Any boxers here want to weigh in on Olympian *not* fair fights?

Post by D
If you book them, they will come! ;) Jokes aside, I
couldn't care less as long as I am allowed to live my life
the way I want, with the people I want, and not having
my face rubbed in their revolting behaviours. They can
do what ever they like in the privacy of their bedrooms,
and that's enough for me. =)
Should things get worse, I will move to a house in
the country side, where I limit my interaction with
humanity. Psychologically I am well adapted to that,
since I enjoy spending time with myself and since crowds
drain me. It would be worse for my wife though who must
have her dose of culture from time to time. ;)

I mighty fine attitude indeed. Congratulations!

It would seem there's no greater "tell" that something
might be amiss within another (i.e. in "their" "mind")
than to be perpetually insisting others accept one.

I think others generally do, not necessarily for possessing
magical powers/spirituality, but for being too busy with
their own lives to have time to care.

But that drippy faucet of YOU MUST ACCEPT ME insistence
quickly becomes tiring, if not annoying, if not an
increasingly un-ignorable "begging the question".

But wouldn't you know it, merely asking a question of
such is taken as proof of intolerance in need of a public
flogging, not to mention the very shunning (see also:
cancellation) that the hysterical whiners claim others
are hurling their way.

Whatta world, seeming fellow instantiations of
individuality! :-)

--
Oh, for the love of signature silliness....

2024-08-06 12:35:33 UTC

I mighty fine attitude indeed. Congratulations!
It would seem there's no greater "tell" that something
might be amiss within another (i.e. in "their" "mind")
than to be perpetually insisting others accept one.
I think others generally do, not necessarily for possessing
magical powers/spirituality, but for being too busy with
their own lives to have time to care.
But that drippy faucet of YOU MUST ACCEPT ME insistence
quickly becomes tiring, if not annoying, if not an
increasingly un-ignorable "begging the question".
But wouldn't you know it, merely asking a question of
such is taken as proof of intolerance in need of a public
cancellation) that the hysterical whiners claim others
are hurling their way.
Whatta world, seeming fellow instantiations of
individuality! :-)

I'm currently reading "Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization"
(https://annas-archive.org/md5/d16856b0944bae0add4bdd86bd20618b) and
although a lot of it is just a rehash of Maslows books with very little
nwe science added, some parts are actually mildly interesting.

One thing you could conclude is that the YOU MUST ACCEPT behaviour could
be due to a bad childhood which left psychological scars and warped the
needs the person has. A kind of narcissistic illness.

Then, the interesting question is... what happened to bringing up children
in the 70s and 80s so that we today have this annoying trans people? Was
there some kind of paradigm shift in bringing up children?

When I think about my own politically incorrect upbringing, it was at
times fairly strict, with clear rules, yet, at the same time filled with
love and rewards for good behaviour and punishment for bad behaviour.

Modesty forbids me from saying that I think it was an excellent upbringing
that yielded excellent results. ;)

oldernow

2024-08-07 15:32:08 UTC

Post by D
One thing you could conclude is that the YOU MUST ACCEPT
behaviour could be due to a bad childhood which left
psychological scars and warped the needs the person has. A
kind of narcissistic illness.

Seems a reasonable theory/conclusion.

Post by D
Then, the interesting question is... what happened to
bringing up children in the 70s and 80s so that we today
have this annoying trans people? Was there some kind of
paradigm shift in bringing up children?

How to identify the factors, their relative impact, and
then measure them now, then, and before then in order to
have sufficient data for conclusion?

I mean, I can imagine factors like parenting skills
degradation, social pressure to no longer parent in
ways that "worked" in the past, increased exposure to
notions/entertainment in popular culture that favor
thinking/feeling in "trans ways" (whatever those might
be). But I suppose there could be environmental factors,
nutritional factors, "news media lying incessantly"
factors, etc.

All I know personally is I wasn't at all ready for
parenting, and had also moved too far from home for
my parents to have possibly been there with regular
advice/critique/reminders.

Post by D
When I think about my own politically incorrect upbringing,
it was at times fairly strict, with clear rules, yet,
at the same time filled with love and rewards for good
behaviour and punishment for bad behaviour.

Same. I'm massively grateful for it.

Post by D
Modesty forbids me from saying that I think it was an
excellent upbringing that yielded excellent results. ;)

It certainly yielded fine language usage and typing
skills. But I'd have to hear from your wife on the
rest.... :-)

--
Oh, for the love of signature silliness....

2024-08-07 17:16:30 UTC

Seems a reasonable theory/conclusion.

How to identify the factors, their relative impact, and
then measure them now, then, and before then in order to
have sufficient data for conclusion?

Very difficult! But if we solve this problem here in alt.philosophy I bet
we could get a Nobel peace prize or two! ;)

Jokes aside, it is not that far away, so at least it is still possible to
round up parents from the different generations and compare their
memories, thoughts and ideas.

Post by oldernow
I mean, I can imagine factors like parenting skills
degradation, social pressure to no longer parent in
ways that "worked" in the past, increased exposure to
notions/entertainment in popular culture that favor
thinking/feeling in "trans ways" (whatever those might
be). But I suppose there could be environmental factors,
nutritional factors, "news media lying incessantly"
factors, etc.

Nutrion? Have there been any big changes in nutrition since then? Most
likely as you say, there are a lot of different factors at play, but it
always is a tantalizing idea to find "the one" factor, and with a mighty
cut of the sword, slay that factor and improve humanity. ;)

Another thing I'm thinking is if the answer is trivial and known by
psychologists since decades back, but, that we have no interest, time or
resources to actually implement those policies.

Or... what _if_ stay at home mothers, with their biologically superior
empathy and caring is the key to raise children with a emotionally secure
base... how would that go down with todays militant feminists and woke
warriors? ;)

I read about a movement called the "Trad wife" movement where the
arguments by some women is that they feel happier and more female assuming
the role of a traditional stay at home mother, caring for the family, and
therefore they reject the prevailing norm of todays society that women
must be like small men. This is enormously provocative for social justive
warriors. I always smile when I encounter those conflicts! =)

Post by oldernow
All I know personally is I wasn't at all ready for
parenting, and had also moved too far from home for
my parents to have possibly been there with regular
advice/critique/reminders.

I think that is also an interesting idea. Not everyone should be a parent,
and some people should be actively forbidden from procreating for the sake
of themselves _and_ their potential children. This is also taboo to bring
up in todays society where everyone is entitled to everything. ;)

Same. I'm massively grateful for it.

Post by D
Modesty forbids me from saying that I think it was an
excellent upbringing that yielded excellent results. ;)

It certainly yielded fine language usage and typing
skills. But I'd have to hear from your wife on the
rest.... :-)

You're very kind! However, my wife calls everyone I interact with online
the "freak show" so I doubt she would be willing to make an appearance
here. ;)

oldernow

2024-08-07 19:18:21 UTC

Seems a reasonable theory/conclusion.

How to identify the factors, their relative impact, and
then measure them now, then, and before then in order to
have sufficient data for conclusion?

Very difficult! But if we solve this problem here in
alt.philosophy I bet we could get a Nobel peace prize or
two! ;)

It's already been solved by Jesus and others, but don't
expect self-centric egos to rush embrace practicing leading
until selflessness.

Jokes aside, it is not that far away, so at least it is still possible to
round up parents from the different generations and compare their
memories, thoughts and ideas.

Post by D
Another thing I'm thinking is if the answer is trivial and
known by psychologists since decades back, but, that we
have no interest, time or resources to actually implement
those policies.

decades -> millennia (per the above)

Post by D
Or... what _if_ stay at home mothers, with their
biologically superior empathy and caring is the key
to raise children with a emotionally secure base... how
would that go down with todays militant feminists and woke
warriors? ;)

Too bad that's rocket science for self-centric beings.

Post by D
I read about a movement called the "Trad wife" movement
where the arguments by some women is that they feel happier
and more female assuming the role of a traditional stay
at home mother, caring for the family, and therefore they
reject the prevailing norm of todays society that women
must be like small men. This is enormously provocative for
social justive warriors. I always smile when I encounter
those conflicts! =)

Again, simple stuff for those who get their self out of
the way.

Post by D
I think that is also an interesting idea. Not everyone
should be a parent, and some people should be actively
forbidden from procreating for the sake of themselves _and_
their potential children. This is also taboo to bring up in
todays society where everyone is entitled to everything. ;)

There's no limit to the stupidity unearth-able by selfish
selves.

Post by D
Modesty forbids me from saying that I think it was an
excellent upbringing that yielded excellent results. ;)

It certainly yielded fine language usage and typing
skills. But I'd have to hear from your wife on the
rest.... :-)

You're very kind! However, my wife calls everyone I
interact with online the "freak show" so I doubt she would
be willing to make an appearance here. ;)

She's definitely got it right in my case! ;-)

--
Oh, for the love of signature silliness....

2024-08-07 19:56:53 UTC

Seems a reasonable theory/conclusion.

How to identify the factors, their relative impact, and
then measure them now, then, and before then in order to
have sufficient data for conclusion?

Very difficult! But if we solve this problem here in
alt.philosophy I bet we could get a Nobel peace prize or
two! ;)

It's already been solved by Jesus and others, but don't
expect self-centric egos to rush embrace practicing leading
until selflessness.

Ahh... that reminded me of my dream of a book projects, where I
deconstruct the lessons of Jesus when it comes to transcendence and
living a good life, into their essence, remove the religious stuff, and
sell it to the masses! The hope is that it then will be accepted, when
cloaked in a "scientific" (TM) shroud!

Post by D
Jokes aside, it is not that far away, so at least it is still possible to
round up parents from the different generations and compare their
memories, thoughts and ideas.
Another thing I'm thinking is if the answer is trivial and
known by psychologists since decades back, but, that we
have no interest, time or resources to actually implement
those policies.

decades -> millennia (per the above)

Yes, maybe I was a bit modest with my guess. ;) After all, they did have
children millennia ago too, and here we are!

Too bad that's rocket science for self-centric beings.

Yes, it does seem like common sense is in decline.

Again, simple stuff for those who get their self out of
the way.

There's no limit to the stupidity unearth-able by selfish
selves.

Post by D
Modesty forbids me from saying that I think it was an
excellent upbringing that yielded excellent results. ;)

It certainly yielded fine language usage and typing
skills. But I'd have to hear from your wife on the
rest.... :-)

You're very kind! However, my wife calls everyone I
interact with online the "freak show" so I doubt she would
be willing to make an appearance here. ;)

She's definitely got it right in my case! ;-)

Hah! A confession! She will loooove this! ;)

oldernow

2024-08-07 20:15:19 UTC

Post by D
Ahh... that reminded me of my dream of a book projects,
where I deconstruct the lessons of Jesus when it comes to
transcendence and living a good life, into their essence,
remove the religious stuff, and sell it to the masses! The
hope is that it then will be accepted, when cloaked in a
"scientific" (TM) shroud!

Self/ego cannot accept its undoing, and can easily
sniff such out of cloaking. Furthermore, a teaching
that doesn't address self/ego undoing is merely self
*help*, i.e. ultimately illusions atop the self/ego
illusion, thus leaving the problem intact beneath
a layer of mumbo jumbo icing.

Post by oldernow
Too bad that's rocket science for self-centric beings.

Yes, it does seem like common sense is in decline.

Believing in the likes of "bleach" and "fine people"
where there were none tends to entropy the fuck out
of common sense.

Post by D
You're very kind! However, my wife calls everyone I
interact with online the "freak show" so I doubt she would
be willing to make an appearance here. ;)

She's definitely got it right in my case! ;-)

Hah! A confession! She will loooove this! ;)

Let her know at least one card-carrying freak show member
feels for her plight! :-)

--
Oh, for the love of signature silliness....

2024-08-08 08:01:09 UTC

Post by oldernow
Too bad that's rocket science for self-centric beings.

Yes, it does seem like common sense is in decline.

Believing in the likes of "bleach" and "fine people"
where there were none tends to entropy the fuck out
of common sense.

Post by D
You're very kind! However, my wife calls everyone I
interact with online the "freak show" so I doubt she would
be willing to make an appearance here. ;)

She's definitely got it right in my case! ;-)

Hah! A confession! She will loooove this! ;)

Let her know at least one card-carrying freak show member
feels for her plight! :-)

Will do! =)

Richmond

2024-08-06 18:10:31 UTC

Post by oldernow
Just sayin'.... ;-)

Show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender!

Sure. *Me*. But an entire religion has recently formed
around believers in chromosomal insignificance. How do
you plan to show *them*?

People were talking about gender long before chromosomes were
discovered, so I don't see why the definition of gender has to be based
on chromosomes. In fact there is no way it could be.

But it is all just an argument about the meaning of words, as usual.

2024-08-06 19:53:04 UTC

Post by oldernow
Just sayin'.... ;-)

Show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender!

Sure. *Me*. But an entire religion has recently formed
around believers in chromosomal insignificance. How do
you plan to show *them*?

People were talking about gender long before chromosomes were
discovered, so I don't see why the definition of gender has to be based
on chromosomes. In fact there is no way it could be.
But it is all just an argument about the meaning of words, as usual.

Is there an inherent reason it could not be based on chromosomes? It seems
to me your first and second statements contradict each other.

Richmond

2024-08-07 09:44:28 UTC

Post by oldernow
Just sayin'.... ;-)

Show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender!

Sure. *Me*. But an entire religion has recently formed
around believers in chromosomal insignificance. How do
you plan to show *them*?

People were talking about gender long before chromosomes were
discovered, so I don't see why the definition of gender has to be based
on chromosomes. In fact there is no way it could be.
But it is all just an argument about the meaning of words, as usual.

Is there an inherent reason it could not be based on chromosomes?

Yes, because the word 'gender' was being used before anyone knew about
chromosomes.

Post by D
It
seems to me your first and second statements contradict each other.

It doesn't look that way to me.

Richmond

2024-08-07 09:53:44 UTC

Post by oldernow
Just sayin'.... ;-)

Show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender!

Sure. *Me*. But an entire religion has recently formed
around believers in chromosomal insignificance. How do
you plan to show *them*?

People were talking about gender long before chromosomes were
discovered, so I don't see why the definition of gender has to be based
on chromosomes. In fact there is no way it could be.
But it is all just an argument about the meaning of words, as usual.

Is there an inherent reason it could not be based on chromosomes?

Yes, because the word 'gender' was being used before anyone knew about
chromosomes.

Post by D
It
seems to me your first and second statements contradict each other.

It doesn't look that way to me.

Take for example the possibly more controversial example of the word
'planet'. This is from the Greek meaning wanderer. In this sense, Pluto
is a planet. What scientists did was redefined 'planet' to exclude
Pluto. But scientists don't own the word 'planet' nor do they have any
right to redefine it. What they did was defined a scientific or
technical planet. And that's up to them.

Words are defined by their usage.

2024-08-07 11:13:49 UTC

Post by oldernow
Just sayin'.... ;-)

Show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender!

Sure. *Me*. But an entire religion has recently formed
around believers in chromosomal insignificance. How do
you plan to show *them*?

People were talking about gender long before chromosomes were
discovered, so I don't see why the definition of gender has to be based
on chromosomes. In fact there is no way it could be.
But it is all just an argument about the meaning of words, as usual.

Is there an inherent reason it could not be based on chromosomes?

Yes, because the word 'gender' was being used before anyone knew about
chromosomes.

But we revise the meaning of terms all the time. I see no inherent reason
why gender could not be associated with having and not having a Y
chromosome.

Let me give you a trivial example:

The word âsillyâ originates from the Old English term âsÃŠlig,â which meant
âhappyâ or âblessed.â This term was derived from Proto-Germanic *saligaz,
which also carried connotations of happiness and well-being. In its early
usage, âsillyâ was associated with positive attributes, often describing
someone who was innocent or pious.

As the centuries progressed, particularly during the Middle Ages, the
meaning of âsillyâ began to shift. By the 14th century, it started to take
on a more negative connotation, referring to someone who was foolish or
lacking in common sense. This transition can be attributed to societal
changes where innocence and naivety were increasingly viewed as weaknesses
rather than virtues.

Post by D
It
seems to me your first and second statements contradict each other.

It doesn't look that way to me.

Ok. We agree to disagree.

Richmond

2024-08-07 12:15:23 UTC

Post by oldernow
Just sayin'.... ;-)

Show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender!

Sure. *Me*. But an entire religion has recently formed around
believers in chromosomal insignificance. How do you plan to show
*them*?

People were talking about gender long before chromosomes were
discovered, so I don't see why the definition of gender has to be
based on chromosomes. In fact there is no way it could be.
But it is all just an argument about the meaning of words, as usual.

Is there an inherent reason it could not be based on chromosomes?

Yes, because the word 'gender' was being used before anyone knew
about chromosomes.

But we revise the meaning of terms all the time. I see no inherent
reason why gender could not be associated with having and not having a
Y chromosome.
The word “silly” originates from the Old English term “sælig,” which
meant “happy” or “blessed.” This term was derived from Proto-Germanic
*saligaz, which also carried connotations of happiness and
well-being. In its early usage, “silly” was associated with positive
attributes, often describing someone who was innocent or pious.
As the centuries progressed, particularly during the Middle Ages, the
meaning of “silly” began to shift. By the 14th century, it started to
take on a more negative connotation, referring to someone who was
foolish or lacking in common sense. This transition can be attributed
to societal changes where innocence and naivety were increasingly
viewed as weaknesses rather than virtues.

You say we revise meanings, but what actually happens is meanings change
gradually. So over time a meaning can change, but that's not the same as
a subgroup of people getting together and deciding to define a
word. Even having defined a word its usage will remain the same, and its
usage is what truely defines it. There are many examples from law I
should think where the legal meaning of a word is different from its
general usage.

Also note that the same word can have more than one meaning.

oldernow

2024-08-07 15:43:09 UTC

Post by Richmond
You say we revise meanings, but what actually happens
is meanings change gradually. So over time a meaning can
change, but that's not the same as a subgroup of people
getting together and deciding to define a word. Even
having defined a word its usage will remain the same,
and its usage is what truely defines it. There are many
examples from law I should think where the legal meaning
of a word is different from its general usage.

I think that's even more insidious than generally accepted,
in that individuals perform the assignment/revision of
meaning to word symbols in real time, including in the
simplest of conversation, which to me is the main source
of communication contention.

--
Oh, for the love of signature silliness....

2024-08-07 17:18:16 UTC

Add to that different meanings of the same words in different sub
cultures.

oldernow

2024-08-07 19:19:30 UTC

Add to that different meanings of the same words in
different sub cultures.

<added>

--
Oh, for the love of signature silliness....

Richmond

2024-08-07 17:24:58 UTC

I noticed recently that Richard Dawkins defined sex as male if there is
a Y chromosome, although sometimes he says 'biological sex'. The word
sex, as in the state of being male or female, was used in 1382 in John
Wycliffe's Bible translation. Chromosomes weren't discovered until the
19th century.

2024-08-07 19:51:57 UTC

Dawkins?!? I'm honored and consider myself in great company! I use that
definition too! =) Great minds think alike, as the saying goes!

oldernow

2024-08-07 20:14:36 UTC

Post by D
Dawkins?!? I'm honored and consider myself in great
company! I use that definition too! =) Great minds think
alike, as the saying goes!

Too bad minds can't actually know whether they're alike
with other minds given minds have private meanings for
all the shared words.... ;-)

--
Oh, for the love of signature silliness....

Richmond

2024-08-11 22:18:21 UTC

Dawkins?!? I'm honored and consider myself in great company! I use
that definition too! =) Great minds think alike, as the saying goes!

"Just looking at the presence of a Y chromosome on its own does not
answer the question of whether someone is male or female,” says Prof
Alun Williams, who researches genetic factors related to sport
performance at the Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of
Sport.

"It’s obviously a very good marker, as most people with a Y chromosome
are male…but it’s not a perfect indicator."

For some people with DSD, the Y chromosome is not a fully formed typical
male Y chromosome. It may have some genetic material missing, damaged or
swapped with the X chromosome, depending on the variation.

When it comes to being male or female, what is usually crucial is a
specific gene called SRY - which stands for ‘sex-determining region of
the Y chromosome’.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko

2024-08-12 08:20:23 UTC

Dawkins?!? I'm honored and consider myself in great company! I use
that definition too! =) Great minds think alike, as the saying goes!

"Just looking at the presence of a Y chromosome on its own does not
answer the question of whether someone is male or female,â says Prof
Alun Williams, who researches genetic factors related to sport
performance at the Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of
Sport.
"Itâs obviously a very good marker, as most people with a Y chromosome
are maleâŠbut itâs not a perfect indicator."
For some people with DSD, the Y chromosome is not a fully formed typical
male Y chromosome. It may have some genetic material missing, damaged or
swapped with the X chromosome, depending on the variation.
When it comes to being male or female, what is usually crucial is a
specific gene called SRY - which stands for âsex-determining region of
the Y chromosomeâ.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko

I'll stick with Dawkins. =)

Richmond

2024-08-12 10:17:18 UTC

Dawkins?!? I'm honored and consider myself in great company! I use
that definition too! =) Great minds think alike, as the saying goes!

"Just looking at the presence of a Y chromosome on its own does not
answer the question of whether someone is male or female,” says Prof
Alun Williams, who researches genetic factors related to sport
performance at the Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of
Sport.
"It’s obviously a very good marker, as most people with a Y chromosome
are male…but it’s not a perfect indicator."
For some people with DSD, the Y chromosome is not a fully formed typical
male Y chromosome. It may have some genetic material missing, damaged or
swapped with the X chromosome, depending on the variation.
When it comes to being male or female, what is usually crucial is a
specific gene called SRY - which stands for ‘sex-determining region of
the Y chromosome’.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko

I'll stick with Dawkins. =)

Perhaps you could start a cult. ;]

2024-08-12 15:14:22 UTC

Dawkins?!? I'm honored and consider myself in great company! I use
that definition too! =) Great minds think alike, as the saying goes!

I'll stick with Dawkins. =)

Perhaps you could start a cult. ;]

Nah, the trans-cults are enough. I'll just stick to facts instead. ;)

Richmond

2024-08-12 18:09:27 UTC

Dawkins?!? I'm honored and consider myself in great company! I use
that definition too! =) Great minds think alike, as the saying goes!

"Just looking at the presence of a Y chromosome on its own does not
answer the question of whether someone is male or female,” says Prof
Alun Williams, who researches genetic factors related to sport
performance at the Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of
Sport.
"It’s obviously a very good marker, as most people with a Y chromosome
are male…but it’s not a perfect indicator."
For some people with DSD, the Y chromosome is not a fully formed typical
male Y chromosome. It may have some genetic material missing, damaged or
swapped with the X chromosome, depending on the variation.
When it comes to being male or female, what is usually crucial is a
specific gene called SRY - which stands for ‘sex-determining region of
the Y chromosome’.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko

I'll stick with Dawkins. =)

Perhaps you could start a cult. ;]

Nah, the trans-cults are enough. I'll just stick to facts instead. ;)

Not the facts in this case, as she wasn't trans, she was born female. Mr
Dawkins has gone all quiet on the matter.

2024-08-12 20:12:14 UTC

Dawkins?!? I'm honored and consider myself in great company! I use
that definition too! =) Great minds think alike, as the saying goes!

I'll stick with Dawkins. =)

Perhaps you could start a cult. ;]

Nah, the trans-cults are enough. I'll just stick to facts instead. ;)

Not the facts in this case, as she wasn't trans, she was born female. Mr
Dawkins has gone all quiet on the matter.

That's irrelevant.

oldernow

2024-08-07 15:41:01 UTC

Post by oldernow
Just sayin'.... ;-)

Show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender!

Sure. *Me*. But an entire religion has recently formed
around believers in chromosomal insignificance. How do
you plan to show *them*?

People were talking about gender long before chromosomes
were discovered, so I don't see why the definition of
gender has to be based on chromosomes. In fact there is
no way it could be.
But it is all just an argument about the meaning of words,
as usual.

Strong points/reminders.

--
Oh, for the love of signature silliness....

2024-08-07 02:04:27 UTC

Post by oldernow
Just sayin'.... ;-)

I think I once remember reading that it was thought
'fair' or 'allowed' for an ancient person at a Pankration
contest for them to poke a hole in their opponent's
abdomen and partially pull out their intestines.

I do not have a reference at the moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankration

oldernow

2024-08-07 15:41:36 UTC