This thread is for stupid questions that don't deserve their own individual threads

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shoogoo said:
Thanks. Is it that thing you can only do once a year?

Another question that pops up, recently I've only been able to access xbox.com (and hotmail) via IE. Firefox and Chrome won't work, what the fuu?
Click to expand...
Yes, you can only do it once a year. I have no problems on firefox. Clear your cache and flush your dns.
 
http://208.116.9.205/10/content/24376/1.jpg
these always crack me up, mostly cause they are ridiculous. unfortunately with my grade 12 physics education, i don't know why this is incorrect. i remember that light can sometimes be a particle and sometimes a wave, which in itself is fucking ridiculous.. anyways, assuming you could move a mirror at the speed of light, would this diagram be possible? is it just because it is impossible to move a solid at the speed of light? aka, it is theoretically possible?

edit, fuck, im gonna break the image tag i didnt realize it was all one, anyways im talking about the ~5th comic.
 
The light would dissipate, unless fully contained, I'd think.
So, you'd have to find a way to contain it with mirrors from all sides with no gaps in the reflective surface.
 
AceBandage said:
The light would dissipate, unless fully contained, I'd think.
So, you'd have to find a way to contain it with mirrors from all sides with no gaps in the reflective surface.
Click to expand...
I can't see any reason that it theoretically couldn't work so I don't see what's strange or trollish about it tbh. Of course in practice most of the light would have make an angle to the surface and escape the trap as you say, not to mention that mirrors can't reflect all of the light so it would disappear that way as well.

mcrae said:
http://208.116.9.205/10/content/24376/1.jpgi remember that light can sometimes be a particle and sometimes a wave, which in itself is fucking ridiculous..
Click to expand...
It's not so much that it can sometimes be one and sometimes the other, as it is both at the same time. Yeah, it's strange to imagine since our brains can't encounter the phenomena "naturally."
 
mcrae said:
http://208.116.9.205/10/content/24376/1.jpg
these always crack me up, mostly cause they are ridiculous. unfortunately with my grade 12 physics education, i don't know why this is incorrect. i remember that light can sometimes be a particle and sometimes a wave, which in itself is fucking ridiculous.. anyways, assuming you could move a mirror at the speed of light, would this diagram be possible? is it just because it is impossible to move a solid at the speed of light? aka, it is theoretically possible?

edit, fuck, im gonna break the image tag i didnt realize it was all one, anyways im talking about the ~5th comic.
Click to expand...

1 - No surface is perfectly reflective - some light is always absorbed and turned into thermal energy. Even if it's 99.99999999% reflective the light will stop get absorbed.

2 - The beam would have to be perfectly at right angles to the reflecting surfaces. The beam would also have to be perfectly parallel. you could get over this by shining light inside a perfectly reflective sphere and moving the torch out of the way rather than inserting a mirror. That way the light would be bouncing around inside the sphere with no way of getting out.

3 - You wouldn't be able to observe the phenomenon, because observing it requires the absorption of light (into your retinas or camera).

4 - Interestingly I don't think you'd need to move an object faster than light. You would just need to set the mirrors sufficiently far apart. For example, you could have a satellite in a geostationary orbit above the Earth's equator with a mirror on it. According to Wikipedia it takes 0.119 seconds for light to travel from the ground to geostationary orbit. Given the round trip this would give you almost 1/4 of a second to insert a mirror in front of your torch before the light came back.

I read a good scifi short story (from the '70s I believe) that described a giant hemisphere that was made of a substance that was 99.99999% friction free on a large asteroid (imaging the inside dish of a radio telescope). Two guys fell over and they were caught in it, continuously sliding from one side to the other - every trip took hours but because it was almost frictionless they'd get very close to the other side, but not close enough to escape.

The story was about how they figured out how to escape.
 
I would like to start watching the Fist of the North Star series but there are so many dvds to pick from. where do I start? did the tv show or the movie come first?
 
Can someone explain the differences between megabits per sec and megabytes per sec in terms download speeds? MBps vs Mbps? Is 1 Megabit per sec one eighth the speed of 1 Megabyte per sec?

I want to clear this up for my own benefit and to end this debate with my friends
 
I just did a clean install of W7, and I forgot to grab a few things. I'm going to partition my HDD and restore my old Vista desktop back, then copy the things I need over (then delete the partition).

In iTunes, I wanted to grab the file that stores the number of plays, ratings, etc. Where is that stored?
 
barnone said:
Can someone explain the differences between megabits per sec and megabytes per sec in terms download speeds? MBps vs Mbps? Is 1 Megabit per sec one eighth the speed of 1 Megabyte per sec?

I want to clear this up for my own benefit and to end this debate with my friends
Click to expand...
1 megabyte = 8 megabits
so you are correct
 
ltse1 said:
I just did a clean install of W7, and I forgot to grab a few things. I'm going to partition my HDD and restore my old Vista desktop back, then copy the things I need over (then delete the partition).

In iTunes, I wanted to grab the file that stores the number of plays, ratings, etc. Where is that stored?
Click to expand...
Library file. There are several files, "iTunes Library," "iTunes Music Library," maybe another one or two. Just copy em all. Should be in the iTunes folder.
 
I've been thinking.

In The Fly, you know how Jeff Goldblum invents that teleportation technology? It disassembles your matter, then reassembles it in another place. Hypothetically, if this were possible, and you tried it - wouldn't you, as in your consciousness as an individual human, cease to exist? You disappear, and are copied somewhere else. For a moment, you are gone and dead and a replica of yourself appears on the other end of the teleporter. It seems impossible that your consciousness could somehow survive through that moment of non-existent limbo, even if it's just a split second. Would it be possible to maintain your consciousness throughout this process, or would your so-called "soul" be lost in the process as a cut and paste version of yourself is created in the landing zone of the teleporter?

Thanks in advance.
 
Snuggler said:
I've been thinking.

In The Fly, you know how Jeff Goldblum invents that teleportation technology? It disassembles your matter, then reassembles it in another place. Hypothetically, if this were possible, and you tried it - wouldn't you, as in your consciousness as an individual human, cease to exist? You disappear, and are copied somewhere else. For a moment, you are gone and dead and a replica of yourself appears on the other end of the teleporter. It seems impossible that your consciousness could somehow survive through that moment of non-existent limbo, even if it's just a split second. Would it be possible to maintain your consciousness throughout this process, or would your so-called "soul" be lost in the process as a cut and paste version of yourself is created in the landing zone of the teleporter?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I guess it has to arrange your neurons/synapses etc in the exact same pattern AND perhaps maintain the electrical signals too.

By the way, why was Salsashark banned???
 
DonMigs85 said:
By the way, why was Salsashark banned???
Click to expand...

Because he posted a thread with a fake Deadpool trailer or something. I didn't watch the video.

Sounds like he got a 2 week ban so we'll be back the first of February. Miss you Pablo!
 
I guess this is a stupid question so I'll give it a go. How do I search for specific threads? I may be blind but I just can't find the search option anymore.
 
hamzik said:
I guess this is a stupid question so I'll give it a go. How do I search for specific threads? I may be blind but I just can't find the search option anymore.
Click to expand...

google your search like this: neogaf.com *insert your search*

Google will only look into neogaf.com
 
I forgot the name of a movie, think it's adventure & action with some young kids. Set on desert / savannah.

Basicly what i remember the movie start with young guy walking in to a field full of explosives and he cant hear shouts because of the earphones.
Later some bad dudes (drug smugglers/ poachers maybe) show of and start killing all the adults, boy & girl survive and head to a desert for some reason.
 
Snuggler said:
I've been thinking.

In The Fly, you know how Jeff Goldblum invents that teleportation technology? It disassembles your matter, then reassembles it in another place. Hypothetically, if this were possible, and you tried it - wouldn't you, as in your consciousness as an individual human, cease to exist? You disappear, and are copied somewhere else. For a moment, you are gone and dead and a replica of yourself appears on the other end of the teleporter. It seems impossible that your consciousness could somehow survive through that moment of non-existent limbo, even if it's just a split second. Would it be possible to maintain your consciousness throughout this process, or would your so-called "soul" be lost in the process as a cut and paste version of yourself is created in the landing zone of the teleporter?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

The answer to this depends on the long standing questions of what exactly consciousness and self is, and how connected is it to your physical self.

Also, if you think about it, teleporters are actually instant-object creators. The type of teleporter you're talking about is something that takes a collection of atoms and instantly disassembles and assembles objects.
 
UnluckyKate said:
google your search like this: neogaf.com *insert your search*

Google will only look into neogaf.com
Click to expand...

There's also the search bar at the top right of the page. Use intitle:"<thread title>"
 
Snuggler said:
I've been thinking.

In The Fly, you know how Jeff Goldblum invents that teleportation technology? It disassembles your matter, then reassembles it in another place. Hypothetically, if this were possible, and you tried it - wouldn't you, as in your consciousness as an individual human, cease to exist? You disappear, and are copied somewhere else. For a moment, you are gone and dead and a replica of yourself appears on the other end of the teleporter. It seems impossible that your consciousness could somehow survive through that moment of non-existent limbo, even if it's just a split second. Would it be possible to maintain your consciousness throughout this process, or would your so-called "soul" be lost in the process as a cut and paste version of yourself is created in the landing zone of the teleporter?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
In fact, this question is worth a thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=394968.

Or two: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=415865.

;)
 
Ok, which of these movies is better (i.e. what should we watch tonight);

-127 Hours
-The Number 23
-One Hour Photo

Or which should I get before others?
 
Sentry said:
Ok, which of these movies is better (i.e. what should we watch tonight);

-127 Hours
-The Number 23
-One Hour Photo

Or which should I get before others?
Click to expand...

127 Hours. By far the best film of the three. One Hour Photo has some redeeming qualities (it's always worth it to see Robin Williams in a dramatic role), but 23 is just plain horrific.
 
jaekwon15 said:
I would like to start watching the Fist of the North Star series but there are so many dvds to pick from. where do I start? did the tv show or the movie come first?
Click to expand...

The 1982 TV show came first. Start with that.
 
I have a D-Link DI-634M router.

My PS3 is connected to it via wire and I'm trying to get it so that the PS3 is completely exposed to the internet to allow games to easily use the ports they need.

I have my PC and PS3 setup with static IP addresses. I have my PS3's IP address set in a DMZ, but apparently this isn't enough for some games.

Examples:

COD:MW2 - works fine. NAT Type: Open (which is the best status you can have in the game.)

DC Univers Online - Doesn't allow mic to work. Apparently is blocking something. Hooked up PS3 directly to modem and mic worked online. When hooked up to router, mic doesn't work.

Here's an example of the router's log from the time I was testing DC Universe Online with my mic (I just edited out the IP addresses, but it was blocking the PS3's IP address from seding these packets):

Code: 
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:58 2011 Previous message repeated 1 time
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:58 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:58 2011 Previous message repeated 4 times
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:58 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:58 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:58 2011 Previous message repeated 2 times
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Previous message repeated 2 times
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Previous message repeated 2 times
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Previous message repeated 2 times
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Previous message repeated 3 times
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Previous message repeated 1 time
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]
[INFO] Sat Jan 15 15:59:57 2011 Blocked outgoing ICMP packet (ICMP type 3) from [PS3 TO SOMEWHERE]

The list goes on and on and on with the same sort of stuff.

What kinds of settings can I try with my router to allow these ICMP packets (among other things) to be sent/received without issue for my PS3?

DC Universe Online is the only game being a little bitch about all this (all 50+ games I've owned all work great), but I apparently stumbled across the fact that the router is blocking something. Any ideas would be great...

Edit: With the router connected, my PS3 is NAT Type 2 and UPnP is enabled.
 
Snuggler said:
can fish feel pain?
Click to expand...

Hotly debated. An excellent question.

Fish are extremely dumb animals - about as dumb as bony creatures get. They are slightly smarter than insects but are not as smart as birds.

But we're not even sure any bird or fish species (very closely related) are sentient at all.

God this is so fought all the time. Nearly impossible to prove like you can with a dog, cat, dolphin, horse. Gosh even mice are sentient. Dumb as fuck but sentient. Feel way more guilty next time you put a mouse trap out vs the next time you bludgeon a fish or rip it apart millimeter by millimeter. On the whole, the overall pain scale tilted far more when you set that mouse trap.

In a way it doesn't matter if they "feel pain". Because most animals associate pain with a threat to their life, they rightly avoid it. So, in that way anything that jerks if you touch it the wrong way (shutup) "feels pain".

Veterinarians and scientists only tend to care if they are feel pain AND are sentient. That's when trouble arises.

That - my friend - is super hotly debated in vet schools and research centers.

It's a mighty good question too.

If you're asking because you're remembering Pep-pep rip a hook from the lip or throat of a pickerel you two caught during a trip to scenic Lake Wallenpaupack, America's eighth largest indigenous body of water, Pep-pep was right - the fish, even if it dies from those wounds, didn't suffer.
 
awesomeapproved said:
Nearly impossible to prove like you can with a dog, cat, dolphin, horse. Gosh even mice are sentient. Dumb as fuck but sentient. Feel way more guilty next time you put a mouse trap out vs the next time you bludgeon a fish or rip it apart millimeter by millimeter. On the whole, the overall pain scale tilted far more when you set that mouse trap.
Click to expand...
How in the hell would you prove sentience?
 
Cyan said:
How in the hell would you prove sentience?
Click to expand...
Are you serious?
It's actually spoken about in terms of measurability, not just existence.
I can prove you're sentient. I can prove the chair you're sitting on isn't.

I can't "prove" the ant you killed walking today didn't feel it in terms of "oh but I have a a a family, nooooooo **squish**" but I can show you how we think lower life forms treat nerve trauma and memory if you're interested. With due respect, if you're just coming from a point of ignorance (which is completely fair) and aren't trying to kick into a science/religion/animal rights thing then we're cool.

This definitely can be debated (like I said) in terms of levels and what creatures are sentient and what are not - - but this stuff - - I mean it's written into laws and stuff like that. Are you aware? You should read up on it - it's very interesting.

A few links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience_quotient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience#Animal_rights_and_sentience
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC8KRgAdUmo
 
awesomeapproved said:
Are you serious?
Click to expand...
No, I just really enjoy being condescended to.

It's actually spoken about in terms of measurability, not just existence.
I can prove you're sentient. I can prove the chair you're sitting on isn't.

I can't "prove" the ant you killed walking today didn't feel it in terms of "oh but I have a a a family, nooooooo **squish**" but I can show you how we think lower life forms treat nerve trauma and memory if you're interested. With due respect, if you're just coming from a point of ignorance (which is completely fair) and aren't trying to kick into a science/religion/animal rights thing then we're cool.

This definitely can be debated (like I said) in terms of levels and what creatures are sentient and what are not - - but this stuff - - I mean it's written into laws and stuff like that. Are you aware? You should read up on it - it's very interesting.

A few links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience_quotient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience#Animal_rights_and_sentience
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC8KRgAdUmo
Click to expand...
This is as dissatisfying an answer as the Turing Test.

Certainly, if you define sentience as "having a brain with a ratio of information processing rate/mass equal to or greater than x," rather than "having subjective experience," then you can prove sentience. But you're not going to convince a species solipsist.

Freitas' article is interesting, though he doesn't exactly go out of his way to argue for his many assertions.
 
Trent Strong said:
Looks like that website has Twilight voted as the best book ever...
Click to expand...

But that has nothing to do with the site itself, but only with part of the users who have bad taste. However, it is an excellent way of organizing and keeping track of books as well as discovering new books to read. And the lists are a remarkable source fo the latter (despite the occasional twilight fans).
 
I recently purchased a PS3 and was just thinking that video playback might work better on it than it does on my old Macbook Pro. I think HD playback is a bit choppier than it ought to be. What's the easiest/cleanest way to watch podcasts through the PS3. Is it possible download them directly from the device, or is streaming the only way?
 
Luken said:
:)
Click to expand...

Aww fuck. Ok I'll bite. But:

1. I just can not tell if you're serious or pulling our leg.

2. Isn't there an unwritten rule about this thread not having easily Google'able answers? Because I found out everything I needed to with 1 exception (that 1 exception is sort of unaswerable here - the fact that your link is in Spanish confuses things if you don't know Spanish. And I don't know Portuguese at all and don't feel qualified to make the distinction) in about 30 seconds on Google and a short hop to Wikipedia.

3. I am bored so presuming you're serious, here you go:

That is some user-created thing - it is a montage of all kinds of stuff laced together, YouTube Senior Basement Video Editor style replete with no sound after 2:33 and audio/video blackness after 2:40. YouTube can be such a pile of crap in terms of content - I guess that's what makes it so popular though. Getting to "lots of good" takes a lot of wading through "lots of bad". How you'd ever stumble upon this I'll never know.

The Portugese - English machine translations of what the YouTube account holder said is the following:
I'll Drive You To Me Away - Bikini Cavadão - This video was a montage that I made to honor the love of my life, Daniele Gomes dos Santos, Love You My Life, my all, my path and miha strength. Want to take you everywhere I go if I can not go in thinking you can go ... LOVE YOU WITH ALL THE STRENGTH OF THE WORLD!

The song is by Biquini Cavadão, and is called Vou Te Levar Comigo. I found a decent quality version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXmGFFc_VCU

The video is for the song Accidentally in Love by The Counting Crows, and it's on the soundtrack of Shrek 2.

As for the music video and the characters:

The main music video for the song, directed by Meiert Avis, features a stuffed animal (voiced by Adam Duritz) in the apartment of a teen couple (the girl is confirmed to be Ashley Roberts), complete with a TV showing scenes from the Shrek 2 film. The animal comes to life and serenades the girl. She falls in love with it and leaves her boyfriend (played by model Steve Vanda) behind while he is in the kitchen making breakfast for her.

Another music video exists for the song and is included on the Shrek 2 DVD as a bonus feature. It features clips from the movie intercut with scenes of Adam Duritz, lead singer of Counting Crows, recording the song.

So was that helpful or did I just get 2011 style Rick Rolled? If so, well played.

If not, I hope this was helpful but honestly you could have easily found this yourself in about 30 seconds (either that or maybe I am so obsessive-compulsive that I am constantly finding myself needing to know weird stuff and know how to search so that I get good answers, really quickly).
 
awesomeapproved said:
Aww fuck. Ok I'll bite. But:

1. I just can not tell if you're serious or pulling our leg.

2. Isn't there an unwritten rule about this thread not having easily Google'able answers? Because I found out everything I needed to with 1 exception (that 1 exception is sort of unaswerable here - the fact that your link is in Spanish confuses things if you don't know Spanish. And I don't know Portuguese at all and don't feel qualified to make the distinction) in about 30 seconds on Google and a short hop to Wikipedia.

3. I am bored so presuming you're serious, here you go:

That is some user-created thing - it is a montage of all kinds of stuff laced together, YouTube Senior Basement Video Editor style complete with sound gone after 2:33 and audio and video blackness after 2:40. What a piece of crap either way. YouTube can be such a pile of crap in terms of content - I guess that's what makes it so popular though. Getting to "lots of good" takes a lot of wading through "lots of bad". How you'd ever stumble upon this I'll never know.

The Portugese - English machine translations of what the YouTube account holder said is the following:
I'll Drive You To Me Away - Bikini Cavadão - This video was a montage that I made to honor the love of my life, Daniele Gomes dos Santos, Love You My Life, my all, my path and miha strength. Want to take you everywhere I go if I can not go in thinking you can go ... LOVE YOU WITH ALL THE STRENGTH OF THE WORLD!

The song is by Biquini Cavadão, and is called Vou Te Levar Comigo. I found a decent quality version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXmGFFc_VCU

The video is for the song Accidentally in Love by The Counting Crows, and it's on the soundtrack of Shrek 2.

As for the music video and the characters:

The main music video for the song, directed by Meiert Avis, features a stuffed animal (voiced by Adam Duritz) in the apartment of a teen couple (the girl is confirmed to be Ashley Roberts), complete with a TV showing scenes from the Shrek 2 film. The animal comes to life and serenades the girl. She falls in love with it and leaves her boyfriend (played by model Steve Vanda) behind while he is in the kitchen making breakfast for her.

Another music video exists for the song and is included on the Shrek 2 DVD as a bonus feature. It features clips from the movie intercut with scenes of Adam Duritz, lead singer of Counting Crows, recording the song.

So was that helpful or did I just get 2011 style Rick Rolled? If so, well played, really well played. I'll never get this time back. Gone.

If not, you could have easily found this yourself in about 30 seconds.
Click to expand...


Thank you! I love you!

I'm months searching for this video clip, but the singer voice is so similar to other singers, that I couldn't figure out who was singing.

It was not easy to find this song on youtube or google , I tried searching on google, I used the words singing rabbit, guy bringing breakfast to blond girl in bed, bunny singing to blond, dude breakfast bunny bedroom music video and many other descriptions to find this song and nothing. It was driving me insane.

Once again, thank you my friend, god be with you. :D
 
Luken said:
Thank you! I love you!

I'm months searching for this video clip, but the singer voice is so similar to other singers, that I couldn't figure out who was singing.

It was not easy to find this song on youtube or google , I tried searching on google, I used the words singing rabbit, guy bringing breakfast to blond girl in bed, bunny singing to blond, dude breakfast bunny bedroom music video and many other descriptions to find this song and nothing. It was driving me insane.

Once again, thank you my friend, god be with you. :D
Click to expand...

Aww man. Again if you're serious you're totally welcome.
I am sorry if I insulted you.

It's always hard on here, despite this being the single best thread I know of on any message board. Either people come on here with complete guesses, "I don't know"'s or "It's probably..."

And from the asking angle, there are occasional questions that are so fringe that it's hard to tell if we're just being taken on a ride.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ignored members threads
2 3
142
1K
Grildon Tundy replied
[Joke Thread] Lines in "Scenes" That Make You "Think"
Social Opinion NSFW 
3
303
ConkerTheSquirrel. replied
This is not a April Fool's 2025 thread
0
517
San Dan Glokta replied
2025 | The yearly positive thread
3
10
DKehoe replied
  • Locked
Anyone else who simply don't wanna open the "There's a major development regarding Sydney Sweeney" thread?
31
1K
jufonuk replied
Top Bottom