capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
In the early 16th Century, "Geek" meant "village idiot."
In the early 20th Century, "Geek" meant "actor in a carnival side show."
In the late 20th Century,* "Geek" meant "a person mocked for their weird enthusiasms (as if they were an attraction in a carnival side show)."
In the early 21st Century, "Geek' meant "a person proud of their enthusiasm for esoteric fields, not caring if they are mocked."

This is why I love being in the company of geeks. Their enthusiasm is contagious, even when I don't share enthusiasm for their particular favorite thing. Here's a video of a mathematician who is a Klein Bottle geek. I bet you'll be grinning by the end of it. I bet you!

*first noted in popular culture in the movie "The Breakfast Club"
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
Mysteries of the Vernacular (of those I've seen so far, this is the most visually pleasing to me):

One day soon, I'll post something besides videos, I promise...
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
About how they have no concept of "over-thinking" something, and how they compulsively try to connect ALL THE IDEAS to a single point of interest?

Well, a couple of weeks ago, I found "The PBS Idea Channel" on YouTube... I think it does, indeed, have some sort of official connection to the Public Broadcasting Service network... But it also seems to be a creative project of one dude (or small group of people...). Anyway, it strikes me as a very graphic embodiment of my own notions of Geekitude. Not only does he connect ideas explicitly, through speaking, he connects his speaking to an even wider range of cultural references through animated .gifs and rapid-fire still images (take that as fair warning). So, yeah: in my imagination, this is what geek-think looks (and sounds) like.

Just for fun, here's the most recent one:

Here're the links he mentioned:

Ignite talk:

The Cat Web:

Google Cat Computer:
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
A year ago this last May, here: More Geeking Out Over the Word "Geek" [...], I spelled out in a little more detail how I believe "Geek" is more an approach to thinking about our world and our place in it, thusly:

  • To a Geek, the sentence: "You're over-thinking this," is completely nonsensical. And --
  • A Geek tries to connect All the Ideas to the subject of the geek's passion (whatever that passion is).

Anyway, with YouTube's "geek week" special just ended (on Sunday), that brought up memories of older ideas, about how "mainstream culture" mistrusts intellectualism -- I mean, really mistrusts it... Remember John Kerry's presidential campaign? The Bush people were actually saying that he was too intellectual to be president... And around that same time, too, there was a show on NBC called The Pretender, about a genius child who was stolen from his family (maybe?) and trained, by a secret government organization, so that they could use his genius to kill people ... I think. The four seasons it was on spent a whole lot of time writing the idea of a Massive Conspiracy Cabal, without ever actually working out what the cabal actually was. ...It didn't make much sense, really. And even though the titular character was definitely A Good Guy, the point was continually made that super smart people are dangerous, and the really good ones are the rare exceptions... And I think the reason geeks (nerds) are mistrusted is that:

  • They are intellectual. And --
  • The things they are intellectual about are obscure, and private ...

So, it's like they're a stranger in our midst -- some sort of idea spy, maybe, sorta. You just never know.

This is, I think, the reason sports fans are more easily embraced by mainstream culture: They may be just as obsessive over details and history, and just as enthusiastic in their willingness to be a spectacle in honor of their passion. But at least the thing they're passionate about is a symbol of "Our Community" -- you know they're on "Our Side."

So, over the last couple of days, the idea came to me that the reason terms associated with mental and physical disabilities (nut [nerd], Gek, Spaz...) get appropriated by folks in the mainstream and used to tease the intellectually swift and socially awkward, is that both geeks and PWD make folks in the mainstream uncomfortable in similar, related ways:

Our very presence is evidence that mainstream culture is not the only way to live (or even best way) for all people. Our presence reveals the cracks in the "just world" fallacy that makes those who are comfortable in the mainstream comfortable...

I dunno... still working this out...
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
Based on the likes/dislikes and comments on this thing, it seems like a song you'll either love or hate.

...I side with the former.

The video has closed captions, but they go out of sync about two-thirds of the way through, so here they are behind a cut: LYRICS )
capriuni: multicolored text on black: "Quips and sentences and paper bullets of the brain" (paper bullets)
Two years and one month ago, I wrote the following in this space:

I was going to go on, and write further about geekery and disability. But this has taken up too much space-time already.

... and promptly forgot to post a follow-up. I only found it again because I was trying to remember what I'd said about hipsters vs. geeks. I've been puzzling till my puzzler is sore, trying to remember what I'd thought 25 months ago.

When I've had a thought and lost it, or a thought that's gone fuzzy, usually the best way to find it again is through poetry, rather than prose...

It's been a while since I've written a poem for a poem's sake...
capriuni: multicolored text on black: "Quips and sentences and paper bullets of the brain" (paper bullets)
Even though I already own a paperback edition of Much Ado About Nothing (Bantam Books, 1980 -- reprinted 1993 [to take advantage of Kenneth Branagh's film]), I am sorely tempted to buy another -- namely, the Arden Shakespeare (third series) edition, 2005.

This, specifically, is the paragraph that's tempting me (Publisher's description on Amazon):

This edition of the play offers in its introduction and commentary an extensive discussion of the materials that informed Shakespeare's compositional choices, both those conventional sources and other contexts, from cuckold jokes to conduct books, which inform the ideas and identities of this play. Particular attention is devoted to Renaissance understandings of gender identity and social rank, as well as to the social valences of Shakespeare's stylistic choices. Among the elements of structure and style discussed are the two concurrent plots, the recurrence of verbal handshakes, and the use of music. A treatment of staging possibilities offers illustrations drawn from the earliest and recent theatrical practices, and a critical history examines the fate of the play in the changing trends of academic scholarship.

Gender identity and social rank -- Yes, Please! It's kind of hard to miss that the shame of premarital sex is seen as worthy of death in the Governor's daughter, Hero, but only gets a "tut-tut" and "you really should make better choices when it comes to your boyfriends," for Hero's lady-in-waiting, Margaret (who is my second favorite character, after Beatrice).

Cuckold jokes -- Ooh! Certainly Yes, Please!

"Verbal handshakes" -- saying "Yes!" to this is like saying Yes to ice cream...

Sigh -- such a geek
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
(Well, the subtitle of my DreamWidth Journal is "The songs that get stuck in my head," so ... you know. At least you can't accuse me of false advertising)

First, Shakespeare, himself:

One of my favorite ironies in life, is that William Shakespeare, Esq., our modern world's icon of eloquence, kept returning to the idea that eloquence is inversely proportional to passion and sincerity.

Examples of this from 'King Lear', 'Hamlet', and 'As You Like It' )

In Much Ado, this notion is articulated first in the scene where Leonato gives his blessing to the marriage between Claudio and his daughter Hero:

quoted lines )

This, of course, leads to Beatrice and Benedick -- the two characters defined most strongly by the ease and glibness with which they speak.

There are two scenes in the play where the two of them are alone together (and thus, free from the pressure of keeping up appearances of their old habits, to avoid being teased). The first is in the church, immediately following Don Pedro's and Claudio's public accusation of Hero, where she faints and they leave her for dead. This is the scene where they first confess their love to each other... And it gets me in the gut every time.* It is perhaps worth noting that honor and virginity were as important for women in Elizabethan England as it is today in some communities in Islam -- indeed, Hero says to her father that, if he could prove that she was guilty as accused, he should torture her to death. Honor was equally important for men, and that honor was maintained by alliances with other men. ...So the fact that Benedict chose to stay behind to comfort the family of a disgraced daughter of a governor, instead of following the prince who had been his patron up to that point, is a clue to how much he really does love Beatrice.

I could quote their whole exchange, but I won't. Just this bit:

quoted lines )

After three full acts of their cleverness and quips back and forth, this simplicity is almost like a splash of cold water -- and just as refreshing. The full scene is here: Act 4, scene i (this exchange starts about two-thirds down the page).

The next scene where they are alone is in Leonato's garden, after Benedick has challenged Claudio to a duel (the assurance of which is what finally convinces Beatrice that he really does love her-- backing up his vows with actions).
(Full scene is here: Act 5, scene ii)

Here, they fall into their old habits of teasing each other... but this time, they do it with much more good humor than in their first exchange:

quoted lines )

A few lines later, Benedick gives a snarky argument about why it's good to praise your own virtues.... But then, he drops out of glibness, to ask after Hero's, and Beatrice's, health:

yet more quoting )

...And I don't know. I just find those to be some of the most romantic lines in literature -- the way it's set up, it's clear that he no longer takes himself so seriously, but he does take Beatrice seriously. Sometimes, the kindest thing you can say to someone is "How are you?" ... if you really mean it.

One last thing: at the play's finale, and Benedick proposes to Beatrice, asking whether or not she loves him, she says: "Why no, no more than reason." ... and he replies in kind, when she asks him the same question. At first, this seems like they are just being coy, and a bit disingenuous, in order to avoid public embarrassment. But -- this is basically the same thing that Cordelia says to King Lear, when he has the expectation that her love for him be without bounds...

So... maybe this is something that Shakespeare (and others) truly believed? That love within reason is the best kind?

Just a thought that came to me, while I was typing this up...

*(except in the clip I saw of the David Tennant/Catherine Tate version... which, for some reason, was played with a slapstick vibe.... which... Just. No)
capriuni: Text: If you want to be a Hero, be Good to the Storyteller. (Storyteller)
[Edited: I'm awake, now, and the thoughts I had about Benedick are still going around in my head, so I'm going to pick up from where I was dropping off [srsly, folks, my eyes were closing of their own accord], and finally get this out of my head.)

I posted about this a couple of days ago, right after I watched it... But it's taken a couple of days for all my thoughts to percolate -- so this is the full-on geek version.

So, this weekend, I found the full, 1984, BBC production of Much Ado About Nothing online, and watched all two and a half hours. It was nowhere as slick or polished as a commercially produced, theatrically released, movie. And if you complained to me that the acting was as stiff and measured as an over-starched dress shirt, I would not argue...

However... I've read the full text several times, and I've seen several versions acted out: a few different versions in live theater, and Kenneth Branagh's film version. But reading words on a page never quite conveys the subtleties of tensions between characters. And in most acted productions, there's always (it seems) going to be something cut out by the modern director. And so this is the first time I'd watched the full text fully acted, and I came away with insights and feels (All the feels!) that I haven't had before.

[ETA: In writing this post, I've gone back and reread the text, and realize a few lines have been cut... but far fewer lines than is usual).

Where I go into detail, Part one: the tense, dramatic parts )

Detail, part two-a: The Rom-Com bits: Beatrice's side )

Detail, part two-b: The Rom-Com bits: Benedick's side )

Conclusions )
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
I came to the realization, the other day, that YouTube is kind of taking up the "Ecological Niche" that Usenet, used to, years ago, in that it allows people to wander in and find discussions of ideas, or artistic pieces, or random silliness (i.e. cats!) and then join in the discussions via the comment threads or video responses.*

So I think that's one reason why I want to make a video of some sort on the power of storytelling, and the importance of Bechdel-like tests for under-and-misrepresented populations (specifically, the Disabled, but also P.O.C., trans*-folk and the like): There's more of a chance for the message to reach beyond the choir, so to speak.

Really, I want to answer this question (which I posed/posted the other day):

"What's the link between A) proverbial "rose colored glasses," B) the tendency for tragic literature to be taken more seriously than happy literature, C) the use and misuse of 'creative visualization,' and D) Storytelling?"

I have a sense the answer, but I want to tighten it up so that it can fit into a video that's no more than 6 minutes.

So, here goes (a bullet-pointed list to help start sorting out my thoughts) -- feedback welcome: )

...I did not expect this post to take all day... But it did (three hours). Why (well there were breaks for food and bathroom, but still)?

*...The only problem is that there's still a technological gate and lock there, because many people still do not have broadband, or are accessing the Internet through their phones, which makes broadband prohibitively expensive (Was discussing this with [ profile] pendanther in regards to a venue for a 50th anniversary special of the Pro-Fun Hoedown, maybe, and why the hoedowns/round robins flourished like kudzu on Usenet, but fizzled as an LJ community).
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
Online, here: "On Fairy Stories" by J. R. R. Tolkien

It took me several days; I consider this quite an accomplishment. I was expecting it to be about the length of a magazine article. When I copy-pasted the whole thing into Open Office and did a word count, it came out at over 22K words.

There is much in the essay I agree with (at that length, on that subject it would be improbable if there were not). But, if I were to sit across a table from him, over mugs of tea and a plate of bread and cheese, and this were a discussion, there would be many points where I'd be interjecting: "Yes. But."

However, here are seven of my favorite passages (Seven is a fitting number for the subject), where I find myself nodding in agreement:

(Quote 1 [from the section titled "Origins"]:)
The things that are there must often have been retained (or inserted) because the oral narrators, instinctively or consciously, felt their literary “significance.” )

(Quote 2 [from the section "Children"]:)
Children as a class —- except in a common lack of experience they are not one )

(Quote 3 [From "Fantasy"]:)
If men really could not distinguish between frogs and men, fairy-stories about frog-kings would not have arisen )

(Quote 4 [From "Recovery, Escape, Consolation"]:)
We should look at green again, and be startled anew (but not blinded) by blue and yellow and red. )

(Quote 5 [ibid]:)
The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you. )

(Quote 6 [ibid]):
Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? )

(Quote 7 [From "footnote D"]
I did not want to be quibbled into Science and cheated out of Faerie )
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
*Twoot!* Happy New B'ak'tun!

Yup! It's the Mayan version of the New Millennium!

And yes, that's all it was ever going to be -- even in ancient Mayan mythology.

Let's hope the next 394.26 years is better than the last 394.26 years...

Be good to each other, people!
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
This past July, I just about mainlined on YouTube videos about the Higgs Boson. And I discovered something (for me, anyway): didn't matter if I understood what they were saying -- listening to physicists talk about their particular field of study makes me feel as happy and calm as listening to a lullaby ...

'Cause the message is pretty much the same as a lullaby: The universe is a beautiful place, it's governed by laws that keep whole thing in one piece; the more we learn about it, the more beautiful it appears, and there will always be more to learn. And even if I don't understand the meaning of the words they use, their joy in their work comes through in their voices.

I really like the YouTube Channels by Brady Haran: Numberphile (Maths) SixtySymbols (physics) and Periodic Table of Videos (Chemistry). He basically walks around the University of Nottingham with a video camera, and asks professors to talk about their subjects. So you get the profs when they're relaxed and just playing around and being their geeky selves.

So far, this man (Professor Ed Copeland) is one of my go-to people for when I need cheering up. Just look at how easily he smiles, and how there are default crinkles in the corner of his eyes (how you know the smiles are genuine -- can fake everything about a smile, except that). It's almost more of an effort for him to keep a straight face. Here he is talking about wormholes:

He obviously loves the universe, and most of the people in it.
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
This, after I've read two versions of the Wonder Tale Vasilisa the Beautiful; the first one was a modern retelling by someone who doesn't give a name, and whose email is: Which doesn't shed much light on the author's persona. The second retelling is an English translation from 1912, so is in the Public Domain. Here's the version of the 1912 story:

And seen a short film adaptation by a student film maker of another story in which she appears.

But none-the-less, I have an idea which pleases me. And it is this:

Baba Yaga is the Personification of Time, the Devourer, or the Entropy aspect of time.

And, behind a spoiler cut is a list of reasons why I think so:

Spoilers for *Vasilisa the Beautiful )

I have more musings about this story... But I'm falling asleep something fierce, so they'll have to wait.
capriuni: half furry, half sea monster in wheelchair caption: Monster on Wheels (Monster)
I've always loved monsters, for nearly as long as I can remember.

Actually, I should qualify that: I'm not fond, at all, of the "Hollywood monsters," such as zombies, or "The Thing from the Black Lagoon" or "The Blob" -- which are, imnsho, blatant representations of abject fear-without-thought, and show up in stories to justify unjustifiable bigotry. But I've always loved the heraldic monsters:

Unicorns (Note Well: they are not just sparkly ponies with a horn. And they do not poop rainbows), Dragons, &hearts Gryphons &hearts, Greenmen, and of course, the monster of my Astrological Sun-sign: Sea-goats

For most of that time, I just thought they were nifty because they were -- "fancy" (?), and they represent the "magical impossible," and are manifestations of the imagination, and creativity... All good stuff. But I never gave them much more thought beyond: "Nifty, Neat-O! Keen!"

Then, a few years ago, for [ profile] naarmamo, I was overcome with a desire to draw new monsters of my own invention, several days in a row... like some sort of biological urge, or something.

And the geeky part of my brain thought: "WTF is up?! What is a monster, anyway? What, after all, is the basic definition?" And that's when I found the etymology, of "monster" being a "creature, human or livestock, with birth defects, and seen as a bad omen, and sign that the gods were angry."

And from that point on, monsters became a political statement for me, representing Disability Pride, Culture, and History, and the fight against Ableism/Disablism -- on top of being a manifestation of creativity and imagination. ... And here, I could mount an argument that creativity and the use of the imagination is an essential part of Disability Culture, because when Society makes a concerted effort to deny you access (because it views you as a monster) you have to be creative, to make a way of living for yourself where none is given to you.

(but really, that's for another post).

Then, the other day, when I posted the newest image of my newest monster,* [personal profile] pebblerocker commented that she loved the "joins" -- where feather meets fur and fur meets scales. And there was the "ding-ding-ding!" of realization, and third leg in the three-legged stool of my monster-love popped into place.

Back in my first years of my college education, I took a literary survey course called "Comedy, Wit, and Humor" (it was awesome; it was once a week, three hours long, and we got to watch Richard Pryor videos and tell dirty jokes in class). And the one thing from that class which has stuck with me over the last 30 years is this:

The punchlines of jokes work because the human mind can only follow one line of logic at a time. The main "body" of the joke tells a story along a certain line of logic, and in standard narrative fashion, the emotional tension builds to a climax. Then, the "punch" line comes in, from a completely different logical direction and knocks that emotional tension "ass-over-teakettle," revealing all our fears and worries to be nonsensical. And in that release of tension, we laugh. (And that may be why so many people say a compatible sense of humor is the most important trait in life partners -- your sense of humor reveals how you are likely to respond to life's ambiguities. Personally, I will never trust anyone whose humor tends toward causing pain or belittling another's intelligence).

The joke that was given as a model of this formula (as I remember it), was this: )

Anyway, [personal profile] pebblerocker's comment flicked on the light bulb that monsters do this, too. The point where the goat's front half grows from the fish's back half, or the Green Man's beard grows as foliage instead of hair, is like the punchline of a joke: the moment when the logic of the world-as-we-know-it gets turned on its head.

This can be the moment of terror (especially if you are the Archbishop of Seville, and all the comfort and power in your life is built on the world-as-we-know-it), but it can also be the moment of laughter (which Jim Henson, in his genius, understood instinctively, if not intellectually).

And that's why I Heart Monsters: In one package, they represent:

1) The sublime reaches of Human Creativity
2) Righteous Anger against human cruelty
3) The ultimate life-saving power of the Absurd

*it's here, behind the cut )
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
There are many people on YouTube who use their channel as a showcase their own humor and wit about the ridiculousness of their lives.

There are also many people on YouTube who use their channel to earnestly and sincerely share their love for a particular genre of music.

The people who do both at (almost) the same time are a lot rarer.

This young man is one of those people -- sincere fiddle playing sandwiched between a "blog part" and "outtakes" (which I suspect are -at least, some of the time- also scripted).

Here, have a red-headed young Scot, living in Cardiff, playing a song written by Turlough (really!):

capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
Even though "Geek & Sundry" is a professional, for-profit YouTube Channel, I have to share these recent videos of theirs.

Remember, how, yesterday evening, I was remarking how I'd turned into a gloomy, Serious Business so-and-so?

Well, G&S came to my rescue. Last night, they posted a bonus video of Felicia Day and Robin Thorston making candy versions of "sushi" ... and that prompted me to get into a brief exchange with another user in the comments about our favorite flavor combinations, especially around candy and ice cream...

Then, this afternoon, they posted this music video by Paul and Storm. I'm not even a Game of Thrones fan, and I still had to watch it four times in a row... and kept finding new things to laugh at.

And I know several people in my circles are fans of the series, so:

capriuni: "This calls for CAKE" with plate and fork (Cake!)
That I wanted to weep for joy...

Or, it could be just one of those days.

But anyway, good video (the guy who makes these patters away as though the scripts were written by W. S. Gilbert).

Link to the blog which has the video, a full text of the script, for those who can't watch video, and a bonus LOL .gif from NASA of Eris, wearing shades, and the caption: "Y Dwarf -- Chillin' in Space" (God, I love NASA -- such geeks!).
capriuni: footnotes are where the cool kids hang out (geek pride)
So yeah... the other day, I wrote this as a quickie post:

A proposal for a definition of "Geek," which can exist independent of any particular cultural trend (e.g. video-games, comics, or spec. fic):


Someone to whom the sentence: "You're over-thinking this," is inherently nonsensical.

This is the ultimate antithesis of a "quickie post" It has All the Words... But a bunch are under cuts, and I'll understand if you don't actually read them all (though it would be nifty if you read some). Basically, this is where a non-geek would say I'm over-thinking this...

That thought came to me in the middle of watching the newest music video from the YouTube Channel called "Geek and Sundry," which is provided under the cuts below for those who are curious. Go Watch / Read / Whatever. I'll wait 'till you get back.

I'm the one that's cool -- video behind the cut for NSFW or kids visuals )

I'm the one that's cool -- Song lyrics for those who can't watch vid, behind the cut for length )

The thing is, I've always considered myself a "geek,"* but I had to Google about two-thirds the cultural references in those lyrics before I understood them. And I really think "geek" is really more about: 1) A general attitude toward the world around you and 2) your favorite ways of solving problems than it ever was about which particular cultural tastes you have.

I mean, take this soliloquy from Hamlet, for example: if these aren't the words of a Geek-type wishing he could be more of a Jock-type, than I don't what is (whether these are words strictly specific to character and situation, or [as I suspect] the author getting a wee bit autobiographical)

Video of he Soliloquy from the end Act 2, Scene 2 in *Hamlet* as acted by David Tennant )**

Text of the Soliloquy )

Here's where I stop quoting and start babbling my own words about everything above -- Starting with *Hamlet* and finishing with why I think 'Geekdom' is MORE than just science, math, computers, and science fiction, but even so, I understand why so many people think Geek=Science ... What do you mean, I'm 'over-thinking this?' )

*or rather, as someone of that personality type -- the year I graduated left high school, (I stayed an extra year after I was qualified to graduate so I could be in the new Advanced Placement History and English classes): 1982, the first definition of "Geek" in the dictionary was still "Someone who bites the heads off chickens," and I was never that.

**There's also a video that compares the performances of both Simm and Tennant, back-to-back, but of the two, David's version comes across to me as more frantically barely-out-of-adolescence in age, in terms of don't-know-what-to-do-with-my-feelings and resulting social awkwardness, so I think of this performance as one of the geekiest ever. Makes it easier to remember that Shakespeare wrote the character to be college student... Or it could just be because of that tee-shirt he's wearing in the scene ;-)
capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)
A proposal for a definition of "Geek," which can exist independent of any particular cultural trend (e.g. video-games, comics, or spec. fic):


Someone to whom the sentence: "You're over-thinking this," is inherently nonsensical.


capriuni: A black field crossed by five parallel lighting bolts in blue, gold, green, red, and purple (Default)

September 2017

1011121314 1516
1718192021 2223


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 03:04 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios