[Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

It means "The Goonish Shive."

Moderators: DarkShive, corran_star, Berk

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby kyevan on Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:01 am

I'm posting at about 20090108T100000... unless I screwed up going from local time to UTC.
Image
Whee! Little Dragon! ^_^
User avatar
kyevan
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:30 am

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Illusionist on Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:05 am

I'm posting at about five past four. Just thought I'd post that for reference.
The book is almost always better than the movie. You could have no better case in point than FROM HELL, Alan Moore's best graphic novel to date, brilliantly illustrated by Eddie Campbell. It's hard to describe just how much better the book is. It's like, "If the movie was an episode of Battlestar Galactica with a guest appearance by the Smurfs and everyone spoke Dutch, the graphic novel is Citizen Kane with added sex scenes and music by your favourite ten bands and everyone in the world you ever hated dies at the end." That's how much better it is. - Warren Ellis.

Nobody ever told Picard that "Ye cannae change the laws of Physics!". They just DID it. - Vampiress Kat.
User avatar
Illusionist
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:26 am
Location: Probably not where I'm supposed to be

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby CatgirlGod on Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:14 pm

Aeg'air wrote:
CatgirlGod wrote:FerretBob wrote:
GLOMP get down to the newbe thread!
Been there but nothing happened. Guess my insanity was too much for this mortal forum. Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! :evilgrin:

Plus, I never wrote "FerretBob wrote". Unless a minion of mine did in my stead. It happens. :roll:
Deity, Chief Administrator of Catgirl Heaven
User avatar
CatgirlGod
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:02 am

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Melvar on Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:59 pm

I think we should revamp the whole calendar, anyway. First off, year begins at astronomical new year's: the vernal equinox of the northern hemisphere. Then we definetely want to get rid of those months of different lengths. We need to keep seven-day weeks, though, as it's been empirically shown that any other length won't work. We might get rid of months altogether and simply number weeks, where every year is 52 weeks and one weekless day long, with leap years having two weekless days, probably best inserted at the end. Alternatively, make 13 28-day months, which ends you up with the same one or two monthless days. Make the standard writing big-endian to make it nothing else than a mixed-base number of base ∞;53;7;24;60;60;10~ or ∞;14;28;24;60;60;10~ . For ease of reading, this may be rendered with each digit in one's personally preferred base, usually ten. That makes now, here, (assuming we keep the year as close as possible to the system now in use) roughly 2008/42/1-21:59:20 or 2008/10/15-21:59:20 depending on the system, with the dates zero-based like the times. This year use keeps the leap years calculatable as before: divisible by four∧(¬divisible by 100divisible by 400).
Any further good ideas are welcome.
||,'\'/=|,'|ıı|-|;-/;|,'|-y,',V;\_¯ıı=|;-|-|,¯\','/¦||ıı=_¯|;/;(-=|!==ıı|.|
User avatar
Melvar
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:08 am
Location: A huge data wave - isn't that where we all are? I mean, we're all surfing, right?

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Raging Mouse on Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:14 pm

While I applaud the mathematical logic of putting the biggest units to the left, I detest putting the most inconsequential units to daily use to the left. Year / date / time is a perfectly mathematical order... it just isn't very practical to read by humans.
User avatar
Raging Mouse
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:17 pm
Location: Finland

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Melvar on Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:22 pm

Raging Mouse wrote:While I applaud the mathematical logic of putting the biggest units to the left, I detest putting the most inconsequential units to daily use to the left. Year / date / time is a perfectly mathematical order... it just isn't very practical to read by humans.
Of course, you are free to drop the date entirely if it is inconsequential, has been established, or is supposed to be taken as the default value, just like we do with our current system. And this scheme is designed to be regular, not practical. Even for me, changing to it, thinking in it, would be an incredible effort, almost as difficult as trying to change your default base from ten to something more useful.
||,'\'/=|,'|ıı|-|;-/;|,'|-y,',V;\_¯ıı=|;-|-|,¯\','/¦||ıı=_¯|;/;(-=|!==ıı|.|
User avatar
Melvar
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:08 am
Location: A huge data wave - isn't that where we all are? I mean, we're all surfing, right?

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Tarvok on Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:27 pm

Base and calendars exist to serve humans. Abstraction serves nobody (unless it leads to a more usable concrete standard). Most of us do use base ten, which is useful since most of us have ten fingers, and we can use our fingers as a constantly ready calculating aid. However, for certain applications, certain people regularly use bases such as eight and (more commonly) sixteen, since it can be used to accurately represent base two values and calculations--necessary for all mechanical computing--in fewer symbols. The ancients, lacking a numerical symbol system much more advanced than a tally system, used 360 as a base, since you can do a lot of math with it without the aid of a place value system. Our counting systems serve us, and are not arbitrary or random.

It's the same thing with days and years. Our days must be solar, not sidereal, since our days serve the purpose of scheduling activities according to the light of the sun. If noon were anywhere but noon, it'd be useless to most humans. (And those who do need to use sidereal time, mainly astronomers, do so without interference.) Our years must also be solar, since the entire purpose of tracking a year as a unit is to plan according to seasonal variation... something Earthlings will ALWAYS do.

Months used to serve a purpose, I think, before people gained the ability to light the night by artificial means. One marked the passing of a month by the big parties that occurred under the moonlight. Today, of course, the month is more of a convenient grouping of a solar year into twelve divisions, since the moon doesn't really matter anymore.

Extrapolating from the principle that time units serve humans, and not the other way around, one can imagine what future time units could actually look like. For example: Mars.

I imagine Martian colonists would rather quickly abandon using the earth calendar except as a point of reference when dealing with the people from Earth. Their years would be longer. I don't know about their days. But I also imagine there being a time unit, observed on Mars and, to a lesser extent, on Earth (more as the Martian colony grows larger and has a greater impact on Earth's economy), which tracks the nearest passes between Earth and Mars. This is the time the largest number of ships come in bearing trade goods.

Expanding to a general interplanetary society, I imagine interplanetary shippers would eventually grow sufficiently tired of having to track numerous local time systems that they would devise one of their own. Perhaps for a time (perhaps for all time) this would be Earth standard (sort of like Greenwich Mean). Alternately, there could be some other regular natural feature which served even better for marking time for an interplanetary society... that the standard need not be purely an arbitrary result of historical accident.

Of course, once ships start going fast enough, you start to take relativistic effects into account. (Actually, don't they already do that for interplanetary probes?) I once pondered that the appropriate position for "zero" in measuring velocity was the speed of light... but I can't remember why. It's going to bother me all day now and I'll probably remember before the day is out. I may even have to start a new blog (or maybe just repurpose my old, defunct one) just to have a place to put it. But if one represents time in terms of an absolute velocity, rather than the other way around... the possibilities are intriguing, even though I can't figure out what they are just now.
To those who understand
I extend my hand
To the doubtful I demand
Take me as I am
User avatar
Tarvok
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Clovis, CA

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Tarvok on Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:27 pm

Base and calendars exist to serve humans. Abstraction serves nobody (unless it leads to a more usable concrete standard). Most of us do use base ten, which is useful since most of us have ten fingers, and we can use our fingers as a constantly ready calculating aid. However, for certain applications, certain people regularly use bases such as eight and (more commonly) sixteen, since it can be used to accurately represent base two values and calculations--necessary for all mechanical computing--in fewer symbols. The ancients, lacking a numerical symbol system much more advanced than a tally system, used 360 as a base, since you can do a lot of math with it without the aid of a place value system. Our counting systems serve us, and are not arbitrary or random.

It's the same thing with days and years. Our days must be solar, not sidereal, since our days serve the purpose of scheduling activities according to the light of the sun. If noon were anywhere but noon, it'd be useless to most humans. (And those who do need to use sidereal time, mainly astronomers, do so without interference.) Our years must also be solar, since the entire purpose of tracking a year as a unit is to plan according to seasonal variation... something Earthlings will ALWAYS do.

Months used to serve a purpose, I think, before people gained the ability to light the night by artificial means. One marked the passing of a month by the big parties that occurred under the moonlight. Today, of course, the month is more of a convenient grouping of a solar year into twelve divisions, since the moon doesn't really matter anymore.

Extrapolating from the principle that time units serve humans, and not the other way around, one can imagine what future time units could actually look like. For example: Mars.

I imagine Martian colonists would rather quickly abandon using the earth calendar except as a point of reference when dealing with the people from Earth. Their years would be longer. I don't know about their days. But I also imagine there being a time unit, observed on Mars and, to a lesser extent, on Earth (more as the Martian colony grows larger and has a greater impact on Earth's economy), which tracks the nearest passes between Earth and Mars. This is the time the largest number of ships come in bearing trade goods.

Expanding to a general interplanetary society, I imagine interplanetary shippers would eventually grow sufficiently tired of having to track numerous local time systems that they would devise one of their own. Perhaps for a time (perhaps for all time) this would be Earth standard (sort of like Greenwich Mean). Alternately, there could be some other regular natural feature which served even better for marking time for an interplanetary society... that the standard need not be purely an arbitrary result of historical accident.

Of course, once ships start going fast enough, you start to take relativistic effects into account. (Actually, don't they already do that for interplanetary probes?) I once pondered that the appropriate position for "zero" in measuring velocity was the speed of light... but I can't remember why. It's going to bother me all day now and I'll probably remember before the day is out. I may even have to start a new blog (or maybe just repurpose my old, defunct one) just to have a place to put it. But if one represents time in terms of an absolute velocity, rather than the other way around... the possibilities are intriguing, even though I can't figure out what they are just now.
User avatar
Tarvok
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Clovis, CA

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby ForkBomb on Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:10 pm

The current system is the most annoying thing ever. (If you assume UTC is "the common every-day system").
A second is defined. A minute is 59-61 seconds. Everything else is based off that dodgy minute count, until you get variable length month, variable length years, and all of those are based off that dodgy minute.
UTC gets "corrected" to account for variation between UT1(solar) and TAI(atomic, only one that's constant), so you end up either with time running backwards, time being skipped, time standing still, or a second, the only unit that's "constant", changing length.
The entire system is screwed, and needs a revamp. The problem is, TAI and UT1 will never be in sync, so we will always have leap seconds, leap years, and leap everything else. Which then screw everything else in turn.
User avatar
ForkBomb
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:00 am

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Tarvok on Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:44 pm

It's only screwed up if you insist upon thinking of it as a single contiguous system which fails at being a single contiguous system. I think of it as multiple systems that serve multiple purposes, that can be converted between one another if necessary.

A year may be roughly convertible to 365 days... but it IS equal to the time from solstice to solstice. Months are merely convenient groupings of days within a 12 month year, since it's easier to remember which day it is out of twenty-eight to thirty-one than it is to remember which day it is out of 365. And weeks... I have a feeling those are deeply rooted in basic truths of the human psyche. A day may be roughly convertible to 24 hours (as based upon the nuclear decay defined second, rather than a second as an angle measure), but it IS from sunrise to sunrise (or sunset to sunset, as you prefer). Smaller timing is dependent upon shorter measurable phenomena, since electronic equipment requires accurate timing for its own purposes. To your computer (and whatever was responsible for compiling the assembly code or, more important, the binary), years, hours, minutes and seconds are meaningless (except with regard to the UI). What matters is the pulse of the internal clock.

Time is a personal phenomenon. One application of time measurement must synchronize with one natural phenomenon; the other with another... and these natural phenomena do not synchronize. To demand a rational, universal expression of time measurement is to demand an Aristotelian universe... but we do not live in one. However it is possible to have precise expressions for particular purposes... and these precise expressions do exist, as I detailed in the last paragraph.

Heh, I have a feeling this post is more tangential than is either normal even for this forum, or even polite. But this subject is of unending fascination to me.
To those who understand
I extend my hand
To the doubtful I demand
Take me as I am
User avatar
Tarvok
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Clovis, CA

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Melvar on Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:00 pm

I have been thinking about this for some time. A universal system, that is one to compare all others to, would be defined exclusively using the universal constants. I've never really pursued that, though. (The Mars year is, by the way, I think, roughly twice as long as the earth year, while the Mars day is, with the same qualifiers, roughly forty minutes longer than Earth's.)
The most useful base is probably not ten, because of its low ratio of nontrivial divisors to self (1/5). Twelve is of similar magnitude, yet has a much higher such ratio (1/3). It might well be useful in certain contexts. The only difficulty would be switching to it. Nobody counts on their fingers anymore, and if anyone does, they at least use hands for digits of base six, rather than two hands for some base >10. The most effective, but motorically most difficult system is, of course, binary, using digits for digits (using both meanings of digit). I don't know of anything that makes base ten more useful than base twelve or fourteen.
Since time itself is not constant, and I don't want to get into breaking relativity here, we keep the definition of time ol' Albert gave us and stay away from the speed of light.
Please excuse my random rambling, it's the middle of the night.
||,'\'/=|,'|ıı|-|;-/;|,'|-y,',V;\_¯ıı=|;-|-|,¯\','/¦||ıı=_¯|;/;(-=|!==ıı|.|
User avatar
Melvar
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:08 am
Location: A huge data wave - isn't that where we all are? I mean, we're all surfing, right?

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby ForkBomb on Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:06 am

Tarvok wrote:A year may be roughly convertible to 365 days... but it IS equal to the time from solstice to solstice.

Is it? And how long is that? It changes year from year.

Tarvok wrote:Months are merely convenient groupings of days within a 12 month year, since it's easier to remember which day it is out of twenty-eight to thirty-one than it is to remember which day it is out of 365.

Months were added by Roman emperors for vanity, august by Augustine, july by Julius Caesar, and I think a couple of others too. There's no planning behind the number.

Tarvok wrote:And weeks... I have a feeling those are deeply rooted in basic truths of the human psyche.

Look in the bible, 6 days of work then then Sabbath, where you can't work.

Tarvok wrote:A day may be roughly convertible to 24 hours (as based upon the nuclear decay defined second, rather than a second as an angle measure), but it IS from sunrise to sunrise (or sunset to sunset, as you prefer).

Again, solar days change length from day to day. And while a second is defined, a minute is 59-61, so therefore hours are also variable.

Tarvok wrote:Smaller timing is dependent upon shorter measurable phenomena, since electronic equipment requires accurate timing for its own purposes. To your computer (and whatever was responsible for compiling the assembly code or, more important, the binary), years, hours, minutes and seconds are meaningless (except with regard to the UI). What matters is the pulse of the internal clock.

My computer runs on seconds and nanoseconds, the internal clock is too cheap to use for anything. The kernel has to constantly compensate for random drift in the internal clock, if you went purely by the internal clock then one second would be longer than the next. (Which is bad).

It seems to me that all your definitions are only valid for UT1, the problem is we can't measure that, there's a network of observatory's that work out what it was
and how far off we were, but otherwise if I want to know what UT1 is right now, I cant.
User avatar
ForkBomb
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:00 am

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby ChronosCat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:22 am

"Big endian" has always seemed to make the most sense to me - to the point that when I'm dating something for my personal use I always use that.

ForkBomb wrote:
Tarvok wrote:And weeks... I have a feeling those are deeply rooted in basic truths of the human psyche.

Look in the bible, 6 days of work then then Sabbath, where you can't work.


Which proves the 7-day week has been around a very long time. However, even if you believe the Bible to be literally true, it doesn't tell us everything about why we should have 7 day weeks. Genesis says we should use them in honor of God's creation of the Earth over the same length of time - it says nothing about the fact that if you don't care about that and try a different length week, it isn't likely to work for you.
Reverse-Gendered for Sister II! (Call me "Crystal"!)
Current form: blue anthro tigress
Equipped Items: TF Gun, Diamond Katana
Inventory
Image Image

Click the nifty little globe icon to the right to check out my website.
User avatar
ChronosCat
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:45 am
Location: the timestream

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Tarvok on Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:59 pm

ForkBomb wrote:
Tarvok wrote:A year may be roughly convertible to 365 days... but it IS equal to the time from solstice to solstice.

Is it? And how long is that? It changes year from year.

Exactly!

ForkBomb wrote:
Tarvok wrote:Months are merely convenient groupings of days within a 12 month year, since it's easier to remember which day it is out of twenty-eight to thirty-one than it is to remember which day it is out of 365.

Months were added by Roman emperors for vanity, august by Augustine, july by Julius Caesar, and I think a couple of others too. There's no planning behind the number.

Yup. Months are a historical accident, though they once represented the passage of the moon.

ForkBomb wrote:
Tarvok wrote:And weeks... I have a feeling those are deeply rooted in basic truths of the human psyche.

Look in the bible, 6 days of work then then Sabbath, where you can't work.

Well, yeah. That's the biblical explanation. But that isn't any more literally true than any other part of the creation account.

Actually, this reminds me of a question I hope someone can answer... but I've never found an answer. Are there other cultures that have their smallest grouping of days (whatever they call it) be other than seven? Like, to the Chinese have a five-day week, or anything like that? (Revolutionary France's ten-day week was, of course, a colossal failure.)

ForkBomb wrote:
Tarvok wrote:A day may be roughly convertible to 24 hours (as based upon the nuclear decay defined second, rather than a second as an angle measure), but it IS from sunrise to sunrise (or sunset to sunset, as you prefer).

Again, solar days change length from day to day. And while a second is defined, a minute is 59-61, so therefore hours are also variable.

Again, exactly. We have to keep altering the conversion to account for this, because otherwise, we'd end up with clocks more worthless than those medieval calendars that had the new year constantly drifting through the seasons. The freezing of the new year at an arbitrary point in winter is probably a historical accident. (Another possibility is that the calendar makers decided to use the start of the first month after the winter solstice.) It used to be celebrated on the vernal equinox (or rather the start of the month following the vernal equinox). There was a time when both were observed by different people. Those who celebrated a spring new year were called "April Fools."

<computer clock stuff snipped since I realize I don't know what I'm talking about in that area)

ForkBomb wrote:It seems to me that all your definitions are only valid for UT1, the problem is we can't measure that, there's a network of observatory's that work out what it was
and how far off we were, but otherwise if I want to know what UT1 is right now, I cant.


I don't know about official bureaucratic convention. All I know is there's no way they could get away with unhinging either the year or the day from their solar definition, and there's a very good reason for that.
To those who understand
I extend my hand
To the doubtful I demand
Take me as I am
User avatar
Tarvok
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Clovis, CA

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Proginoskes on Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:17 pm

Melvar wrote:Nobody counts on their fingers anymore, and if anyone does, they at least use hands for digits of base six, rather than two hands for some base >10. The most effective, but motorically most difficult system is, of course, binary, using digits for digits (using both meanings of digit). I don't know of anything that makes base ten more useful than base twelve or fourteen.

People do count on their fingers, and to do so they literally count their fingers. It is an abasal system, and doesn't involve numeric digits in any way. Do you hold up one finger on each hand if you want to communicate "Seven" across the room without shouting, or do you hold up five fingers on one hand and two on the other?
The problem with using digits for bits is of course 100 (four). Consider that each hand has five digits. A hand-byte therefore has five bits. Four would therefore be represented as 00100.
Call me Prodiraskes.
Is there any way to have inline fixed-width text in BBCode?
Favourite EGS:NP Headline: Uryuomoco Bill: Illegal to Have Non-Translated Signs?
User avatar
Proginoskes
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: When you're Canadian, you're from… Canadia?

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Tarvok on Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:10 pm

Proginoskes wrote:The problem with using digits for bits is of course 100 (four). Consider that each hand has five digits. A hand-byte therefore has five bits. Four would therefore be represented as 00100.


Yeah?! Well same to you, buddy! :evil:

:lol:
To those who understand
I extend my hand
To the doubtful I demand
Take me as I am
User avatar
Tarvok
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Clovis, CA

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Melvar on Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:16 pm

Proginoskes wrote:The problem with using digits for bits is of course 100 (four). Consider that each hand has five digits. A hand-byte therefore has five bits. Four would therefore be represented as 00100.
You are far from the first to think of that: http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/generic/6a20/ and I think it's nonsense beyond the joke.
And I communicate across a room, if not by voice, by chat or some other help. I hardly ever count beyond one hand on my fingers. A natural series works just as well for single values, has better range and does not require fingers. The time to use fingers comes with two separate values, for which natural series are difficult to use. Then, of course, it becomes impossible to count beyond one hand anyway.
[mustard]A five-bit word is sometimes called a nickle, as a byte is nowadays not absolutely but pretty strictly defined to eight bits.[/mustard]
||,'\'/=|,'|ıı|-|;-/;|,'|-y,',V;\_¯ıı=|;-|-|,¯\','/¦||ıı=_¯|;/;(-=|!==ıı|.|
User avatar
Melvar
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:08 am
Location: A huge data wave - isn't that where we all are? I mean, we're all surfing, right?

Re: [Filler 1/6/09] Wise old Owl

Postby Proginoskes on Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:54 pm

Melvar wrote:You are far from the first to think of that: http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/generic/6a20/ and I think it's nonsense beyond the joke.

[mustard]A five-bit word is sometimes called a nickle, as a byte is nowadays not absolutely but pretty strictly defined to eight bits.[/mustard]

I got it from The Jargon File, specifically, this entry.
A word, in my opinion, should always refer to an integer number of bytes. Modern 32-bit processors deal with words of four 8-bit bytes, like 0xDEADBEEF ({11011110, 10101101, 10111110, 11101111}). This entry in the Jargon File does list "nickle" for 5 bits, though.
Call me Prodiraskes.
Is there any way to have inline fixed-width text in BBCode?
Favourite EGS:NP Headline: Uryuomoco Bill: Illegal to Have Non-Translated Signs?
User avatar
Proginoskes
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: When you're Canadian, you're from… Canadia?

 
Previous

Return to El Goonish Shive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests