Page 33 of 36 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 355

Thread: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:336]

  1. #321
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The two witnesses at the adjacent parking lot who saw the Durango "sculling" towards them (that's how one of the two witnesses described) ...
    You are speaking more nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Throughout all that she testified she did not see anything or weapon in or around their persons and she also did not see them removed or threw away anything from the vehicle. She testified she knows what a shotgun looked like and didn't see one. Likewise her brother also testified he knows what a shotgun looked like and didn't see any. She also testified that the two men did not leave the immediate area of their vehicle. She guesstimate that they were probably out of their vehicle for about a minute and then got back in and reversed their vehicle back to the Gate gas station.


    As reported by The Attorney Depot:


    But LeBlanc, who was backed up by her brother, Christopher LeBlanc, testified she saw Stornes and Thompson the whole time they were in the parking lot, and they never took a weapon out of the car. "I never saw anything taken out of that car," she said.
    What is your main malfunction in regards to this?
    It has already been addressed several times.

    It was established on direct, and on cross, that neither of them were looking the entire time.
    He even had his back turned towards them as he was putting his son into the car seat.

    What is it that you do not understand about that?
    Do you not understand that since they were not looking the entire time that they can not definitively establish that nothing was removed or tossed?
    Do you really not understand these things?


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    But, all these argument about direct vs circumstantial evidence are just pointless because we know very well that the two witnesses who witnessed the Durango speeding towards them testified in court that they did not see any thing, let alone a shotgun, stashed in or removed from the Durango or threw out when the two boys got out of the vehicle. So, how does that even constitute any evidence at all that there was a gun in the Durango?
    No.
    It means nothing, because you do not fully understand what is or isn't circumstantial evidence.
    It doesn't matter, because you are applying what was said to something that wasn't.
    And it doesn't matter to that either, as they were not looking the entire time as was testified to in direct and cross examination.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    In fact, the two witnesses actually provided evidence to support prosecution's contention that the men did not stash anything into the SUV or ditch anything whatsoever from the vehicle, let alone a weapon or shotgun, that night. And the court testimonies of the brother-sister witnesses are evidence for the prosecution whereas your brutish claim that there exists a gun is just purely forced bs bogus concoction devoid of any support from court evidence whatsoever but in fact your baseless claim was in direct contradiction to what had been testified to in court.
    Again you are wrong, which has been established by direct and cross examination. They were not looking the entire time, and as such, could not establish that nothing was thrown or stashed.

    Not only that, but it has been pretty much established that unlike his sister, he was lying about seeing both sides of the SUV, as he could not because of his location, especially with the doors of the SUV opened.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  2. #322
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    [QUOTE=Excon;1063020387] You have no point here.
    It is, and was, as I stated.

    You are in over your head here.
    Had anyone seen them with an actual%
    Last edited by dolphinocean; 03-11-14 at 06:04 PM.

  3. #323
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Something no one said is now somehow direct evidnce to you.
    iLOL
    Although this was already dispelled on this forum, here you are spouting the same nonsense and clearly showing you do not know the evidence ... again.

    That means you are being dishonest and just winging it, as you obviously do not really know the evidence. That is pretty sad.

    And not only that, but you have dishonestly argued what was testified to by the brother and sister. It is more than clear that they did not have eyes on them the entire time or see everything that happened.
    Yet here you are dishonestly arguing that they had.
    That isn't just sad, but pathetic as well.
    All the nonsense and dishonesty are coming directly from you, so please spare me your false sense of indignation.

    The brother and sister did not both turn away their attention at the same time. Both of them had their attention on the Durango most of the time from the time the Durango sped towards their direction to the time two men got out of the vehicle and then getting back in while they stood there watching because they were afraid that night after hearing gun shots and weren't sure what was going on.

    At one point the sister opened her purse and looked down for a split second to get her car keys while the brother was still watching at the other end. The brother only put the toddler into the car seat just before the Durngo back away in reverse course towards the gas station. That part he did not see when the Durango starting to back away but as he testified, he had been putting the toddler into the car seat for so many times that it didn't take him but a few second and was still able to look up through the back window of the car.

    So, to recap, both did see the main part where the Durango came towards them, two got out of the vehicle inspecting car, one with cell phone talking and going to the hatchback to check inside. Nothing was witnessed by the two witnesses during those crucial moment before they back away with their Durango. And certainly no gun or shot gun was seen in their possession, stashed into the Durango or ditched somewhere in the parking lot, for the two never left the location where the Durango was stopped.

    So, really, you have no case.

    As you were already told, I need not provide any such thing, especially as no such claim was made.

    They saw them get out, doing something.
    They did not have eyes on them the entire time to say they didn't get rid of something.
    Why do you have to resort to lying, Excon?

    You certainly did make a strong suggestion that a gun did exist many times. The last one you made was just two posts away from your current one in post #317. Let me quote you:

    "It is all circumstantial evidence suggesting the gun did exist."

    So, please don't try to run away and answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?

    Yes, you have to answer that if you want to use their testimonies to suggest "the gun did exist" and/or to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!!!

    PLEASE ANSWER THE DAMN SIMPLE QUESTION, EXCON!!!

  4. #324
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    This crap above is you not paying attention to what was said.
    Pay attention!

    "Had anyone seen them with an actual firearm, that would be direct evidence that a gun existed. Duh!"
    Well, my previous quote from the legal definition of Direct vs Indirect (Circumstantial evidence gave the illustrations:

    If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann.

    You see that, Excon? John saw Tom leaving the room with a smoking gun and yet John's testimony about seeing the smoking gun is just circumstantial evidence. Therefore, same as in Dunn's case, what the brother and sister saw that night at a location 200 yards from the shooting, whether they saw a gun or not, their testimony is simply circumstantial evidence.

    But, we know the two witnesses testified that they didn't even see the boys had anything other the a cell phone, so go figure with your imaginary gun.


    You have been thoroughly refuted and utterly defeated in your ongoing craps by me with clear logic, reason, legal definition and with fact of witness testimonies. All you have is turning the table and accusing me of your own follies and acting out your false sense of indignation that doesn't even belong.
    Last edited by dolphinocean; 03-11-14 at 06:20 PM.

  5. #325
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    What is your main malfunction in regards to this?
    It has already been addressed several times.

    It was established on direct, and on cross, that neither of them were looking the entire time.
    He even had his back turned towards them as he was putting his son into the car seat.

    What is it that you do not understand about that?
    Do you not understand that since they were not looking the entire time that they can not definitively establish that nothing was removed or tossed?
    Do you really not understand these things?

    No.
    It means nothing, because you do not fully understand what is or isn't circumstantial evidence.
    It doesn't matter, because you are applying what was said to something that wasn't.
    And it doesn't matter to that either, as they were not looking the entire time as was testified to in direct and cross examination.


    Again you are wrong, which has been established by direct and cross examination. They were not looking the entire time, and as such, could not establish that nothing was thrown or stashed.

    Not only that, but it has been pretty much established that unlike his sister, he was lying about seeing both sides of the SUV, as he could not because of his location, especially with the doors of the SUV opened.
    Yes, it has been addressed several times ad nauseam and yet you continue to dish out crapola.

    So, let me repeat one more time maybe hopefully this time it will sink in:


    The brother and sister did not both turn away their attention at the same time. Both of them had their attention on the Durango most of the time from the time the Durango sped towards their direction to the time two men got out of the vehicle and then getting back in while they stood there watching because they were afraid that night after hearing gun shots and weren't sure what was going on.


    At one point the sister opened her purse and looked down for a split second to get her car keys while the brother was still watching at the other end. The brother only put the toddler into the car seat just before the Durngo back away in reverse course towards the gas station. That part he did not see when the Durango starting to back away but as he testified, he had been putting the toddler into the car seat for so many times that it didn't take him but a few second and was still able to look up through the back window of the car.


    And you even want to convince people of a draw of luck, a very convenient co-incidence that one witness just turned away and the other happened not to watch at the right time and at a split moment the boys ditched the shotgun right in front of them from a shot distance and never saw or heard a thing. Not even after the Durango left, nothing, nada of a shot gun on the parking lot. Too convenient it just doesn't wash.


    So, to recap, both did see the main part where the Durango came towards them, two got out of the vehicle inspecting car, one with cell phone talking and going to the hatchback to check inside. Nothing was witnessed by the two witnesses during those crucial moment before they back away with their Durango. And certainly no gun or shot gun was seen in their possession, stashed into the Durango or ditched somewhere in the parking lot, for the two never left the location where the Durango was stopped. If they had ditched the shot gun from the Durango, the witnesses would have seen it laying somewhere on the ground. How can one miss seeing a shot gun being tossed out or laying on the ground in the parking lot?


    Good thing the boys didn't drive their fatally injured friend all the way to the hospital, otherwise you would have a field day claiming the boys somehow ditched the shotgun in the highway along the way where nobody saw and then claim that absence of evidence is your direct evidence.


    The brother wasn't lying about seeing both sides of the SUV. He was there, you weren't, so stop making stuffs up to falsely accuse people of lying.


    The brother testified that he and his sister was not standing together at the same location. When the Durango came towards them he went one way and his sister went the other way taking coverage behind her car by the front passenger door overlooking the Durango. The brother was actually running away and was standing at the other end behind her car. So, where he stood he could see directly at the Durango and therefore at both sides of the SUV doors.


    But, the whole point of your argument is that the brother would not have been able to see both sides and they couldn't have seen anything because they turned their attention away from the two men is just a self-defeating argument considering that you are relying on their testimonies as your evidence that the boys had a shotgun in the Durango that was ditched or stashed away.


    So, if the two witnesses had not seen anything or could not establish that nothing was thrown or stashed, how on earth are their testinmonies able to support your contention that this was the circumstatial evidence that suggested the boys had a gun or that a gun existed?


    Remember, when another poster had asked you for evidence regarding your insistent claim that the boys had gun in their possession, the testimonies of these two witnesses were cited by you as your evidence. So, there you go again, shooting yourself in the foot at every turn while acting like you have conquered the whole wide world.

    So, please don't try to run away but answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?


    Yes, you have to answer that if you want to use their testimonies to suggest "the gun did exist" and/or to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!!!


    PLEASE ANSWER THE DAMN SIMPLE QUESTION, EXCON!!!
    Last edited by dolphinocean; 03-11-14 at 06:37 PM.

  6. #326
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I'm still slack-jawed over the fact that they found the guy guilty of three counts of attempted murder on the guys he didn't manage to kill, but couldn't agree on a murder conviction on the guy he did manage to kill. WTF is up with that?? I can't imagine what the parents of that poor dead teenager must be going through right now, knowing that their son has still not received justice.

    ****ing Florida juries are all nutjobs.
    Only one solution here - Take a saw and saw Florida off from the rest of the country, and float it to Cuba.... Wait, that won't work. Cuba doesn't want Florida either. LOL.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #327
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Had anyone seen them with an actual%
    Dunn testified that he saw Davis with a gun.
    Dunn's account is evidence.

    Like I said; You are in over your head here.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  8. #328
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    All the nonsense and dishonesty are coming directly from you, so please spare me your false sense of indignation.

    Get your facts straight, that is all which you have provided.
    And still are.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The brother and sister did not both turn away their attention at the same time. Both of them had their attention on the Durango most of the time from the time the Durango sped towards their direction to the time two men got out of the vehicle and then getting back in while they stood there watching because they were afraid that night after hearing gun shots and weren't sure what was going on.
    Irrelevant.
    She did not see the other side of the vehicle as she honestly stated. And he said he didn't have eyes on them the whole time.

    And like her brother, she too was at the rear of the car and saw nothing to the other side of the Durango, because it was impossible to see such from that vantage point.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    At one point the sister opened her purse and looked down for a split second to get her car keys while the brother was still watching at the other end. The brother only put the toddler into the car seat just before the Durngo back away in reverse course towards the gas station. That part he did not see when the Durango starting to back away but as he testified, he had been putting the toddler into the car seat for so many times that it didn't take him but a few second and was still able to look up through the back window of the car.
    Irrelevant. The angles show he is not being truthful.
    And by his own testimony, he said he did not have eyes on them to entire time.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    So, to recap, both did see the main part where the Durango came towards them, two got out of the vehicle inspecting car, one with cell phone talking and going to the hatchback to check inside. Nothing was witnessed by the two witnesses during those crucial moment before they back away with their Durango. And certainly no gun or shot gun was seen in their possession, stashed into the Durango or ditched somewhere in the parking lot, for the two never left the location where the Durango was stopped.

    So, really, you have no case.
    To recap, you have no case.
    She did not, as she could not, see what happened on the passenger side of the Durango.
    He did not have eyes on them the entire time, and the angles in question would not have allowed him to see what happened on the passenger side of the Durango either.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    As you were already told, I need not provide any such thing, especially as no such claim was made.

    They saw them get out, doing something.
    They did not have eyes on them the entire time to say they didn't get rid of something.
    Why do you have to resort to lying, Excon?

    You certainly did make a strong suggestion that a gun did exist many times. The last one you made was just two posts away from your current one in post #317. Let me quote you:

    "It is all circumstantial evidence suggesting the gun did exist."

    So, please don't try to run away and answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?

    Yes, you have to answer that if you want to use their testimonies to suggest "the gun did exist" and/or to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!!!

    PLEASE ANSWER THE DAMN SIMPLE QUESTION, EXCON!!!
    You have a real problem in understanding what has been said.
    It is either that or you are straight out lying. Which is it?

    And no, I do not have to answer to your idiotic assertion.

    What I pointed out is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist.
    No one else had to see a gun for that to be an accurate statement.
    That is your problem for not fully understanding what circumstantial evidence is.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  9. #329
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Well, my previous quote from the legal definition of Direct vs Indirect (Circumstantial evidence gave the illustrations:

    If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann.

    You see that, Excon? John saw Tom leaving the room with a smoking gun and yet John's testimony about seeing the smoking gun is just circumstantial evidence. Therefore, same as in Dunn's case, what the brother and sister saw that night at a location 200 yards from the shooting, whether they saw a gun or not, their testimony is simply circumstantial evidence.

    But, we know the two witnesses testified that they didn't even see the boys had anything other the a cell phone, so go figure with your imaginary gun.


    You have been thoroughly refuted and utterly defeated in your ongoing craps by me with clear logic, reason, legal definition and with fact of witness testimonies. All you have is turning the table and accusing me of your own follies and acting out your false sense of indignation that doesn't even belong.
    Really?
    You are pretending that you are so uneducated that you can not see the distinct difference between these?
    Wow! Simply wow!

    Well you are wrong, and are the only one who has been "thoroughly refuted and utterly destroyed by the facts.
    1. Your quoted scenario is not relevant to this situation at all.
    2. It is nothing more, as shown, than circumstantial evidence to Tom doing the shooting.
    NOt to the existence of a gun.

    But your quoted example is providing direct evidence to the existence of a gun. Duh!


    This is just another example of you not knowing what the hell you are talking about, and explains your ridiculously absurd question above.
    You simply do not understand.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #330
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Yes, it has been addressed several times ad nauseam and yet you continue to dish out crapola.
    The only one dishing out crapola and making things up is you.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    So, let me repeat one more time maybe hopefully this time it will sink in:
    Your crapola will not sink in because it is wrong as crapola is.
    Stop spewing it.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The brother and sister did not both turn away their attention at the same time. Both of them had their attention on the Durango most of the time from the time the Durango sped towards their direction to the time two men got out of the vehicle and then getting back in while they stood there watching because they were afraid that night after hearing gun shots and weren't sure what was going on.


    At one point the sister opened her purse and looked down for a split second to get her car keys while the brother was still watching at the other end. The brother only put the toddler into the car seat just before the Durngo back away in reverse course towards the gas station. That part he did not see when the Durango starting to back away but as he testified, he had been putting the toddler into the car seat for so many times that it didn't take him but a few second and was still able to look up through the back window of the car.


    And you even want to convince people of a draw of luck, a very convenient co-incidence that one witness just turned away and the other happened not to watch at the right time and at a split moment the boys ditched the shotgun right in front of them from a shot distance and never saw or heard a thing. Not even after the Durango left, nothing, nada of a shot gun on the parking lot. Too convenient it just doesn't wash.


    So, to recap, both did see the main part where the Durango came towards them, two got out of the vehicle inspecting car, one with cell phone talking and going to the hatchback to check inside. Nothing was witnessed by the two witnesses during those crucial moment before they back away with their Durango. And certainly no gun or shot gun was seen in their possession, stashed into the Durango or ditched somewhere in the parking lot, for the two never left the location where the Durango was stopped. If they had ditched the shot gun from the Durango, the witnesses would have seen it laying somewhere on the ground. How can one miss seeing a shot gun being tossed out or laying on the ground in the parking lot?
    A ridiculous argument that comes directly from you making **** up in your own head.
    Not even the prosecutor would make such an argument because it can not be shown to be true.

    The sister could not even see the other side of the vehicle at all, which she honestly stated. Period.

    And even though her brother can clearly be shown to be untruthful by the line of sight he had, he has already stated he did not have his eyes on them the entire time.
    So you have absolutely nothing to your argument.
    It is nothing but foolishness on your part.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The brother wasn't lying about seeing both sides of the SUV. He was there, you weren't, so stop making stuffs up to falsely accuse people of lying.
    The angle involved says he was being untruthful. Especially with the doors being open.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The brother testified that he and his sister was not standing together at the same location. When the Durango came towards them he went one way and his sister went the other way taking coverage behind her car by the front passenger door overlooking the Durango. The brother was actually running away and was standing at the other end behind her car. So, where he stood he could see directly at the Durango and therefore at both sides of the SUV doors.
    Which does not give him a view of the other side of the Durango.
    Not to mention the fact that he moved towards her car anyways, and had to interact with it, thus taking his eyes off of the Durango. Duh!

    Location from her testimony.
    He would have had to been up in the blue area the whole time to see what happened on that side of the vehicle. But he wasn't.
    So stop with your nonsense.


    Location from his testimony.


    She honestly indicated that she was not able to see what happened on the other side of the Durngo, and by the angles involved, nether was he.
    But beside that, he already stated he did not have eyes on them the entire time, and as we can see by the angles involved he couldn't have regardless if he was on either side of the car or at it's rear.

    For him to be able to say such, he would have had to be standing far into the roadway the entire time they were out of the Durango. And he simply wasn't. He was preoccupied with the safty of his son.


    So you can just stop with all your nonsense. He didn't have his eyes on them the entire time.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    But, the whole point of your argument is that the brother would not have been able to see both sides and they couldn't have seen anything because they turned their attention away from the two men is just a self-defeating argument considering that you are relying on their testimonies as your evidence that the boys had a shotgun in the Durango that was ditched or stashed away.
    You clearly have no idea what has been argued.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Remember, when another poster had asked you for evidence regarding your insistent claim that the boys had gun in their possession, the testimonies of these two witnesses were cited by you as your evidence. So, there you go again, shooting yourself in the foot at every turn while acting like you have conquered the whole wide world.

    So, please don't try to run away but answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?


    Yes, you have to answer that if you want to use their testimonies to suggest "the gun did exist" and/or to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!!!
    No I do not, because as already shown, I did not make the claim you say I made.
    And you have just now shown that you did not understand what was said to another poster as well.
    As usual, you are wrong and batting zero.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

Page 33 of 36 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •