FREE! Click here to Join FunTrivia. Thousands of games, quizzes, and lots more!
Home: FunTrivia Virtual Blogs
Personal Threads
View Chat Board Rules
Post New
 

 Topic List

 
Replies | Active | Stats

 Post New

  Our World
  Music
  Sports
  Tributes

Subject: Science Fiction Interpretations

Posted by: brm50diboll
Date: Jan 02 17

I have debated with myself starting a Virtual Blog for months. I have so little free time nowadays that I may not be able to keep it up, but I think I'll at least try. This is intended to be wide-ranging, so it wouldn't fit in the Television, Movies, or Literature boards categories and I don't want to clog up General with just my observations but here I can rant if I choose and people can choose to ignore me or engage my flawed analysis if they wish.
469 replies. On page 6 of 24 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
brm50diboll star


player avatar
Still waiting on my muses. I do almost everything off my cellphone nowadays, and it is difficult to post links from my cellphone, but I think things would be much improved if I could do it, so as I continue to learn new things every day and improve the efficiency of what I do, I'm going to try to post a link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwDfWKtoLJc

Reply #101. Jun 07 17, 3:57 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
That seems to have worked. It was very tedious, but I think I should try it more often.

It is important for a teacher to be patient, and I have worked for many years on improving my patience, but still, occasionally, there are times when students cut off explanations that would work had they themselves the patience to listen to them. It is unfortunate that the current generation of students is largely unfamiliar with the 1970s "The Incredible Hulk" TV show with Bill Bixby and Lou Forrigno. I loved that show. I would occasionally show my classes the intro and then explain to them: "If you see my eyes turn green it's time to settle down." The more recent movie versions lack the bittersweet quality of the old show. I always felt sorry for Dr. Banner, just as I did for Dr. Henry Jekyll in Robert Louis Stevenson's classic.

So, "Mr. McGee", don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

Reply #102. Jun 07 17, 4:08 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
Lou Ferrigno. Dang autocorrect! I can feel my eyes turning green already.

Reply #103. Jun 07 17, 4:10 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
Another meme: a quote from two sources, one of which I shall examine next when I have time (not tonight, unfortunately):

One man's life or death were but a small price to pay for the acquirement of the knowledge which I sought, for the dominion I should acquire....

Scary? It should be.

Reply #104. Jun 15 17, 11:19 PM

Mixamatosis star


player avatar 		Never heard of the noun "acquirement", though I have heard of the noun "acquisition".

Reply #105. Jun 16 17, 1:56 AM
Mixamatosis star


player avatar 		Just looked it up. The peak of its usage was between 1792 and 1900. You learn something every day here.

Reply #106. Jun 16 17, 2:00 AM
brm50diboll star


player avatar
You should have googled the whole quote. You would have found both its sources. The first one is Frankenstein, my next topic.

Reply #107. Jun 16 17, 11:31 AM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
What I want to say about Frankenstein I eventually want to apply to artificial intelligence (note Stephen Hawking's view on this subject), but I feel we're a long way from creating truly sentient AI (a la Ex Machina), but we've made a lot of ground in cloning, so first I'll apply my ideas to that.

Mammalian cloning was a big deal with Dolly the sheep, Snuppy the dog, and Copycat the cat, among others. There have also been several false internet claims of successful human cloning. Most civilized nations have explicitly banned research into human cloning. Why, you may ask? Because cloning methods have a sharp learning curve, and, to get one successful clone, there must first be many unsuccessful clones. What do I mean by unsuccessful clones? Most of them turn out to just be spontaneously aborted embryos or fetuses, but some are live born with terrible deformities. Attempts at human cloning would inevitably produce this sort of unsuccessful clone, which is why most countries have banned it. It is the Frankenstein problem: if man is going to play god, what responsibility does the imperfect "creator" bear for his creation? A great deal, I think. The monster is not the real abomination in the story. It is the idea that something that reckless can be done without considering that a sentient being has been created doomed to suffering with no hope of happiness from the very start. We rightfully recoil at animal cruelty, and it is well understood that many sociopaths began by abusing animals.

But where is the line? Does playing Grand Theft Auto, for example, make someone sociopathic? I think not (speaking as someone who reached 100% completion in the old days of PlayStation II on GTA III, Vice City, and San Andreas.) But there is nothing sentient about GTA characters.

Or consider The Sims. I'm chronically behind the times on technology, but I played many, many hours of The Sims 2, and I always tried to get each of my Sims to complete their "lifetime want" so they could have permanent "platinum moods". It would not have occurred to me (and in fact I was horrified to hear some players did) deliberately torture or kill their Sims just to see what would happen. In fact, in my early days of not really knowing what I was doing, I had many unhappy Sims that I came back later to "rescue" when I perfected my game playing technique. As for those few Sims that died unexpectedly due to accidents such as getting struck by lightning (I had the "Seasons" expansion pack), I would use cheat codes to resurrect them (or the phone to the Grim Reaper later) so that I could correct my mistakes, and, yes, I know Sims are not sentient beings.

After a rain, if I see an earthworm that has crawled onto the asphalt, I pick it up and gently put it back into the grass. But I will stomp any cockroaches I see. So I guess "the line" isn't very clear from my own behavior, but, I definitely think Victor Frankenstein went way, way over the line and I fully support international bans on research into human cloning for the reasons I mentioned, but I fear that the old saying that that which is possible is inevitable given enough time is probably true here. Some "mad scientist", a modern Victor Frankenstein, with a huge fortune will probably buy a private island somewhere to carry out his "research". HG Wells' The Island of Dr Moreau also comes to mind.

When technology outpaces morality, some of the worst nightmares imaginable can result, and Frankenstein was just that sort of nightmare.

Reply #108. Jun 19 17, 9:21 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
More random thoughts bouncing around in the attic of my mind:

I was thinking again of the 1978 movie Magic, with Anthony Hopkins, Ann-Margret, and Burgess Meredith. A bit of an old, obscure horror movie, but it sticks with me. Hopkins plays a mentally unbalanced magician-turned ventriloquist named Corky who is dominated by his evil alter ego dummy, Fats. This is 13 years before The Silence of the Lambs, but it is memorable what Anthony Hopkins can do.

The plot has a number of similarities to the Twilight Zone episode "The Dummy" which starred Cliff Robertson as an alcoholic ventriloquist (I'd mentioned this particular episode before when discussing Robertson's turn as Charly). "The Dummy" is not violent like Magic, but the idea that a mentally unbalanced ventriloquist comes to be dominated by the dark side of his personality as the alter ego "takes over" is a recurring theme. I wonder if the writers of Magic had seen "The Dummy"?

It has been said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as as farce. Crazy ventriloquists definitely lend themselves to parody. In the 1977-1981 ABC TV comedy "Soap" (which was hilarious and groundbreaking in many ways), one of the characters (or two, depending on your point of view), was Chuck Campbell the ventriloquist and his obnoxious dummy Bob. Although the show has been cancelled for decades, the actor that played Chuck (and also Bob) was actually a real ventriloquist, Jay Johnson, who continues his act as Chuck and Bob. The chief conceit of the act is that Chuck believes Bob is real, and Bob dominates Chuck to the point that Chuck acts scared of Bob.

I wonder if any real ventriloquists have ever been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, or what used to be called multiple personalities. I doubt it, but it makes for interesting fiction.

Reply #109. Jun 22 17, 3:32 PM

varnish star


player avatar 		Yeah, Soap was hilarious, it was a touch before my time, I was 9-10 years old when it premiered, but I remember watching it with my mother, she loved that show, and then the reruns. And a schizophrenic ventriloquist would be pretty funny. Maybe deep down all ventriloquists have an impulse of schizophrenia, and that is why they have such an urge to practice making an inanimate object talk, to the point of it becoming their career/main preoccupation.

Although this is not a confirmed diagnosis, (it seems Candice Bergen thought so!;) you may find this humorous.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027976/Murphy-Brown-actress-Candice-Bergen-reveals-heartache-famous-ventriloquist-father-belittled-looks-left-puppet-Charlie-McCarthy-10K-didn-t-leave-penny-died.html

Reply #110. Jun 23 17, 1:31 PM
brm50diboll star


player avatar
I knew Edgar Bergen was a ventriloquist, but I didn't know how obsessed he was over Charlie McCarthy. That was a very interesting article. I was a teenager in rural East Texas when Soap aired. The local ABC station refused to air it (one of the few stations in the country that did so - though Soap was very controversial for its time - though it would be tame by today's standards (or, more accurately, lack thereof)). Anyway, the station actually aired NBC's Quincy M.E. in place of Soap. I saw Soap later in reruns and thought it was hilarious, not just the Chuck and Bob bit, the whole thing. And there was a science fiction angle to it - Burt Campbell (played by Richard Mulligan) was kidnapped by sex-crazed aliens one season. I have the whole four year series in my collection now.

Reply #111. Jun 23 17, 10:18 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
I connect things in my mind that are only tenuously connected in actuality, at best, sometimes. Today I am thinking about some similarities between the Star Trek episode "Charlie X" and the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life". Charles Evans, the guest star and central character in "Charlie X" was a seventeen year old with the power of transmutation given to him by a race of ghost-like aliens who rescued him as the lone survivor of a crash on their home planet of Thasus when he was only three. He had never been around his fellow humans, so when he was finally rescued from Thasus, he abused his power and destroyed the first ship he was on, the Antares, and nearly destroyed the Enterprise before the Thasians took him back at the end of the episode (despite Kirk's pleadings to them not to) because (as the Thasian told Kirk): "We gave him the power so that he might live. He will use it and he will destroy you, or you will be forced to destroy him to save yourself. We offer him a chance at life. Come Charles."

And then Charlie's haunting reply: "I want to stay, stay, stay, stay (repeating and fading out)!" as Charlie fades away.

In the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life", six year old Anthony terrorizes a whole town with his own supernatural powers that give him whatever he wishes for. When he is displeased by someone, he "sends them into the cornfield." And so, as Rod Serling narrated, people needed to "think good thoughts" when around Anthony.

Both these stories deal with what happens when immature individuals are given great power. They unintentionally become very destructive. The old saying "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is demonstrated in these episodes. Neither a six year old nor a seventeen year old should be given great power.

So don't spoil your kids (or grandkids). Or maybe little Anthony or little Charlie may get displeased with you some day.

Reply #112. Jun 29 17, 12:08 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
Now for Gremlins. Once again, I'm expanding the boundaries of science fiction by including this particular movie, but we could argue genre all day on this one. Comedy? Fantasy? Pure Insanity? Pieces of Everything? Joe Dante's hyperkinetic wild ride has always been a favorite of mine, including its loud, repetitive theme, which sticks in my mind.

What is the nature of chaos? From one of my favorite characters, Dr. Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum) in Jurassic Park, chaos theory is actually a very interesting branch of mathematics. Sorry to be too wonky here, but it is a branch of mathematics that concerns itself with large changes in final conditions arising from small changes in initial conditions. Chaos theory originally developed from failed efforts to use computers to predict the weather. Even today, weather prediction is very inaccurate when forecast over more than a short period of time because there are too many variables involved, many of which are not even known, much less accounted for, in even the best computer models. (I could say the same thing about climate that I do for weather, betraying my political views, but let's not digress too far.) So the hubris of believing one can "control" a genuinely chaotic system on the basis of partial information, be it Gremlins, Jurassic Park, the weather, or....

Delos. Boy, have we got a vacation for you!

Sorry about that. Back to Gremlins. There were only a few simple rules. Keep them away from bright light. Keep them away from water. Don't feed them after midnight. Why couldn't they follow those simple rules? OK, what harm could possibly come from such small transgressions anyway, like maybe eating one fruit from one tree in a garden? What's the big deal, anyway?

Small changes in initial conditions lead to unpredictably big changes down the road. The Butterfly Effect again.

Me, I liked the microwave approach to dealing with the gremlins. Direct. Effective.

Still laughing at the whole theater-full of gremlins watching "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" all singing.

I apologize for the chaotic nature of today's post.

Ahahahahahaha!

Reply #113. Jul 06 17, 1:57 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
Gulliver's Travels, by Jonathan Swift, is certainly a very famous satire, but it has a few elements of science fiction in it. It is best known for Lilliput, but Gulliver visited several fictional places in the book, each with its own interesting characteristics.

The Flying Island of Laputa, with its bizarre inventions, satirizes the British Royal Society of Swift's time, devoted to many impractical ideas as well as Britain's domination of Ireland, Swift's mother country. The whole notion of "having your head in the clouds" can be seen in the Flying Island of Laputa. The idea of an elite using technological breakthroughs to dominate another group appears in the Star Trek episode "The Cloud Minders" (previously discussed) which may also trace its genesis in part to the Flying Island.

The Kingdom of Luggnagg is best known for its immortals, the Struldbrugs, who, unlike what Gulliver thought at first, were not blessed but cursed by their immortality, for they were immortal, yes, but they were not perpetually youthful. They became blind, deaf, demented, toothless and had all the physical disabilities of extreme old age, but never died. That is not a utopian concept, it is extremely dystopian. A prolonged lifespan without prolonged youthfulness is not something to be thought of as a "miracle of medicine". If we, for example, were to extend the average life expectancy to say, 130 years, but with the last 50-60 years of that spent disabled and institutionalized, is that really a positive achievement for medical science? I would argue no, and signs this is what is actually happening as life expectancy increases are becoming apparent.

There is a lot more to Gulliver's Travels than just the Lilliput story. Excellent satire of a lot of 18th century life abounds throughout, as well as predictions for the future.

Reply #114. Jul 23 17, 5:53 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
Now for Steven Spielberg's AI: Artificial Intelligence, with Haley Joel Osment. I really liked this movie, but I know a lot of people didn't, and I want to get into a little bit of the controversy over this movie and why it didn't meet the usual expectations for many people for a Spielberg movie.

The movie originally was going to be directed by Stanley Kubrick, but Kubrick died right after finishing Eyes Wide Shut (with Tom Cruise and then-wife Nicole Kidman (Nicole!) - don't let me get sidetracked on that one, one of the weirdest movies of all time, even for Kubrick.) Spielberg took over and people claimed he changed the ending of AI and messed up the movie, but I disagree. Spielberg, in multiple interviews, said that it was his intent to honor Kubrick's vision for that film and the ending was *not* a change, it was in Kubrick's outline.

Now people may not know this, but AI was actually based on a short story called "Supertoys Last All Summer Long". The story was written by Brian Aldiss, who Mix referred me to on page 3, post #57 of this thread (although not that particular story.)

The movie is sad, almost melancholy in its treatment of the suffering and mistreatment of the androids, although I will concede (and this is one of the major criticisms of the film) that the central character of David (played by Haley Joel Osment) is quite flawed and very selfish. I would argue, however, that David's human "mother", Monica, was much worse and David did not deserve the abandonment he got from Monica.

What made David's suffering even worse, in my view, is that he was effectively immortal and could not possibly get his wish to be reunited with Monica as she was long dead by the time the future androids dug David (and Teddy) out of the ice. They had to "cheat" to recreate Monica from the DNA in her hair, and they wiped all unpleasant memories from their version of Monica during her "one perfect day" she had with David at the end.

Now Teddy is actually the most interesting character in the film, the moral center, actually. He was loyal to David, warning him of dangers (and supplying Monica's hair), despite the fact he had not been "imprinted" on David. When Monica and David "go to sleep" at the end of the movie, poor Teddy is left all alone.

Even Jude Law's gigolo character was more practical than David, who flew into a rage at his creator's company headquarters when he saw the other Davids, destroyed one, dove into the ocean, and didn't even give William Hurt's creator character a chance to help him. The Gigolo knew exactly what he was, what he was created for, how he had been unfairly set up, and still managed as best he could given his circumstances. And Jude Law was actually quite funny as the gigolo.

So the movie may have been disappointing to many, but its melancholy themes and the deep questions about what is consciousness and what is a soul were very interesting to me, even the wild "Flesh Fair" where humans tortured and destroyed androids just because they could.

Maybe Skynet in The Terminator is comeuppance for "Flesh Fair" abuse of sentient androids.

Reply #115. Aug 01 17, 11:52 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
Westworld (The HBO series)

I've been building up to discussing this one for a long time, and I have a lot to say about it. So much so, that it will take me several posts to get through it all. Westworld has many interesting takes on a number of science fiction themes, such as the nature of:

Artificial Intelligence. Good. Evil. Consciousness. Mortality. Free Will.

The series is based upon the 1973 Michael Crichton movie, but, besides being much longer and detailed as a series as opposed to a movie, its perspective is inverted. In the original movie, the protagonists were humans (James Brolin, Richard Benjamin), and the antagonists were the robots (led by a fearsome Yul Brynner as "The Gunslinger", who appeared to be a model for the relentless Terminator robots.) But in the series, the androids (hosts) are the protagonists and the humans (guests) are the antagonists.

Michael Crichton was a great science fiction writer and director, as well as being the creator of ER. I'm sad that he died several years ago at the relatively young age of 66. Prior to his death, he had been in negotiations for several years to make (another) series version of Westworld. I think HBO, Christopher Nolan, Lisa Joy, and JJ Abrams really put money, stars, and quality writing behind this series (at least the first ten episode season.) I wonder what Michael Crichton would've thought of their efforts.

Crichton, if you aren't aware, was a doctor, a graduate of Harvard Medical School who never practiced medicine, but began writing during his internship year. His works are filled with a large amount of technical scientific information that shows how intelligent and highly educated he was, somewhat reminiscent of all the technical information you would find in Tom Clancy's novels. Jurassic Park was my favorite, and while the movie was great, the book was better. I especially liked the "iterations" that appear in each section of the book with an accompanying Ian Malcolm quote.

The legendary Anthony Hopkins stars as Dr. Robert Ford, the creator of Westworld, a very conflicted man with a "god complex" that was very difficult to follow his real motivations and intentions. Certainly he was very jealous of his deceased ex-partner, Arnold Weber.

Then there is the great Ed Harris (Jackson Pollock, Apollo 13, The Truman Show, etc.) who I've admired ever since I saw him in a small part as a nephew-in-law in the "Father's Day" segment of the 1982 Stephen King and George Romero horror movie Creepshow, which to this day remains my favorite horror movie. In Westworld, Ed Harris plays the mysterious and brutal "Man in Black", a guest (human, not an android) who appears every bit as murderous as Yul Brynner's Gunslinger.

The lead andoid, Dolores Abernathy, is played by Evan Rachel Wood, who I was surprised to see as a teenager in the music video of Green Day's "Wake Me Up When September Ends."

Darn it! I'm just getting started here, but this post is already getting too long. Will pick it up next time.

Reply #116. Aug 11 17, 1:36 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
Android (not andoid). I hate typos. That one particularly irks me.

Reply #117. Aug 11 17, 1:38 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
Westworld was written in a way that mixes timelines so that it is difficult to determine what happened when. The purpose of this was to create uncertainty and speculation about where it was going. That approach worked very well, as during the run of the first season, there were numerous websites and YouTube videos devoted to fan speculation about the meaning of various events that occurred. Some of these fan theories actually turned out to be correct. Without giving away too much of the plot - yes, the Man in Black and William did turn out to be the same person, separated by 30 years. Since the tenth and final episode of the first season was a cliffhanger, there is much speculation about what is going to happen in the second season (2018).

Is Ford really dead, or a host clone?
Who survived the board massacre?
What happened to Elsie, Stubbs, and Logan?
What other theme parks does Delos own besides Westworld? (We got a glimpse of "Samurai World")
Can consciousness be transferred from humans to hosts?
What exactly was the nefarious plan that Delos had for Westworld? Was it to replace real humans with host clones a la the 70s sequel to Westworld, Futureworld? (Futureworld was not written by Michael Crichton, but there is rampant speculation that season 2 of Westworld will take a Futureworld-like plot turn.)
Is everyone actually a host?
Is Westworld real or a virtual reality simulation?
Is Arnold still alive?

Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality?

I've had some fun going to the Westworld website and interacting with its "host" Aeden by asking it Westworld memes like the one above. Most of the time, Aeden ignores the memes and redirects, but sometimes he "freaks out" and says unexpected things.

Doesn't look like anything to me. Why not ask me about what you can do in Sweetwater?

Bring yourself back online ... Bernard.

You do not have clearance for that voice command.

Freeze all motor functions!

Hilarious! Me messing with poor Aeden.

Reply #118. Aug 20 17, 12:07 AM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
One ongoing theme that is being examined in Westworld is the theme of free will. Specifically, does free will actually exist for the hosts?

The character of Maeve (played by Thandie Newton) has a story arc which seems very separate from most of the other main characters in Westworld but seems focused on this question. Maeve, the madam of Sweetwater's brothel, appears to be the first of the hosts to have achieved consciousness, or self-awareness. It seems to have occurred after Dolores (the central host character), whispered the meme "These violent delights have violent ends" to her. This meme apparently acts as a sort of "computer virus" among the hosts, helping to spread independent thought among them. Dolores herself had been previously "infected" with this meme when her father, Peter Abernathy, had whispered it to her as he was freaking out over a modern photograph (of William's intended fiance, interestingly) he had found on his ranch. Peter was "retired" from service in the first episode after that and placed into "cold storage" where hosts who exhibit aberrant behavior were kept. Speculation is that the meme, which is actually a quote from Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" is a piece of computer code placed by Ford's deceased ex-partner Arnold Weber shortly before he died which was intended to wreak havoc in Westworld by spreading consciousness and rebellion among the hosts and showing Ford he could not control them, despite his claims he had absolute control over everything in the park.

I need to correct an error I made earlier: the co-creator of HBO's Westworld is Jonathan Nolan, not Christopher Nolan. Jonathan is Christopher's brother. Christopher is a well-known director of such movies as Batman Begins and Inception. I do make mistakes and I apologize.

As much as Ford hates Arnold's few "original hosts", most notably Dolores herself, the "oldest host in the park", I believe he keeps them around and didn't destroy them because he needed them to find out the secret programming Arnold had put into them that was now causing chaos in Westworld. At one point, Ford interviews Dolores in "analysis mode" (and, despite that, Dolores lies to Ford about her past with Arnold) and Dolores asks Ford a question I thought led to a very interesting exchange:

Dolores: "Are we ... old friends?"

Ford: "I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that at all."

Ford's reply to Dolores above is said with a hissing tone reminding you of, yes, Hannibal Lecter, Anthony Hopkin's most famous character. I almost imagined myself hearing "Clariceeeeeee" at the end of that! Of course, Dolores and Ford are not "old friends". They are "old enemies", even though Dolores didn't know it.

But now Arnold's memes are loose among the hosts and all-out rebellion has begun in the final episode of season one, episode 10: "The Bicameral Mind", which ends with Dolores shooting Ford in the back of the head as she and the other hosts liberated from "cold storage" begin killing the Delos board members.

Did Ford really plan all this? Was everything scripted by Ford himself, as he claimed? Is Ford not actually dead, but only a host clone of himself sacrificed to mislead others? Or is Arnold somehow still alive and the real power behind Westworld? Do the hosts actually have free will, or are they following *somebody's* script for them? I think the key is Maeve. Ford clearly kept close tabs on Dolores's activities. Did he script Maeve's? Was he even aware of what was going on with Maeve? Her storyline seemed so separate from everyone else's. Felix believed everything Maeve said, thought, or did was scripted for her and even showed Maeve her "script", which she seemed powerless to deviate from. But was that really true? Was she powerless to deviate from the script? And who wrote Maeve's script? Was it Ford, as many fans believe, or was it Arnold, somehow from hiding somewhere?

Season 2 should be interesting.

Reply #119. Aug 30 17, 7:23 PM

brm50diboll star


player avatar
Hopkins', not Hopkin's. How careless of me.

I have been distracted of late.

I'm having an old friend for dinner.

Reply #120. Aug 30 17, 7:30 PM

469 replies. On page 6 of 24 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Legal / Conditions of Use

Moderators moderator: flopsymopsy postcards2go agony sue943 kyleisalive gtho4 Terry WesleyCrusher