Friday, January 25, 2008

Prokofy Neva vs. Woodbury University

Late last night the infamous Prokofy Neva posted a mega post over at Second Thoughts over an intervention Linden Lab performed. This is bound to create another stir in the community.

Here's the short version:

Prokofy has long faught the presence of griefers in Second Life. Whereas some (including Wired magazine) approached them pretty naively, Prokofy (rightfully) saw these anarchists as a threat to a civil metaversal society. In 2007 the Woodbury University was taken off the grid, suspect of facilitating griefer activities. Ever since Prokofy claims to have been haunted, stalked and harassed by MC Fizgig, the alt of a Woodbury professor. Now Prokofy found out the Woodbury Griefers moved in next door...

"Land bought in Furness next door to me in Ravenglass for the sole purpose of harassing me and my tenants has been confiscated by LL, in a move which some might find as suspect and controversial, but others might see as part of a growing willingness by Linden Lab to leave their hippie anarcho-capitalist technolibertarian days, and become a more established business determined to make a grid viable for civil society online."

The bottom line:

"For once, they've (LL) responded within 24 hours, and responded very decisively in a way which is sure to raise controversy..."

Because of Prokofy Neva's reputation it didn't take long for the first insinuating posts have started to appear on the Second Life Herald and Your2ndPlace.

The SLH speculates in FIC Tables Turned - Ex-Critic Crows About LL Land Seizure that Prokofy apparantly has some tie-ins with Linden Lab and thus becoming part of the FIC (Feted Inner Core -- the group of alledged Linden Lab adorers which receive friendly favors of the powers that be) Prokofy has so assidiously fought over the past year.

Your2ndPlace also speculates on the same issue:

"But for the topic at hand - if she claimed that she had something to do with someone having their land taken from them and banned, even by innuendo, she's claiming the power that she accuses others of having. If she didn't say that,
then Shaun Altman is a liar - as are a few other people I have communicated with. And if she said it and actually had something to do with it, well, the latter would explain why Prokofy Neva has lead such a charmed Second Life."

Both these reports are based on Shaun Altman writing:

"Prokofy Neva went on to inform me that the avatar who purchased this land had been banned from Second Life, after the seizure of the avatar's property (land) by Linden Lab. He then asked me a very chilling question. I didn't log it, so I can't quote it verbatim, but it was directly along the lines of, "Do you see what I can get done if I want to?".

The issue here is in Shaun's last line: What's stirring up the fuzz is:

"Do you see what I can get done if I want to?".

The weakest link here is:

"I didn't log it, so I can't quote it verbatim,"

Now, I don't have all the evidence at hand, but here's a number of thoughts which have crossed my mind:

  1. There have been suspicious activities at Woodbury in the past. Evidence seems solid enough to justify the removal of the sim from a legal point of view when looking at the ToC.
  2. Where possible, action should be undertaken against griefers. Although they can perform very little actual damage, they are a threat. They will hamper growth in qunatity as well as quality.
  3. I personally it is a bit overdone to call the whole scene a "Woodbury Conspiracy", but I can imagine griefers not being happy over expulsion and stalking the person responsible for their exposure.
  4. Based upon Prokofy Neva's narrative of the situation, Linden Lab has taken a rightfull decision. When this is going to cause havok, I hope LL does have some unbiased evidence to support their case.
  5. The sole reason for the SLH, Your2ndPlace and Shaun Altman blowing this skyhigh is Prokofy's reputation. I'd rather see them try to figure out facts - though must admit

    "Do you see what I can get done if I want to?"
    is an interesting line. I do have some thoughts there, but won't articulate them yet as they are thoughts, not facts.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


Anonymous Nobody Fugazi said...

I'm really, really not too believing when it comes to Prokofy Neva. If people based their opinions of me on the tripe she has written, they would think I am bent on world domination, that I am a socialist, that I am an Extropian...

None of these apply. Frankly, she's been going out of her way to bait people who stay away from her.

Why would I think that Woodbury students and faculty are not so different? Had she not been attacking me - without provocation - for over a year now, I might say that she is right. But she quotes things out of context, tosses random facts into a meandering stream of thought (which I think a medical professional would have a lot of fun with), and is generally disruptive.

In other words, she doesn't have 0 credibility with me. She has negative credibility with me, as well as other people who she has attacked without provocation in the past.

I *am* waiting to hear back from the professor who was allegedly banned. The professor hasn't graced me with a response yet, which could mean many different things. But knowing as little as I do about the situation, I have to wonder if Prok will buy that land to expand her bit of mainland holdings.

So, in the end, Prok's falling on the sword of her own credibility right now. Based on how many times she has misrepresented others, including myself, her credibility is shot.

Its Newton's Third Law. And its also "the little Prok that cried wolf". Heard it too many times. When she stops writing, I will know the wolf got her.

Expect a long diatribe response from her to my comment. She follows me. :-)

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:42:00 PM  
Blogger VeeJay Burns said...

If she (mind you) really said what Shaun wrote, we have an interesting situation.

What I do know that she's often right, despite the tone of voice she uses. She's written stuff about me, that weren't 100% spot on everytime, but sometimes she has shown me I was contradicting myself as well. So as long as there's no hard fact she's lying, I won't write so.

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:47:00 PM  
Blogger Digado said...

The blurbs Prokofy spits out are so subjective you can often read them as a hit or miss, depending on your point of view. I've red some topics I agree on, like the furry thing in the JIRA management, and a lot of stuff that just misses the target completely. There is rarely any 'fact' to her posts - which is fine, makes for an entertaining read - but definitely not the most reliable source of info (like the bank thing...)

Her own contradictions are plenty as well, and really undermines her case. Count the times she has been crying over 'freedom' or things turning into 'communism' while as it turns out she is working around the clock to restrict others (though maybe rightfully so - I won't make a call on that)

Besides - the provocative act is kind of... well, old.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 1:44:00 AM  
Blogger dyerbrookME said...

VJay, you've misquoted me, and in fact, the reason why I have such a very long post is because the issue is complex, and requires a lot of back story and explanations.

I haven't claimed that the avatar MC Fizgig per se has a long history of stalking of me -- that's not how it works. If anything, he's been rarely active in SL and just doesn't tend to appear at all. He appears to be a kind of mule account holding the groups and property. This is the account used to buy the land next to me to harass and provoke me. And this is the avatar who says he is administrator of Woodbury. So we have to take it on its word.

And Dr. Edward Clift *did* take resposibility as owner of the account in his interview with the Herald here:

And he's never denied that he *is* MC Fizgig. MC Fizgig is listed as the chair of the department and the head of the project. So it does indeed appear that he is coterminous with the RL Clift, and should be made to take responsibility for his account.

One of the goons, Alyx Stoklitsky, keeps lying and distracting and throwing people off the scent by saying suddenly, well into a year of this, that MC Fizgig is Tizzer Foxchase's alt -- Tizzers is now permanently banned.

But Clift acknowledged in the Herald it's him -- MC Fizgig -- and until now, we've never heard this "alt of Tizzers stud".

Perhaps Stoklitsky means to say "MC Fizgig's account is hacked, or is a group account being misused." But that's not what he's saying -- he's now implying "it's an alt of Tizzers".

The thrust of the allegations of Shaun Altman, Nobody Fugazi, and the Herald are that I have gone against my long-time reputation as a stern critic of SL and the FIC, the privileged class of SL, by surreptiously joining them and seeking favours for my land business, and even gloating about it.

But that's all damned lies and nonsense. I've published the transcript in question that Shaun doesn't remember -- and doesn't remember likely because HE is the one who gloated in it, not me, exclaiming "Did you do that?" as if there were Lindens at my beck and call and then exclaiming, "Sweet" when informed of the seizure of the land by Governor Linden.

I didn't gloat, or claim special favours. I said as follows:

You: Ok you were here last night correct?
You: remember what was on that parcel?
Shaun Altman: I do
You: now look at it, and its new owner
Shaun Altman: a tower
Shaun Altman: yes I see that
Shaun Altman: did u do that? :)
You: when I need to get something done, I get it done
Shaun Altman: Sweet

The reason I TP'd Shaun wasn't to "victory dance" -- people project on me what they themselves do. It wasn't to gloat. It was to show exactly what I said: when I need to get something done, I get it done.

I stayed up well past 4 in the morning and spent more than an hour or two filing abuse reports on each and every one of the people on that parcel, and writing the university administrators.

I don't see any other SL bloggers or news sources bothering to do this simple thing: going over Clift's head. I've done that, and I got an answer.

The reason I TP'd in Shaun was to sternly point out to him that his flirting with griefers and spending time hanging out with them -- which he has been doing for months -- is way out of line, because it has serious consequences.

He had already had a falling out with me before that, and was TP'd in by THEM the night they were all griefing because he's been hanging out with them all and enjoying the harassment of me by them.

Shaun has been both simultaneously brutally attacked by these griefers on alts lately, merely as a public figure, and a public figure ostensibly trying to bail out the banks (I have some big questions about this), but he's also been foolish enough to be flattered into befriending some of them on their mains like Windowlic Klaar, who is toying with him by pretending he's not a griefer, while still being a b/tard, and can help Shaun become protected by griefers.

Shaun has repeatedly sent me forced TP requests to join him partying with Windowlic, which I've resolutely avoided, explaining each time that Windowlic is a frequent trespasser on my land and a harasser who is banned, and I don't pretend that such types are now suddenly "rehabilitated" and you can come and have long philosophical conversations with them.

How do I know that Windowlic, AtOmic and all those other characters are griefers? Because they repeatedly come on my properites and harass me and my tenants. They join my open group, which of course they *can* do, and sport the "Ravenglass Tenant" title though they aren't tenants. They fly around, and annoy. They make comments, and taunts, and when you ban them from one parcel, they settle like fleas on another, one by one, being banned, until they infest a Linden road from which they can't be banned, and continue to taunt.

Anybody watching these antics for 2 years as I have, and especially with the Woodbury goons in the last year, wouldn't have a problem seeing what's really up: these people are lying and maliciously playing a game, pretending to be innocent, while perpetrating more serious griefing on anonymous alts, and trying to skirt the TOS to be annoying. People who are innocent students who are just may be a little frisky now and then don't keep coming to land from which they are banned, and even trying to buy near it and build a grief tower. Come on people, smarten up here.

I think most of the people covering this just don't have enough of the story, haven't watched the story closely enough or long enough, and just don't understand how Leninist-style terrorism works. It works by the Big Lie. It constantly lies and distracts from itself. It constantly tries to attach itself to other movements that work for a higher good, i.e. against poverty. It constantly infiltrates, distracts, subverts, denies, prevaricates, etc.

The goal of the Woodbury goons has been trying to attach the subverting movement of their terrorism and annoying anarchic antics to movements appearing to be for academic freedom, an end to discrimination against minorities, civil liberties, etc. That's the tactic, to try to keep everyone tied up in knots thumbsucking about their rights, as they maliciously go on using violence on everyone.

What I find inexusable is that nobody is keeping up with the latest chapter here. Fugazi is stubbornly refusing to admit that we already have an answer from Dr. Rosen noting on my blog that these people DO NOT have the right to rent or buy land and represent Woodbury! Hello? Where is his admission that we now *have* this answer, and that the Lindens have acted properly.

The Lindens aren't even reacting so much to my abuse report, although that helped them notice what was happening, because all they are doing is behaving like a credit card company putting a halt on a card that someone calls in and says was stolen and is being used fraudulently.

Nobody is still waiting for an answer from the professor who himsef is in on it:

Read the damn history to this, people, and smarten up.

Nobody introduces a lot of extraneous rantings here, sidestepping his actual association with Extropian and socialist causes, abusively invoking the need for mental professionals and all the rest.

I fail to see what sort of sword-falling would be needed here. I spent a year abuse reporting these people, with little result. The Lindens were especially cynical and mean to me, basically saying that groups that mock me, make a fake alt out of my real life name, make puppets of my real-life self, make fake fan groups of me -- these are all allowable under notions of civil libertarianism *even if they damage my property and cause me to lose money*. That's wrong.

But by sticking to my guns, I think I've established that I'm entitled to equal protection under the law like anyone and don't deserve to be griefed and stalked and harassed just because I'm a controversial public figure. Perhaps not -- maybe the Lindens only seized the land on some narrow technical grounds. But they do have to think carefully what they will do next -- will they allow these people to keep stalking me and risk their reputations as keepers of the peace?

I don't gloat if somebody is removed from Second Life. I do not advocate the seizure of land or the removal from Second Life of these people on some arbitrary whim involving me and my rentals. I advocate for the enforcement of the TOS to punish them justly for harassing me and forcing my tenants to move out.

I very distinctly and clearly have lost tenants because Tizzers Foxchange, Blak Haz, and any number of idiots from this group have flown around, buzzed, trespassed, taunted...suspiciously near the times when sims would crash and other day-old alts would unleash absolutely horrendous texture particle attacks.

Finally, I find it fascinating that everyone is so concerned that I uphold my reputation as a critic of Linden Lab, and a critic of those who seem to gain privileges from the Lab, and not compromise myself.

You're all happy to have *me* bear the weight of this social task, while you don't lift a finger to make sure these two things happen *yourselves*.

Prokofy Neva

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:03:00 PM  
Blogger dyerbrookME said...

Digado is a very young kid who is ferociously eager to conform to the tribal dictates and fit in, and belong, and is neuralgically fearful of criticsm, as I've established a few times with comments on his blog.

His notion that I go around calling for restrictions of others is utterly unsupported. I think when kids babble like that, they really need to be called on by the owner of the blog to support their claims.

Please list examples of when I have called on other people in SL to be restricted.

Calling for the enforcement of the existing TOS against ad farms, for example, wouldn't count on "restricting" others as it is an existing TOs restriction.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:05:00 PM  
Blogger dyerbrookME said...

"Do you see what I can get done if I want to?"is an interesting line. I do have some thoughts there, but won't articulate them yet as they are thoughts, not facts.

Um, why not articulate your facts here, VJay?

You seem to be keen as anybody that I go on playing the role of righteous one in SL, living a crystaline pure life, criticizing every move of LL's, and railing against the privileged, and never sucking up to the Lab or becoming one of the privileged.

So that's admirable, VJay, that you hold such high regard for such a social role - a high regard that we can see underpinning the rantings of Shaun, the Herald, and Nobody. Each and every one of them thinks at some deep level that the Lab should have its critics, there shouldn't be any privileged people (the Herald and Fugazi are very big on this; Shaun is suspect entirely here as a member of the elitist SL Views and a select provider of content to Linden sims).

So, is this a case of your heroes having clay feet, of Homer nodding? Has Prokofy *gasp* joined the privileged elite, getting the Lindens to do his bidding in the middle of the night, confiscating sims of people he hates with ugly builds *gasp* and then gloating and showing off to his friends that he can do such powerful things?

Please. I've provided the background, take it or leave it. I don't "gloat" and "victory dance" if the TOS is enforced, after trying to get it enforced. I'm relieved so that I don't have to suffer business loss. Or did you think it was ok for me to lose about $350 US from the severe griefing storm I put up with fro these people for 6 months last fall? (as did many others, prompting the Lindens to finally change some of the ways in which they dealt with these people, and greatly improving response time and mitigation).

I didn't urge Linden Lab to seize any land, nor do I have any special ins with any Lindens to achieve such a thing.

If I did, I'd remove a fake domain-squatting malicious use of my real-life name by these people on an SL avatar; I'd remove a malicious griefing group claiming to be a fan group of mine; I'd remove puppets they make and distribute using my real-life self as a model (disclosure) -- hey, I'd do lots of things.

I can't even get a big megaprim picture of me they put up in an infohub on friggin' *Linden Lab* using a malicious anti-autoreturn holding script!

I think you just don't have any idea of the big picture here, VJay.

Have all your little thoughts. Imagine that I am philistine, hypocritical, weak, subject to the whims of gloating and malice like any Second Lifer. That's fine. I really don't care.

I meant what I said to Shaun Altman: see what I can get done when I need to.

I need to protect my land and my tenants from griefing. I need it more than Linden Lab, that doesn't care who pays their tier, as long as the accounts keep churning and they get in the news. I realize Linden Lab takes terrible advantageous of sincere people like me, and that they are cynical.

Still, their profession of intent to enforce a TOS and to combat griefing has to be taken at face value.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:14:00 PM  
Blogger dyerbrookME said...

Also, VJay, you're doing something rather suspect here in not telling the full story of what Fugazi has done in a very dirty fashion: called me a paid police agent of Linden Lab.

That's about over the top. But hey, I've sent off a letter to my super-friend Robin Linden demanding to know where my paychecks are as there must be a misunderstanding: I get bills, not paychecks from these people.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:15:00 PM  
Blogger dyerbrookME said...

Sorry to have to keep clogging up your blog with posts, but when people lie about me, I have to put in rebuttals:

"But knowing as little as I do about the situation, I have to wonder if Prok will buy that land to expand her bit of mainland holdings."

The land was for sale in this sim, the last parcel on the sim, for many months, at something like $16 or $18 or more a meter, and it just wasn't worth it to me to buy the view in that fashion. My land on that sim is all rented out now, I have enough land in those 4 sims, and it didn't make sense to buy one more parcel at that price, when I could buy double that somewhere else and diversify my holdings.

If it is permanently seized and put back on the auction, it could well be seized upon by these griefers as an item for malicious gleeful sport, and they may be prepared, or Intlibber may be prepared, to spend wildly on bidding it up. So I will ignore it. They can do what they like, it will be abuse reported.

The real administrators of real Woodbury University wouldn't have picked this particular parcel next to me in order to deliberately grief me. So if they really are looking for a parcel in SL, they will likely look elsewhere.

Nobody, because he's an insecure little busybody, imagines that I'm motivated by wannabee land baron and wantrepreneurial ambitions like himself. But i'm not. My business is small in the SL scheme of things, and miniscule by RL standards.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:28:00 PM  
Blogger VeeJay Burns said...

"The blurbs Prokofy spits out are so subjective you can often read them as a hit or miss, depending on your point of view."

Rick, I can't judge other situations than my own encounters with Prokofy. I often diasgree, and she often proved me wrong, but usually she has a point and I have never caught a lie.

"Do you see what I can get done if I want to?"is an interesting line. I do have some thoughts there, but won't articulate them yet as they are thoughts, not facts.

Um, why not articulate your facts here, VJay?

Prokofy, my thoughts were along the lines that you had clear evidence, put in an abuse report and was sure you were in your right, but in the spur of the (emotional) moment you just put it to words badly.

However, I donot have an exact transcript of your conversation, so I won't speculate any further.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:44:00 PM  
Blogger Digado said...

@Prokofy - You recently posted about your 'rules' on your blog - The ability to not comment anonymously, is certainly a restriction. I never did it - but I can think of people with things to say who don't want their name associated with your rants.

Your crusade against adfarmers - They are annoying as hell, but if you succeed you are restricting their way of doing (at this moment) legitimate business. Another restriction.

Getting other peoples land reclaimed and banning of avatars - Banning and removal of land sounds pretty restrictive to me for a group of avatars. This may or may not be done rightfully so (your poll on your own blog is even rather indecisive) - But I really couldn't care less.

Just to name a few 'facts to support my claim'.

You might see a pattern here. SL is not Prokofyworld. Just because you think it's the right decision doesn't make it any less restrictive to others. You are just acting as a little dictator on mainland and call communism on everything else.

@Veejay - As I said 'Hit or miss depending on point of view'. Its not lies, its assumptions meant to provoke like I did above. When they turn out to be otherwise - it was just a matter of 'all the 'facts' pointed to that direction'. Subjective.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 4:11:00 PM  
Blogger dyerbrookME said...

VJ, are you being deliberately stubborn here? Here is the transcript of what I said *again* -- I really have no reason to tamper with it:

You: Ok you were here last night correct?
You: remember what was on that parcel?
Shaun Altman: I do
You: now look at it, and its new owner
Shaun Altman: a tower
Shaun Altman: yes I see that
Shaun Altman: did u do that? :)
You: when I need to get something done, I get it done
Shaun Altman: Sweet

Do you see any gloating or victory-dancing or smugness about Linden connections here?

Not from me. You see *Shaun* marvelling and gloating -- saying "Sweet" over this, and saying "did you do this" as if that was my point.

It was not, as I explained.

Was this some kind of emotional and poor choice of words?


No. It's a statement: this *is* what I can do when I need do. So watch out. Because when you abuse report people and have a good case, justice *will* triumph.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:21:00 PM  
Blogger dyerbrookME said...

Digado, I've already dealt with your blind fury and terribly comformist take on things before on my blog, but let me set you straight again:

1. The rules on my blog were put into place not just "recently," they were only *reminded of* recently -- they were put into place more than a year ago when I was stalked at home and telephoned in real life and the stalker even talked to my child. So yeah, I make rules, and they are good rules, about not causing me harm.

2. Most people do whatever they feel like on their blog, erasing or moderating at a whim. I do not. I make rules to which you and me are both subjected.

You don't do that. You work on a whim. You say, "I'll let you speak here if you promise to be polite and constructive" -- which is the most subjective thing in the universe. Sorry, you lose on this one. You're the one with whim and caprice and abusive -- I'm the one with rules that make sense and enable people to have a free discussion. You're the one with restrictions -- I'm far less restrictive than any blog I know, even the Herald, which routinely deletes on a whim these days.

If somebody wants to anonymously attack me, they can do it on their blogs. I don't need to support it.
That's not "restriction," when it's the norm on every blog to stop comments that people don't like, and I don't stop comments UNLESS they are anonymous and/or incite harm. So try to understand the distinctions -- you're trolling, basically, with this one, expecting me to be somehow more free than any other blog in the SLogosphere -- when in fact I am, because every single other blog, forums, site, *at a whim* bans people and erases content.

I make *rules* and follow them, for when content should be removed so as to prevent the violent anonymous from stopping discussion.

I'm sorry, I won't have debates with people who use nicks to bully and harass me and then even call me at home in real life. Let them *take responsibility* for their hatred. THEN they can publish it.

2. As I already noted, my crusade against ad farms is a crusade for the rule of law. The market is not free or fair when one tiny set of aggressive extortionists are able to use crime to gain money out of others. That's criminality taking over freedom, and restricting crime is not ending freedom, it's preserving it.

The TOS says you cannot spam or interfere with the enjoyment of Second Life. That is what happens with these extortionists trying to spam up sims and force people to buy the view. It's criminal, not cultural.

3. I see that you fail, again, to understand what *the rule of law* is. You're young, you're raised by the Internet with no internal morality or sense of real-life law, either, but whatever you and your fierce tribal mates create.

So let me explain once again: under the TOS, using the abuse report mechanism, I reported people who have a long history of attacking me, crashing my sims, harassing my tenants, and causing damages. That's fine. That's MORE than fine. That's the law. I *have* to do that to protect my tenants under their leases who have a right to enjoy their rentals as much as I have a right to enjoy the use of my property without harassment, crashing, or hate campaigns.

It's fine to report people who violate the TOS when they move in to harass you.

The Lindens removed this land because they were able to discover that it was being illegitimately used, not with the oversight of Woodbury, evidently, but they also had every reason to ban people who persisted in engaging in the same behaviour for which they had already been banned numerous times, on mains and alts, and had their land confiscated, with no involvement from me, when they crashed sims and harassed people.

Asking that the Lindens uphold the rule of law so that we don't have to be victimized by harassment and having sims crashed is all about protecting freedom, Digago. You need to contemplate more what goes into maintaining your entitlement-happy lifestyle on the Internet. It's people willing to uphold the RULE OF LAW.

That means that people repeatedly breaking basic virtual or real life law -- harassing, destroying property -- are punished. That's ok. You can't have an absolute extremist freedom as you imagine and then not create restrictions for everybody else!

When my sim is crashed, when I am crushed under a megaprim with my RL picture on it forcing my tenants to leave, whose being restricted, Digago?

*I* am being restricted. My call for restraint of THAT is not "calling for restrictions" in some whimsical, tyrannical way. It's calling for the rule of law so that we can all have the freedom to enjoy Second Life.

So, sorry, but none of your "facts" support your claim. You imply that I place unjust and unwanted restrictions on people.

What is YOUR plan for people who crash sims all the time, Digado? Clapping and giving them a grant?

My concepts for the mainland simply enable the people who pay for it and live and work on it to enjoy it fully, without having their lives made miserable by people who don't own it and don't pay for it disrupting and destroying it.

Imagine if a vandal came in and kept smashing your computer screen all the time, and nobody did anything, and you lost money. Wouldn't you say that your parents or dorm supervisor or boss should do something to stop this vandal, that your freedom is suppressed as long as that vandal can do that to you?

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:36:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home