming signals?

(and by signals I don't mean coffee grounds)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam


You do seem like you're trying to goad, for one.

Nice attempt at deflection. Attempting to correct someone for misusing a word (and misusing it so in a provocative manner) is not an "ad hominem". You should look up the definition of that fallacy yourself.


For two, he used "pseudo" (which is a prefix, not "proper" word) just fine, as far as I can see. And you try to call him out for making ad hominem attacks, then tell him to look up a "word" (which he used properly) as though he doesn't understand it? Maybe you think you're posting straight, and not being underhanded, or maybe you're just fooling yourself way more than us.

Exactly how one can be a "fake skeptic"? Asking for evidence and rebutting pseudo-science does not make on a "fake skeptic", it is nothing more than a nonsensical label used by yourself and OP as a means painting opposing views in a negative light without having to address their arguments. Now that is actually the definition of an ad hominem


Spamming? It looked like he was providing some leads for relevant information, to me. Just because you choose not to go read it, because you've already got your little mind made up, does not make it spam.

You've verified this "information" as "relevant" yourself then, have you? Then by all means lets hear your synopsis of all those listings in your own words. Otherwise, irrelevant noise on the channel = spam.


And your trying to say it is makes it obvious that "pseudo" was a very well placed prefix. A skeptic does not start out with a belief and then deny or dismiss any evidence contrary to their belief. That's what...well... a believer in something does. Seems like you're the one engaged in "motivated reasoning." Some people like to convince themselves they have a "skeptical mind" when really they're just strong believers in materialism. Look that last one up, if you're not familiar. :Q

Nice try at pushing the burden of proof away from you believers. How about you address the rebuttals already made in this thread rather than conveniently skirting around them?


You talk about people wanting to believe in magic. And I'm sure some people do. However, it's not necessarily "believing in magic" to think that there are human abilities or laws of the universe which we don't yet understand, or haven't yet discovered. If anyone thinks they have it all figured out, they probably have a massive ego problem, aside from being very wrong.

Just present credible and irrefutable evidence, that's all us "pseudo-skeptics" ask. Not Gish Galloping or pseudo-science (



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


[citation needed]



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Did you even read the study?


While no
statistically significant departures of the variance, skew, kurtosis, or higher moments from the
appropriate chance values appear in the overall data, regular patterns of certain finer scale
features can be discerned.


They found some patterns.
Wow.

They can't repeat the experiment. Epic fail and no wonder science won't take it seriously.

It is our opinion that for experiments of
this sort, involving as they clearly do substantial psychological factors and therefore both
individual and collective statistical behaviors, to require that any given operator, on any given
day, should produce identical results, or that any given operator group should quantitatively
replicate the results of any other, is clearly unreasonable.


All they have is some correlations. That is it.

It is a basic of reasoning and logic that correlation DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSE.

Again your study is simply assuming that its correlations are from the intent of the operators. They are assuming that one variable is the cause of another.
Its what people do when they are desperate.

The statistics show they found no:

While no
statistically significant departures of the variance, skew, kurtosis, or higher moments from the
appropriate chance values appear in the overall data


They cannot replicate the study, even though they found nothing but they have correlations.
Wow.

Mind blowing discovery.

From the conclusion. #5.
They say it themselves.

The series score distributions and the count population distributions in both the
collective and individual operator data are consistent with chance distributions based
on slightly altered binary probabilities.

leyline.org...


Consistent with chance.
They found nothing.


Please keep linking your studies.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 




I picked one of your references at random.
14. Moulton ST, Kosslyn SM. Using neuro-imaging to resolve the psi debate. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008; 20(1): 182-192.
www.wjh.harvard.edu...

You have no Idea at all what you are talking about.



In spite of these
characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli
evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differ-
ences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the
expected effects on patterns of brain activation.
These findings
are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of
paranormal mental phenomena.


The intro abstract actually states it is evidence against YOU.

This is what happens when you spam and quote mine material simply to argue.

Instead of acting like a knowitall as#$le, how about you read the stuff you are pushing.




In spite of these
characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli
evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differ-
ences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the
expected effects on patterns of brain activation.
These findings
are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of
paranormal mental phenomena.



Please, oh! please keep linking your studies.

So far the two I have read today, one found nothing as much as chance and the other states it is the strongest evidence todate AGAINST psi.



Originally posted by BlueMule


Hey guys! Thanks to fMRI technology, a number of brain correlation experiments have been performed. The following list may not be exhaustively complete, it is not in any particular order. It's just to give you guys an idea of how much work has been done that no one knows about.


Yes, thank you fMRI technology, thanks for this:


In spite of these
characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli
evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differ-
ences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the
expected effects on patterns of brain activation.
These findings
are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of
paranormal mental phenomena.

edit on 8/1/13 by atlasastro because: to put the boot in.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Another one at random. Another kick in the Balls for BlueMule.

31. Wackermann, J. (2004). Dyadic correlations between brain functional states: Present facts and future perspectives. Mind and Matter, 2 (1), 105-122.

From this journal.
ejp.wyrdwise.com...

The first article tries to replicate the studies in your reference list.
The aim

Our replication study aimed at validating the existence of the
effect and, if possible, shedding light upon its specifications. In relation
to the preceding studies, it was conducted in a different laboratory and
guided by a different experimenter. All other experimental conditions
were kept unchanged as far as possible. The statistical methods applied
in the precedent studies were reconsidered in detail.
ejp.wyrdwise.com...

They aimed to replicate these.

Two studies by Wackermann et al. (2003, 2004) aimed at
examining if correlations in the EEG between a visually stimulated
subject and a second, non-stimulated subject were replicable when
communication between both participants was prevented by spatial
separation of subjects in shielded rooms.
ejp.wyrdwise.com...

Wackermann was trying to prove theses guys: Grinberg-
Zylberbaum et al. As well as these guys, including Radin who also appear in your reference list.
Sta(2004) and Radin (2003, 2004).
All these guys made a similar claim of correlation.


One of the studies is this reference in your list.
31. Wackermann, J. (2004). Dyadic correlations between brain functional states: Present facts and future perspectives. Mind and Matter, 2 (1), 105-122.

Why did they replicate the studies? This is why:

A critical analysis of the Grinberg-
Zylberbaum et al. (1994) study has been provided by May et al. (2001).
They provided evidence for the claim that violations of the underlying
assumptions concerning hypothesis testing had led to an
overestimation of the effects in this study.

So they found that there was an overestimation of the effect!


What did they find?

The overall result is seen as a negative outcome of the attempt to
replicate prior findings of EEG correlations in this specific
experimental paradigm
. Of course, it may not be interpreted as a proof
of the absence of the phenomenon under question; firstly and trivially,
the absence of an effect cannot be proven by an unsuccessful
replication attempt; secondly, the outcome refers to the specific
constellation of EEG correlations if one subject is visually stimulated
by checkerboard reversal, which is an abstract pattern.
It is further suggested that the results presented here should not
be discussed in terms of 'telepathy',
which was the motivational origin
of some early studies on EEG correlations between separated subjects
(e.g. Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al., 1994).

ejp.wyrdwise.com...


Again. Your references argue against any psychic phenomena and point to a need to correct flawed studies that have claimed "corrleations" that they have attributed to psychic phenomena.

This is your reference, from a parapsychology journal arguing against 4 or 5 studies.

Awesome stuff.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I think a lot of advanced planets with civilization on them or under them. Could very well be masters of telepathy.

I think when people die they don't have their vocal chords to help them out. So they have to project their thoughts. I think it is a very sophisticated techique and needs to be looked at very seriously. We all have to die and I don't think our culture helps us in how to adjust to the other side's talents of communicating with out their bodies. The dummies here are still debating whether there is an other side. How slow we are to accepting reality and we do it at our own peril.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Oh, right, because EVERY SINGLE EXPERIMENT EVER DONE has to show significant positive results in order for psychic functioning to be real?



Gimme a break.

This is part of the reason why I don't bother with "skeptics" on forums... they are phony foolish assholes that are threatened by the evidence. So they can't help but treat it unfairly. Like bullies.

I hate bullies.

Moving on now...

...did you guys know they did an experiment with a robot chicken?



In a series of experiments carried out by René Peoc'h in collaboration with the Swiss Fondation Marcel et Monique Odier de Psycho-Physique, a small, self-propelled robot called a Tychoscope was allowed to wander around aimlessly in an enclosed room. A random generator determined the lengths of the robot's straight-line movement and angles of rotation. Left to itself, the Tychoscope moved in entirely random patterns, and spent as much time in the left half of the room as it did in the right half.

But when a cage filled with live chicks was placed on one side of the room, the robot's pattern changed dramatically. On average, it spent considerably more time in the area nearest the animals. It was as if the birds "willed" the robot to stay close.

The chicks had two reasons for not wanting the robot to stray too far. One group had been "imprinted" (when they hatched, the first thing they saw was the Tychoscope, and they adopted it as their mother). Another group had not, but the chicks seemed to respond to the lit candle that was placed on top of the Tychoscope in the darkened room. The scientists assume from this that the chicks didn't like the dark.

By comparison, human operators who tried to "will" the robot to stay on one side of the room achieved much smaller and more erratic results.


Source: www.wired.com...

edit on 8-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 




That link shows chickens have more psychic power than humans.

Thanks dude.

Awesome stuff.

You just keep getting better and better.


By comparison, human operators who tried to "will" the robot to stay on one side of the room achieved much smaller and more erratic results.


Keep them comming mate, you are on fire.

I read three at random that all found nothing and now you are telling even chickens do better than humans.



This is part of the reason why I don't bother with "skeptics" on forums... they are phony foolish assholes that are threatened by the evidence. So they can't help but treat it unfairly.

Point out how I have treated the evidence unfairly. I used your references and have quoted the material you provided.

It sucks being you right now doesn't it.
edit on 8/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Face it, your bluff has been called and you have been shown to be intellectually dishonest. Yet again you avoided responding directly to any criticisms levelled at your "proof" and proceed to Gish Gallop even further. You are nothing more than noise on the communication channel.



This is part of the reason why I don't bother with "skeptics" on forums... they are phony foolish assholes that are threatened by the evidence. So they can't help but treat it unfairly. Like bullies.

Yet again, your narrow-mindedness and inability to engage in intelligent and reasonable discourse has been revealed. You accuse others of being "bullies" yet you proceed to attack opposing voices in an unprovoked manner by calling them obscenities when they ask you to justify your position. You are a hypocrite, the only people engaging in bullying tactics and name calling are yourself and your supporters. You accuse others of being "threatened by evidence" yet YOU are the one who starts calling people derogatory names whenever they dare challenge and refute your position with actual evidence.

And now you stand naked for all to see as the last tatters of any credibility you had left are torn from your position, exposing the abusive, narrow-minded hypocrite beneath.

By the way, being verbally abusive towards other members and calling them obscenities is a gross violation of this website's TACs:


15b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums on the Websites, and will neither Post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content. You will also not use common alternative spellings or net-speak alternative for profane words.

...


16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Source


I suggest you have a good read of that link and moderate your behaviour and language accordingly.
edit on 8-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
And here is a little follow-up for the reasonable people among us to consider.

Psychokinetic Action of Young Chicks on the Path of An Illuminated Source


Abstract

We tested the possible psychokinetic influence of 80 groups of 15 chicks on a randomly moving robot carrying a lighted candle in an otherwise darkened room. In 71% of the cases, the robot spent excessive time in the vicinity of the chicks. In the absence of the chicks, the robot followed random trajectories. The overall results were statistically significant at p < 0.01.


edit on 8-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
.


Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by QMask
reply to post by BlueMule
 


If humans can do telepathy, then why is it SO DIFFICULT for the average person?

...

One has to ask these questions.






You're right that there are a lot of questions worth asking.

But here I'll give you a question for your question: If humans can slam dunk a basketball, or run a four minute mile, then why are THOSE things "so difficult" for the average person?

Perhaps both questions have a similar answer.



.

I'll answer you both from my perspective .. and that is as a near death survivor .

From my experience I learned everything is consciousness .

Time , space ,good , bad .. physical reality is all an illusion .

Your Consciousness is the thing that dictates the form of manifestation in this illusion .

The brain / body are mere containers that serve as an interface for consciousness .

The body also is a construct of our consciousness and it is designed to serve our purpose to learn that which we need to learn .

Theses things we construct together our world ,societies, our future is an amalgamation of our direct will manifesting in "reality" .

The truth is that we are born not remembering our true self for a Reason .

The reason is we need to learn by experience and that is not possible for a being that is immortal and all knowing to learn except by interaction with chaos .... which is not really chaos at all .

Oh the PK aspect .. and how do I know

After my near death experience the barrier placed so that I could experience things as new was gone ..

I remembered past lives I experienced eternity and the entirety of creation in a moment of bliss .

I survived this "death" but the illusion was gone I had seen the truth .

So I was this child of not even 10 years and my mind had been ripped open ..

I would sit and recite what was about to happen who would do what who would say what ..

This scared people to death ..and then I realized my ability to move objects with my mind

"Professionals" were called in but they were agents looking for the way to possess this power by possessing people .

I knew this instinctively so I threw the tests they gave me .. I would be safe as long as I clammed up .

In my teens I would use it to scare and impress people that was a bad idea .

So I began to re invest myself into this reality ... you know the one where none of this PK stuff is real .

And That is your answer .

If you can rise above the BS the Dogma that binds your mind then you can do almost anything .

We are Avatars but still in training .
.






top topics



 
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join