for love

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

at the end of 'husbands and wives', after all the entanglements and betrayals and reconcillations of the film, the offscreen interviewer asks woody allen about his current life, and he meekly says hes 'out of the game' romantically, that hes writing a new novel but its (this is from memory) 'less personal, more... historical'. i always thought this was a very funny ending, a sort of jab at non-woody artists who would dare to chronicle anything other than the romantic human condition, a sort of jockish 'get a girlfriend, loser!!' to dedicated intellectuals. is this a position worth holding? do you think most, or some, or however many people have chosen a dedicated sexless profession or interest because of failures on the battlefield of love? is the history of science and culture just a history of nerds trying to partner up (or, turning to byzantine history and macrobotany and car collecting because theyre too frustrated to even try anymore)? is art too preoccupied with sex and love, or not enough? theres always that personal sigh of recognition when any writer or artist identifies some previously undocumented quirk of love that youve experienced, or engages in gigglingly shocking sexual frankness. should we just try to think about love more interestingly then?

― trife (simon_tr), Thursday, 18 September 2003 23:38 (twenty-two years ago)

against love

― trife (simon_tr), Thursday, 18 September 2003 23:42 (twenty-two years ago)

yes.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 19 September 2003 01:22 (twenty-two years ago)

who are some thinkers (or writers or artists or whatever) that you think talk about love interestingly?

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 19 September 2003 01:23 (twenty-two years ago)

barthes!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 19 September 2003 01:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Won't forget, can't regret what I did for love

― ModJ, Friday, 19 September 2003 01:29 (twenty-two years ago)

For Love (warning: large graphic size)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 19 September 2003 01:30 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't think ppl. can be much good at anything without love to be honest. like talking about particle physics and being in love are more complimentary than talking about love and being in love actually -- i mean woody allen is perpetually dysfunctional about relationships, and his films are more about THAT right?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 19 September 2003 02:28 (twenty-two years ago)

who are some thinkers (or writers or artists or whatever) that you think talk about love interestingly?

Fitzgerald. I know that a lot of people can't stand him or toss him off as stodgy or trite, often because they had him in high school -- I didn't, I didn't read him until after I'd gone through my Kerouac phase, and taken God knows how many literature classes, etc., so I didn't have any baggage stapled to him. But one of his gifts is writing about specific kinds of complicated love -- especially in a handful of the short stories, the obligatory Great Gatsby, and the under-read Love of the Last Tycoon (it's understandable that it's underread; he died before he finished it. But what's there, especially in the Bruccoli edition, is very good).

― Tep (ktepi), Friday, 19 September 2003 02:46 (twenty-two years ago)

is art too preoccupied with sex and love, or not enough?

About a year ago, while going through stuff with the usual "toss or revise or sell or forget or disavow" comb, I realized that all of the stories I've been paid, except one, for have a strong love plot (which is odd, because I don't generally write love stories). Lost love, bittersweet love, sad love, that sort of thing. My most positive feedback, whether from friends or editors or readers or whatever, usually says something about liking the Neato Idea crap combined with the I Can Relate To That crap.

The one story that's the exception? It was about Jack the Ripper :)

I don't think I have a point. I don't know if art -- and I don't like thinking of things as art, so I'm just seeing this as "works of stuff" -- spends too much time on love, or not enough, but I often think it doesn't think about love enough. Too many romantic comedies come out and just give us two wacky, disparate people who fall in love ... and we never see why. We never really get a sense for what they see in each other. We get an overall picture of "being in love" being about the same for any given couple, and shit, we all know that's a crock.

So that's what I'd like to see. More variety. Not indiebrat "quirkiness," much as I like Parker Posey, but variety in all its ugly glory.

― Tep (ktepi), Friday, 19 September 2003 02:57 (twenty-two years ago)

That "except one" bit is, um, placed weirdly. I have two foreign languages in a row on Tuesday/Thursday evenings and come home with my sentences all shooked uppen.

― Tep (ktepi), Friday, 19 September 2003 03:00 (twenty-two years ago)

joe elliot is the most interesting thinker when it comes to love. he says "are you getting it? come and give it to me! gimme all of your luvvin! every little bit! gimme all of your luvvin! oh come on and live a bit!"

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:21 (twenty-two years ago)

there's waaaaay too much about romantic love. it's the common denominator hang-up/obsession. so it's every commercial, film, story, song, greeting card, billboard, best seller or some tangential aspect thereof. i don't think people criticize woody allen because of his focus on the personal, or romantic love. i mean, maybe, but you'd have to be ok with the whole arrogant, whiney, self-absorbed asshole who fucks his own daughter thing to even see that far.

suggesting people only turn to other subjects when they can't get any action is ridiculous.

― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:21 (twenty-two years ago)

sorry i'm so frivolous today

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:23 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not his daughter, it's a young girl who takes very good care of him. He didn't raise her. But thanks again, very classy of you to bring it up.

I think Woody's self-obsession is a lot more honest and interesting and far less damaging than, say, Titanic.

Art can never be too preoccupied with love. It's all the same thing, you know... art, beauty, love. It's all about our brains being way bigger than they need to be for survival.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:28 (twenty-two years ago)

lolita if you hate arrogant whiny self absorbed quasi-pedophiles so much what are you doing on ile??

― trife (simon_tr), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:28 (twenty-two years ago)

QUASI? Yr too kind!

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:32 (twenty-two years ago)

i dont think sleeping with a seventeen yr old makes you a pedo!!

― trife (simon_tr), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:35 (twenty-two years ago)

actually i don't think much of him either way. i mostly just hear the rants of others. i'm just saying those criticisms are much more common - not that he's too focused on romantic love.

― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:35 (twenty-two years ago)

hilarious coming from chloe sevigny's biggest fan on ile

― the surface noise (electricsound), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Pedophiles like children. Liking fully sexually developed and obviously hott teenagers is and always has been a grey area.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:36 (twenty-two years ago)

No, actually, it hasn't always been. Strike that. For most of human history, it's been encouraged.

But this is soooo off-topic.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:37 (twenty-two years ago)

well, i was accusing him of being defensive about it, somewhat devils advocateishly... regarding the actual focus of your point, WHY do you think there should be less love in film/tv/books/greeting cards/etc?? WHY is it ridiculous to suggest those who focus on extra-romantic fields are motivated by failures in love? i mean yeah its certainly painful and cruel to suggest but not wholly 'ridiculous'

multiple xposts, wtf!!

― trife (simon_tr), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:39 (twenty-two years ago)

jim what is your point?? sadly i havent actually had sex with chloe s, but i assure you that if i did shes quite a few many years older than me

― trife (simon_tr), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:40 (twenty-two years ago)

btw kenan the word for post pubescent desire is hebaphilia i think

― trife (simon_tr), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:42 (twenty-two years ago)

a 'quasi' point to a 'quasi' "calling out"

― the surface noise (electricsound), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:44 (twenty-two years ago)

someday youre going to be on your deathbed and realize you wasted your entire life on being petty and listening to bad indie pop

― trife (simon_tr), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:52 (twenty-two years ago)

So who are we meant to like? I'm sure there's a "philia" for any desire

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:52 (twenty-two years ago)

hahah trife the ironing is delicious

― the surface noise (electricsound), Friday, 19 September 2003 04:55 (twenty-two years ago)

i just think romantic love is really fetishized in our culture. i actually felt at one time that everything was motivated by sex and that other activities are trying to get you there in roundabout ways or methods of distracting your energy into other places. which seems similar to what you are saying. but there really are times of my life. months... years. where i never really think about it. i just get interested in ideas or new friends or projects. and by saying it's painful and cruel to suggest sex isn't tied to everything means, what, it's inevitable and i should just admit it. which is exactly what annoys me about the culture i'm talking about! i feel like a freak for not dreaming about a man all the time and if i deny it i'm just being defensive or repressed or something. but you can believe me or not, i mean arguing the point would just make me sound stupid.

i'm not saying you're wrong and that it doesn't happen. i'm sure it's common. but i think art and culture agree with you and perpetuate this to make people this this is the way things are. and not the opposite. i don't really see artists being derided for focusing on love. and perhaps my wording about woody allen was a bit raw. but i think people get shit for other aspects of themselves or their method of expression (ie. it's very self-centered), not their choice of subject.

― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Friday, 19 September 2003 05:01 (twenty-two years ago)

love = trife

― whodat?, Friday, 19 September 2003 06:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I think sex is just an occasional nice little side effect of love.

― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 19 September 2003 06:18 (twenty-two years ago)

"I got really good at guitar because I thought it would distract girls from looking at my nose" - Pete Townsend

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 19 September 2003 10:17 (twenty-two years ago)

heh i was just thinking about that ned. still have my ultra rare limited edition, lush-geeks only copy of that single, which has inside a beautiful arty picture of the classic original line up from just before steve left. it was his last single with them of course. apparantly he went off to write his book. wonder what happened to it.

― piscesboy, Friday, 19 September 2003 10:20 (twenty-two years ago)

*smiles, nods*

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 19 September 2003 10:24 (twenty-two years ago)

who are some thinkers (or writers or artists or whatever) that you think talk about love interestingly?

Erich Fromm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060958286/qid=1064012139/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_3/103-0629402-4588659?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

― Pete Scholtes, Friday, 19 September 2003 22:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I think baby-making is way more fetishised in our culture than love or sex. It also seems that it's a lot more common for artists to capture a universal aspect of sex than of love. When they do get love right, it's that much more magical. Probably there are just more universals in sex than love.

― teeny (teeny), Friday, 19 September 2003 22:45 (twenty-two years ago)

It must be the other thread, I thought it was this one, but whoever said that infatuation is glorified more than being in an existing status quo of love (there must be a better way to say that, but you know what I mean) is OTFM -- that's a big part of my frustration with romantic comedies and "love stories" of the sort that don't involve someone dying: they focus on the beginning, and romanticize that, and so much of our pop culture of romance only deals with what are essentially crushes ... which is such a small, small fragment of what's out there in the world.

I mean, when gays and lesbians are rightly frustrated that there aren't enough reflections of their love lives on the screen? Dial the magnitude way back (way back, don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing the degree here), and married/settled-down people are in the same boat. There was Mad About You, and you get the occasional bit here and there, but for the most part, if you're happy together on television, you're parents.

― Tep (ktepi), Friday, 19 September 2003 23:26 (twenty-two years ago)

uh tep i think dans point was that infatuation/crushes are actually much more fufilling than the eventual relationship

― trife (simon_tr), Friday, 19 September 2003 23:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess that's mostly because falling in love is more exciting, makes for a better story/plot, than maintaining love. There have been some movies/books/etc about established couples, but they almost always are about the relationship being 'on the rocks' because, again, that makes for a better story.
In other words, I think any glorification is just a side effect of people producing stories on love that will sell.

― oops (Oops), Friday, 19 September 2003 23:34 (twenty-two years ago)

urghhh infatuation suxor.

― teeny (teeny), Friday, 19 September 2003 23:37 (twenty-two years ago)

uh tep i think dans point was that infatuation/crushes are actually much more fufilling than the eventual relationship

See, that's why I was trying to find it, cause I couldn't remember.

I disagree, though. It can be easier to explain, and it can be more dramatic in terms of broad gestures and peaks and valleys, but I don't think it's more fulfilling. At least, it isn't for me; that's not one of those things that I think is gonna be the same for everybody (and I doubt everyone crushes the same, or handles ongoing love the same).

In other words, I think any glorification is just a side effect of people producing stories on love that will sell.

Yeah, I think you're right, but I think that all of that is in no small part a self-perpetuating thing: people want to see stories about new or tragic love because they already know they like them, because that's what people make, because that's what people want to see, because that's what people make ... There's as much potential later down the timeline. Different kinds of stories, though -- maybe not appealling to the same things, and so possibly still less-sellable. I don't know.

― Tep (ktepi), Friday, 19 September 2003 23:41 (twenty-two years ago)

infatuation/crushes are actually much more fufilling than the eventual relationship - there's an element of truth to this but it forgets one very very big thing - with infatuation/crushes you don't get to fuck them

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 19 September 2003 23:46 (twenty-two years ago)

come on, sure you do, its the stuff after it thats disappointing

― trife (simon_tr), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:09 (twenty-two years ago)

maybe we should stop trying to make people we love and the people we fuck the same damn people!!!

― trife (simon_tr), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:10 (twenty-two years ago)

is it worse to fall out of love with someone or to not ever fuck them ?

― trife (simon_tr), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:11 (twenty-two years ago)

the former, but I'm a girl so wtf do I know?

― teeny (teeny), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the former too, but not being able to fuck the person you're in love with really really sucks

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:18 (twenty-two years ago)

(one side effect of being in a LTR: home on a friday night to debate love)

― teeny (teeny), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:24 (twenty-two years ago)

the former, but the gap between the two isn't as large as it used to be

― cinniblount (James Blount), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:25 (twenty-two years ago)

note: you can (and hopefully do) fall out of love with infatuations/crushes

― cinniblount (James Blount), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:26 (twenty-two years ago)

its become a really overdone point of discussion recently but what abt the muse?

― trife (simon_tr), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Do you have to be in (romantic) love with someone for them to be your muse? Does it even have to be a member of the sex you are attracted to?
Maybe it is pointless, stupid, irrational, restrictive, energy-sapping, destructive (to both yourself and others), hampers 'progress', etc, but a world without romantic love is a brave new world that I wouldn't want to be a part of.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know if I truly understand the concept of the muse, having never experienced it. Have there been any male muses for female artists?

― teeny (teeny), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:39 (twenty-two years ago)

it makes me think of the progression in iris murdoch's the black prince, where the narrator falls in love with a young girl, julian, and his first day after his realization is spent elated that she can even exist, he doesnt feel the need to see her or talk to her, the mere concept of 'her' has enriched his entire world. by day two hes still very much in love but begins to get bored by this state and starts trying to figure out how to fuck her. is it even possible to not go to that second step?

― trife (simon_tr), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:40 (twenty-two years ago)

i suppose grass is greener etc

― trife (simon_tr), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)

also if theres grass on the field, etc

― trife (simon_tr), Saturday, 20 September 2003 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Five out of seven days of the week, I think the Muse is a concept men invented to get women to fuck them. On Sundays I figure it's the other way round.

Either way, I've never experienced it and can't really see how it would work.

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 20 September 2003 01:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Can't see how it would work??
Man has nothing to say to the world.
Man meets women.
Man has love and all the thoughts and emotions that are entailed.
Man writes "Your Body is a Wonderland".

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 20 September 2003 01:42 (twenty-two years ago)

man writes the thong song

― trife (simon_tr), Saturday, 20 September 2003 01:47 (twenty-two years ago)

See, you said "women," though, and that's not what I think of when I think of the Muse -- I thought "the Muse" (when it's not just a vague synonym for inspiration) was like, that one chick who gets you to write all your good stuff, or cut off your ear, or etc.

I've never been able to write for a specific person, and wouldn't really want to; I don't doubt that other people do, but can't get my head around the idea of someone actually inspiring creative stuff from you. Encouraging you, sure, but that's an active thing.

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 20 September 2003 01:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Whoops! Acutually meant to say "womAn"

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 20 September 2003 01:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Acutually meant to type 'actually'

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 20 September 2003 01:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, that I don't get. Maybe I don't write the right kinds of things, maybe I don't write the right way. But the "Muse" talk is usually wrapped up in a lot of melodramatic romanticizing-the-mysticality-of-"Art" crap that I wouldn't buy with somebody else's nickel.

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 20 September 2003 01:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm thinking of devoting myself to becoming a cartoonist. Which seems as good an excuse as any for not dating and finding love: I'm a cartoon nerd, I'll say, if anyone asks, which they won't, because I won't be talking to them, I'll be holed up in my apartment drawing funny little pictures with my pants down around my ankles. Of course when I'm old and alone on my deathbed I'm sure I'll curse myself for wasting my life, but hopefully the cartoons will have earned me enough money to keep me in morphine, so it probably won't be so bad.

― ScottRC (ScottRC), Saturday, 20 September 2003 02:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Nobody wants to see cartoons of you with your pants around your ankles. They ain't ready for that shit.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 20 September 2003 02:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Unless the pants fight crime and have a wisecracking sidekick.

... that would be pretty cool. PANTS OF JUSTICE.

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 20 September 2003 02:37 (twenty-two years ago)

In the cartoons, there will be a large-breasted naked woman in my lap. I forgot to mention that, sorry.

― ScottRC (ScottRC), Saturday, 20 September 2003 02:39 (twenty-two years ago)

at the risk of ending up inserting a comment in the wrong place (again!) i'd just say tep is otm on culture's obsession with crushes. it becomes so unrealistic yet so ubiquitous that you start out life thinking that's what a relationship is and that it has failed when the crushiness fades. whereas i don't think obsessing about that one aspect can be so healthy. sure it's inevitable somtimes, but should it be so idealized?

― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Saturday, 20 September 2003 07:45 (twenty-two years ago)

It's a drug--literally. It's exciting and people are obsessed with the high it gives. It's a drug that's not only tolerated in society, but revered, so it's ubiquitousness is inevitable.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 20 September 2003 07:57 (twenty-two years ago)

(Sorry, couldn'r resist pushing this brilliant thread past the 69th post
*giggles*)

― mei (mei), Saturday, 20 September 2003 10:59 (twenty-two years ago)

''is this a position worth holding? do you think most, or some, or however many people have chosen a dedicated sexless profession or interest because of failures on the battlefield of love? is the history of science and culture just a history of nerds trying to partner up (or, turning to byzantine history and macrobotany and car collecting because theyre too frustrated to even try anymore)?''

as someone who is studying science its a no to this: i never chose it bcz I was a 'failure' in meeting ppl etc bcz at the time i wasn't that bothered abt it (though i am a failure and am getting bothered by this).

And i suspect it is true for many scientists: we work far more hours than ppl who do humanities (they say they are reading books after going to a few hours of lectures a week: yeah right!).

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 20 September 2003 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I'll take crushes or sappy love songs or romantic comedies any day over people going on and on about how "amazing" their child is.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Saturday, 20 September 2003 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, but the faux-bitter nonbreeder is in right now. We all grow up someday.

― Tep (ktepi), Saturday, 20 September 2003 21:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Some of us will never have children, and some of us will not consider it some failure born of extended adolescense.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Saturday, 20 September 2003 21:50 (twenty-two years ago)

And some will in turn consider it a resounding success because of extended adolescence!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 20 September 2003 22:44 (twenty-two years ago)

diane warren says she has never even been in love! man oh man!

― duane, Sunday, 21 September 2003 04:27 (twenty-two years ago)

'this artist, endowed with a tender, dreamy, delicate soul, forced to accept the character imposed upon him by his outward appearance, despaired of ever being loved. celibacy was, therefore, with him less a choice than a necessity. gluttony, the sin of virtuous monks, tendered to him her arms; he threw himself into them, as he had thrown himself into the adoration of works of arts and into his worship of music. good living and bric-a-brac were, for him, the small change for a woman; as to music, that was his profession, and where can we find a man who loves the trade by which he lives!'

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 21 September 2003 05:04 (twenty-two years ago)

that last line is totally abt ilm

― trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 21 September 2003 05:42 (twenty-two years ago)

hopey glass!

― David. (Cozen), Sunday, 21 September 2003 08:17 (twenty-two years ago)

yes david but that's abt refusing to be a party to the harm imposed by necessary concentration, not abt shying away from distraction

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 21 September 2003 10:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I just meant 'good writing about love'. Also Barthes & Fitzgerald & AL Kennedy are good answers.

― David. (Cozen), Sunday, 21 September 2003 10:19 (twenty-two years ago)

maybe we should stop trying to make people we love and the people we fuck the same damn people!!!

"the problem is you dudes treat the one that you lovin/ with the same respect as the one that you humpin"

actually i always felt jay-z was off the money w that one. surely the problem is that the one that we're humping isnt the same as the one that we're loving? but now i must reconsider.

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Sunday, 21 September 2003 10:59 (twenty-two years ago)

ethan you should get with maryann

― duane, Sunday, 21 September 2003 13:15 (twenty-two years ago)

maryann you should get with ethan

― duane, Sunday, 21 September 2003 13:15 (twenty-two years ago)

does anyone else need any matchmaker shit done, i got it all psyched out

― duane, Sunday, 21 September 2003 13:15 (twenty-two years ago)

maryann keeps sending me emails about woody allen

― duane, Sunday, 21 September 2003 13:16 (twenty-two years ago)

''does anyone else need any matchmaker shit done, i got it all psyched out''

me me me!!!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 21 September 2003 15:05 (twenty-two years ago)

julio and gosset sitting in a tree!

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 21 September 2003 15:12 (twenty-two years ago)

you don't want to know how far I'll go for those old FMP LPs!!!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 21 September 2003 15:17 (twenty-two years ago)

i do

― dirty old woman (lucylurex), Sunday, 21 September 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

two years pass...

for love

― cozen (Cozen), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:19 (twenty years ago)

is the history of science and culture just a history of nerds trying to partner up (or, turning to byzantine history and macrobotany and car collecting because theyre too frustrated to even try anymore)?

well... some people are interested in love as a subject, some aren't. some people get very enthusiastic about entomology! and they can't relate to whatever abstract notion they think "love" is (though they probably wouldn't refuse it too strongly if it came along).

i think historians and scientists are hot. i'd "partner up" with one if he'd leave the library/lab long enough for a few beers.

― mies van der rohffle (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:41 (twenty years ago)

eight years pass...

good thread

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 16 June 2014 17:17 (eleven years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.