Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby MinM » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:29 am

Jeff wrote:Peter Dale Scott has a decent explanation for Chomsky's aversion to "conspiracy theory." Chomsky's interested in systems, and his understanding of conspiracy is that it represents an aberration in how the system works. Scott regards conspiracy as a structural component to the Deep System of Control, of which electoral governance is merely a superficial representation.

At the 37-minute mark of this interview -- Lisa Pease wonders aloud whether working for a CIA-funded institute (MIT) may explain Chomsky being CT-averse?
Image
So perhaps Bugliosi, like Chomsky, just doesn't see this, and it will have to remain a mystery to me why they can't. :wink:
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby geogeo » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:52 pm

These Chomsky threads pop up regularly on this site, and never get anywhere. Here's my dos centavos:

--There is always a remarkable naivete about the construction and coddling of the Non-Communist Left (NCL) in the US as a project of those who realize that 'left' and 'right' are convenient labels. The objective of the NCL has always been to draw together the masses of brainwashed 'lefties' under a convenient banner and keep them from true, violent, social change, among other things. Great public intellectuals who watch their words and are ignored by the State are not unique to the US--we're just too dumb to need more than one! Chomsky doesn't hold a friggin candle to Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard--hell, not even to Emerson, imho. He's fetishized and lionized and etc., etc., a veritable Che.

Also, he's responsible for that outmoded abomination known as structural linguistics, isn't he? Noam's gnomes were intolerable--they thought they had all the answers, just like the Levi-Straussians, the Piagetians (?), the Marxists, and the Freudians. Deep structure? Chomsky, when asked what generates it all, had to admit to the existence of God. 9-11 is the least of his intellectual follies--he is way in the back when it comes to emergent systems and non-linear dynamics; he can't explain creativity and novelty--thus not life itself, or the universe, or anything-- any more than Descartes, Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Comte, and the rest of them in that long, long line of white male thinkers who hoodwinked us into Modernity.

Plus, his anarchism (IMHO) sucks--he can write well and speak well, but he don't hold a candle to Kropotkin. I'll take Rabelais any day. CIA? Might as well be. It's the Devil who has convinced us he doesn't exist. Done a good job of it.
as below so above
geogeo
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:51 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:57 pm

"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Moved here to protect another thread.

Postby MinM » Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:35 am

rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - Chomsky: The Real Reasons the U.S. Enables Israeli Crimes
American Dream wrote:Noam Chomsky: The Real Reasons the U.S. Enables Israeli Crimes and Atrocities
...
Cuba's probably the target of more terrorism than any country in the world, back from the Kennedy years. Right? ...

wordspeak2 wrote:And have I ever, in my entire life, read a Noam Chomsky article that didn't get in a jab against John F. Kennedy as being a standard establishment hawk? I think the answer is no. How come Chomsky finds the needs to tarnish JFK's reputation even when the topic is something completely different?

That is bizarre. It really had nothing to do with the point he was making. On the other hand, if Noam Chomsky does not acknowledge the fact that Kennedy pushed back against the CIA and Joint Chiefs in Cuba. He also does not have to acknowledge the subsequent blowback that cost JFK his life.

While I. F. Stone. Seymour Hersh, David Halberstam, and Chomsky were very good on the whole. They each were willing to buy whatever tPTB were selling, and in some cases eager to help them sell it, when it came to covering Kennedy.

rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - If you had 1 message to save the world? - CIA=Media

rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - Obama's like Kennedy and that's the problem

Probe V4N2: The Left and the Death of Kennedy

CTKA Reviews Page - Virtual JFK

User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

Postby bks » Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:27 pm

geo,

I think your complaints about Chomsky are overheated. He's definitely limited by his rationalism, but for all practical purposes he and Michel Foucault agreed on the actions that should be taken against the state, despite their philosophical differences. Chomsky had this quaint insistence that any remedial project have a vision of the just society joined with it, while Foucault understood where Chomsky did not (and still does not, I imagine) that there are no non-political articulations of concepts like 'justice' in the struggle for power.

In the end, though, so what? Practically speaking, how much would that philosophical disagreement really amount to? They would find themselves on the same side against any imperialist government today, along with Derrida and Baudrillard. And none of the Frenchman have had anywhere near the political impact of Chomsky in terms of articulating and redressing the crimes of the imperial state (Bourdieu was more of any activist than any of them, I'd argue).

Jeff wrote:
Peter Dale Scott has a decent explanation for Chomsky's aversion to "conspiracy theory." Chomsky's interested in systems, and his understanding of conspiracy is that it represents an aberration in how the system works. Scott regards conspiracy as a structural component to the Deep System of Control, of which electoral governance is merely a superficial representation.



Agreed, and yet their differences weren't always so visible to each of them. As I'm sure you know, Scott parted ways with Chomsky and Zinn over their analyses of the Pentagon Papers, and particularly the critical National Security Memoranda. Chomsky saw no significant difference between the two with respect to policy, while Scott certainly did. It's a fascinating issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_uad3-RsQk (see 3:30 to 5:30)
bks
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

More debunking of David Halberstam

Postby MinM » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:13 pm

While I. F. Stone. Seymour Hersh, David Halberstam...
Bundy decided to look back on his role in the debacle. One of the first books he read was David Halberstams's The Best and the Brightest. A book in which he figured prominently. Although he thought it was an entertaining and informative read, he concluded that the central thesis was just wrong. (pgs. 148-49) It was not the advisers—the best and brightest—who did the staff work who got us into the Vietnam War. It was the difference in the men who occupied the Oval Office. It was the difference between Kennedy and Johnson...

On The Media: Transcript of "Missile Crisis Memories" (August 27, 2010)
BOB GARFIELD: Machismo was certainly part of the popular image of JFK back then. Here's a clip from a 1970s TV docudrama Missiles of October, starring a very young William Devane.

[CLIP]:

WILLIAM DEVANE/JOHN F. KENNEDY: Now we must convey an uncompromising message. This government is prepared to negotiate, but not until those missiles are removed from Cuba. We will not be deterred. We will not be shaken. We'll bomb, if we must. We'll invade if we must.

[END CLIP]

FRED KAPLAN: Yeah, that, that clip is just hilarious, diametrically opposed to the way John Kennedy was acting at any of those sessions. In fact, this does lead us to the fourth draft of history, tapes that Kennedy had secretly been making. Long before Nixon and before Johnson, Kennedy was taping a lot of things that happened in the Oval Office and in the Cabinet Room, where the ex-con meetings took place. And we hear very clearly in those meetings that Kennedy took Khrushchev's offer of the missile trade very, very seriously.

In fact, on the third day of the crisis, Kennedy is already musing that well, you know, Khrushchev, he's made a miscalculation. He's obviously done this for bargaining leverage, and we're going to have to help him find a way to save face. Maybe if we trade those missiles in Turkey for the missiles in Cuba, that might be the answer. Nobody even takes him up on it. So on the last day of the crisis, when Khrushchev does bring it up, he's very eager to take it. And, in fact, he is the only one in the room who's willing to take it.

You know, there's been this, this model from the first draft of history on, that the room was divided into hawks and doves and centrists. But, in fact, on the last couple of days of the crisis, the room was divided between John Kennedy and everybody else. Everybody else in that room wanted to bomb the missiles in Cuba, and only John Kennedy wanted to take the trade.

BOB GARFIELD: Now, unaccustomed as we are to having presidential tapes reveal the president in a positive light [LAUGHS] —

FRED KAPLAN: Yeah.

BOB GARFIELD: — Nixon certainly was ensnared by his own voice on tape — it must have had an astonishing effect. When were the tapes released, and how long did it take before this real version of history informed our public understanding of the crisis?

FRED KAPLAN: Word of the tapes first came out in 1982, 20 years after the crisis, when several of Kennedy's advisors — McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara, a few others — wrote a little article in Time Magazine in which they admitted that the myth of the Cuban missile crisis was false.

When I interviewed Ted Sorensen about this five years ago, he admitted that basically Kennedy, after that last ex-con meeting, he took seven people into his office and he told them that look, I'm sending my brother over to the Soviet Embassy and I'm going to accept this deal, but you can't tell anybody, and that after Kennedy was assassinated they all got together and pledged that nobody would ever reveal this.

The first tape was revealed in 1987, and it was of the last day of the crisis where Khrushchev comes out with a deal and Kennedy says hey, this is a pretty good deal, and everybody in the room is shouting him down, saying this will wreck NATO, we can't do this, it'll, it'll ruin our credibility.

Kennedy lets them talk on and at one point he says look, to any man at the United Nations or any other rational man it will look like a very fair trade. I'm reading from the transcript here. And later he also says, and this I think is the - is the telling point, he says, well I'm just thinking about what we're going to have to do in a day or so, which is 500 sorties. The Air Strike Plan called for 500 air sorties against the Cuban missile sites every day for seven days.

[RECORDED CLIP]:

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: I’ve been thinking about what, what we're going to have to do in a day or so, which is 500 sorties in seven days and possibly an invasion, all because we wouldn't take missiles out of Turkey. And I – we all know how –

[END CLIP]

FRED KAPLAN: Kennedy goes on: “All because we wouldn't take missiles out of Turkey. We all know how quickly everybody's courage goes when the blood starts to flow, and that's what is going to happen to NATO. When they start these things and they grab Berlin, everybody's going to say well, that was a pretty good proposition.”

BOB GARFIELD: Memoirists! Once these revelations came out in McGeorge Bundy's own memoir, how did journalism react, having been unwitting accomplices in a historical lie? Did newspapers jump on this story to kind of set the record straight, and do you think it had any effect?

FRED KAPLAN: I have to say, both among journalists and historians, this chapter of the Cuban missile crisis has not yet been fully incorporated into the dominant narrative, as academics might call it today, and to the degree that people do know there was a trade, it is as yet not generally well accepted how alone Kennedy was.

BOB GARFIELD: I'm curious about how much the truth of the Cuban missile crisis has found its way into the public consciousness. If it has, I suppose you can credit the film 13 Days from two years ago. Hollywood took another look at the history books and did substantially incorporate our current understanding in that film. Let's hear a little bit of that.

[CLIP]:

MAN: We've got time for one more round of diplomacy, and that's it. The first air strikes start in 28 hours.

MAN: But we have to make them agree to it!

MAN: Right.

MAN: So how do we do that?

BRUCE GREENWOOD AS JOHN F. KENNEDY: Well we give them something. We tell them we're going to remove the missiles from Turkey —

[SEVERAL SPEAK AT ONCE]

Hang on! But we do that six months from now, so it appears there's no linkage.

KEVIN COSTNER AS KENNY O'DONNELL: We also tell them if they go public about it, we'll deny it.

BRUCE GREENWOOD/JOHN F. KENNEDY: Right we deny, the deal's off.

KEVIN COSTNER/KENNY O'DONNELL: And we do it under the table so we can disavow any knowledge of it.

MAN: It's transparent, Kenny. The press'll be all over it.

KEVIN COSTNER/KENNY O'DONNELL: Six months from now we're not going to care, are we?

[END CLIP]

BOB GARFIELD: In your review of that film, 13 Days, you made another point about learning from history. It was about the supposition that a president, surrounded by a circle of trusted advisors, can be depended on to make the right decision. And you made a, a connection to the George W. Bush White House. Make it again.

FRED KAPLAN: [LAUGHS] The point was - I think George W. Bush had just been elected president, and a lot of people were wondering if he would be smart enough to deal with crises. And the common explanation at the time was well, don't worry, he has a lot of really smart people around him.

And the point that you can take from the fourth draft of the history of the Cuban missile crisis is that the people around John Kennedy were really smart - I mean these were the people that David Halberstam later called, in a note of irony, "the best and the brightest," and yet John Kennedy realized that they really weren't very smart, after all. And the lesson of that is that you can have good advisors but the crucial thing is that you need a president. It's the president who makes the decisions...

http://audio.wnyc.org/otm/otm082710f.mp3

rigorousintuition.ca :: View topic - Woodward/Bradlee, Armitage, Plame Outing: Mystery Subterfuge

rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - Woodward's notes re mtgs. w/ D. Throat now avail.

rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - Former Ford Prez McNamara has died

rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - David Halberstam killed in car wreck
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

Postby slimmouse » Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:49 pm

Noam Chomsky ; One of the most valuable gatekeepers at the PTBs disposal. When the average guy has filtered through the bullshit of consensus media, one has probably stumbled across good ole Noam and co.

When you get to this point, you really know the score where the world is concerned, cos Noams talked about it, seen thru the curtain, knows who the bad guys are, and Good ole Noam has alll the accompanying academic and intellectual credibility to convince a cornucupia of folks that where Noam draws the line is as bad as it gets.

"Unfortunately", At the very point where all that is really neccesary now for people to see in the full light of day just how deep and how far this reaches, and how bad the rain really is, Mr Chomsky mysteriously decides to close his umbrella.

Its fukn pathetic.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

Postby The Consul » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:16 pm

I think Chomsky knows that if he "goes there" he will be even further marginalized than he already is. I mean, what would happen if Chomsky held an inteview along the Charles river and had a press release in which he stated that 911 was obviously an inside job? Would it even make the news? And if so, what news would it make? Indymedia and Democracy Now, but mostly to the relatively small slice of people who know who he is and probably already believe 911 was a set up anyway. My guess is Chomsky believes that attacking specific acts of the deep politics is not worth the backwash from rightwing media voices. Remember Maher lost his show just for saying the 911 buys might be insane but he wouldn't call them cowards. Chomsky knows media and power and what they can do and he is trying to leave his mark on acedemia and what is left of of the left. That is my guess.

However, in regards to slimmouse's comment...imagine if he took it head on? With his mind and his respect could he focus enough attention if he joined the 911 families for truth to demand a new commission? We'll never know. In a sense it is pathetic. The lack of outrage is curious. Is there something in the water?
" Morals is the butter for those who have no bread."
— B. Traven
User avatar
The Consul
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Ompholos, Disambiguation
Blog: View Blog (13)

Re: Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

Postby norton ash » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:23 pm

The lack of outrage is curious. Is there something in the water?


Personal flotation devices...

life preservers.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4010
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

Postby sfnate » Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:59 pm

Chomsky prefers narratives that articulate a rationalist view of the world. The "Alice in Wonderland" quality of most conspiracy theories, where a labyrinth opens up to reveal a mind-altering maze of synchronistic connections and the crazy carnival antics of quantum improbabilities--this is no place for an MIT-trained materialist. He is concerned--rightly perhaps--that the circus is full of too many clowns--and it is, of course--but that's just one of the three rings in the Very Big Tent, and anyone hypnotized or distracted by pratfalls inside will miss the Real Show taking place just outside, where the barkers and ringleaders hustle the suckers and move the crowd with all the skill and efficiency of modern day engineering. MIT-quality engineering, you might say.

So Chomsky doesn't like sideshows. Fine. He's deprived himself, maybe, of some very fine amusements, but while his high-brow indifference may disappoint those of us who like a bit of fun (and I use the expression with all the appropriate irony it deserves), it doesn't do anything to change the fact that the self-transforming elf machines of the political depths do exist, and are in fact very busy right now constructing a new language for the new millenia, one that easily escapes the gravitational pull of Chomsky's very dense musings on politics and grammar and everything else.
User avatar
sfnate
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: Le Grand Fossard
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

Postby Avalon » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:28 pm

norton ash wrote:
The lack of outrage is curious. Is there something in the water?


Personal flotation devices...

life preservers.


Triangular fins.
User avatar
Avalon
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

Postby wordspeak2 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:04 pm

Some of you are very naive regarding the so-called gatekeepers of the Left. Chomsky is *clearly* a government agent. It's *not* that he "doesn't do conspiracy." He does do it; he attacks it at every possibility. He attacks both the reality of the stories that are most damning to the fascist power elite and the notion that they're even important (9/11 was unimportant, huh?). And I'm not joking, I've read plenty of Chomsky, and almost constantly he attacks the image of JFK, declaring him to be a standard war hawk. He wrote a book on the subject. He defends the Warren Commission. Prior to 9/11 he spent a lot time attacking the JFK truth movement. Now he's onto 9/11 truth. Do you really, truly think someone with Chomsky's resources and knowledge could *honestly* believe in the Warren Commission? No. He's disingenuous. That's the key. Don't be so naive. As the brilliant linguist that he is he has created a totally false and transparently manipulative paradigm of "conspiracy theory versus structural theory." Michael Parenti broke down Chomsky's lack of honesty in this regard quite well. It's not institutions versus conspiracy; it's an institutional conspiracy. And that's extremely obvious; Chomsky's a liar who's good with words (um, to say the least). Just because he's not on CNN doesn't mean he's not supported by the establishment, as it were. He is, after, considered the world's leading intellectual.

Thanks for the Lisa Pease clip. Here's a fascinating article that helps to get at who Chomsky really is. It talks about the history of Chomsky's linguistics career, starting with how he was funded by the Pentagon in his early days. Noam Chomsky- the "apolitical" world's number one linguist. And Noam Chomsky- anti-socialist, "anti-truth movement" ecumenically-respected political writer. *Same f-ing person.*
NOAM CHOMSKY: POLITICS OR SCIENCE? http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/chomsky.htm

And here's the great article by Nafeez Ahmed on "9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis"
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html

So, in sum, in Noam Chomsky you have:
-A-The leader of the left-wing assault on the JFK truth and 9/11 truth movement. The person who has, imo, done the most harm of anyone in destroying the 9/11 truth movement, by turning most of the Left against it.
-B-The leader of the "non-communist left," a vehement anti-socialist anarchist, who is lukewarm on the current Lattin American "pink tide" revolutions. Anyone who doesn't understand how the CIA created this anti-communist left should read the book "The Cultural Cold War" by Frances Stoner Saunders. Anyone who believe it's silly to think that the intelligence apparatus would place people high in the alternative intellectual discourse... um, should really read that book. In fact, it's been the CIA's top priority post WW2.
-C-The man who turned the entire field of linguistics on its head in a blatantly anti-humanist, borderline cyborgian, manner that would have been rejected more effectively by leftist humanists if not for his confusing position as an alleged leftist-humanist leader. The man who wants to create a machine that will speak in and be able to understand all languages in the world. The language machine. Noam Chomsky's ultimate goal. Think the CIA just might be interested in something like that?
-D-The world's most important intellectual. Indeed, he is.

Remember- the most important and effective propaganda isn't the overt lies. It's the control of the potential opposition. Controlling the *alternative narrative* is essential to maintaining the delicate perch on which the fascist capitalist empire sits.
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

Postby stefano » Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:52 pm

I didn't read Chomsky's linguistics as positing the human as a cyborg, at all. He argues that certain concepts are innate, which is why we learn so easily and why grammars are alike in some respects. His theory was a refutation of the 'blank slate' conception of the human mind and as such said that some ideas are natural, including the idea of freedom. That's also where his opposition to Communism is from: he says it's impossible to mould a new man from rough clay since the clay carries within it propensities that will unfold in resistance to being treated like a machine. Particularly relevant in the 60s and 70s when the French Communists were still defending Stalin and Mao.
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re:

Postby Montag » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:03 pm

geogeo wrote:These Chomsky threads pop up regularly on this site, and never get anywhere. Here's my dos centavos:

--There is always a remarkable naivete about the construction and coddling of the Non-Communist Left (NCL) in the US as a project of those who realize that 'left' and 'right' are convenient labels. The objective of the NCL has always been to draw together the masses of brainwashed 'lefties' under a convenient banner and keep them from true, violent, social change, among other things. Great public intellectuals who watch their words and are ignored by the State are not unique to the US--we're just too dumb to need more than one! Chomsky doesn't hold a friggin candle to Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard--hell, not even to Emerson, imho. He's fetishized and lionized and etc., etc., a veritable Che.

Also, he's responsible for that outmoded abomination known as structural linguistics, isn't he? Noam's gnomes were intolerable--they thought they had all the answers, just like the Levi-Straussians, the Piagetians (?), the Marxists, and the Freudians. Deep structure? Chomsky, when asked what generates it all, had to admit to the existence of God. 9-11 is the least of his intellectual follies--he is way in the back when it comes to emergent systems and non-linear dynamics; he can't explain creativity and novelty--thus not life itself, or the universe, or anything-- any more than Descartes, Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Comte, and the rest of them in that long, long line of white male thinkers who hoodwinked us into Modernity.

Plus, his anarchism (IMHO) sucks--he can write well and speak well, but he don't hold a candle to Kropotkin. I'll take Rabelais any day. CIA? Might as well be. It's the Devil who has convinced us he doesn't exist. Done a good job of it.


I don't agree with all your points here, but this is a very interesting analysis. I've more thought Chomsky is famous than an intellectual titan for a long time (I read a Chris Hedges article that said Chomsky is America's #1 intellectual, lol). Still, every time I get fed up with him, I seem to revisit his ideas somewhere down the road again... As a "meta-theorist" I think he's not the best, as an analyst he is good, though.

p.s. I'm talking about his political stuff, I don't know his linguistic stuff too much.
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

Postby wordspeak2 » Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:58 am

This is my favorite Chomsky line:

“Even if it’s true” that 9/11 was an inside job, “…who cares? I mean, it doesn’t have any significance. I mean it’s a little bit like the huge amount of energy that’s put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. I mean, who knows, and who cares…plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happens to be John F. Kennedy?”
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 22 guests