People like authority i think

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
crossfire
Offline
Joined: 18-05-04
Jul 28 2004 14:51
People like authority i think

A lot of people don't want to have that much say they just want to sit back and either don't realise ho much bearing politics has on their lives or it doesn't. They like to have someone to do the work for them and make difficult descisions so if it goes wrong they have someone they can blme and feel comfortable to themselves.

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Jul 28 2004 18:17

the notion of people making decisions for us, ie elected representatives, seems to only be palatable for those people who spend their time working, commuting and consuming and so have little or no time to even think, let alone make decisions.

The only decisions we seem to able to make and follow through with action is how we pay the bills, who we work for, what we eat/buy etc etc.

These are non-decisions since they carry little or no weight in terms of the organisation of our own lives.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Jul 30 2004 00:10

This post is failry pointless as we are all actually teriified of the state despite our attempts to either shrug off our doubts as ''oh it'll never change'' or engage in acts of mock bravado to attempt to prove we're not completely helpless against its military might.

And with thousands of nuclear missiles poised over our heads its hard to feel confident isn't it.

I can't speak for everyone but from what i can see people like security, people want a shady lane so to speak thats not bad thats good, it shows that we're not all a bunch of raving individualists.

I don't think people like authority much really.

john

Steve Booth
Offline
Joined: 10-05-04
Aug 3 2004 21:30
cantdocartwheels wrote:
This post is failry pointless as we are all actually teriified of the state despite our attempts to either shrug off our doubts as ''oh it'll never change'' or engage in acts of mock bravado to attempt to prove we're not completely helpless against its military might.

And with thousands of nuclear missiles poised over our heads its hard to feel confident isn't it.

I can't speak for everyone but from what i can see people like security, people want a shady lane so to speak thats not bad thats good, it shows that we're not all a bunch of raving individualists.

I don't think people like authority much really.

john

In my opinion the basic premiss of the thread is right, that people find it difficult to make decisions and take control of their own lives and so by default leave it to the state / the system to arrange stuff for them.

At the same time people don't like being told what to do, what to think, and want shut of it but have no faith in the existing parties, movements and approaches. People are also cynical.

I am sorry that 'Cantdocartwheels' feels that way about the state - people shouldn't feel frightened about it. We are not completely helpless. Things we can do make a difference, and are quite simple. We have to build up our free society by an increasing number of small acts of defiance or revolutionary change.

We can try to step outside the state and create positive things of our own like a community resource centre or a small food co-op or something like that.

Part of the problem is broadening it and encouraging other people to make those same steps forwards, but it really starts with ourselves.

Wayne
Offline
Joined: 28-12-03
Aug 4 2004 18:39
Quote:
People like authority I think
Quote:
A lot of people don't want to have that much say they just want to sit back and they like to have someone to do the work for them so if it goes wrong they have someone they can blme and feel comfortable to themselves.

Aye but if you're going to tie them up I think you should arrange a safe word before you start.

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Aug 5 2004 12:44

The exploiters (rich) try to keep the exploited (workers, proles, lumpen or otherwise, consumers, peasants) in a state where they are easier to control. This is commonly acheived by stimulation/manipulation of the animal consciousness so that it becomes dominant. Anything which triggers an animal response will do so sex and fear are common tools. While this level of basic, animal, childlike thought processes dominates the consciousness of an individual, they tend to feel someone else should be controlling things - daddy, pack leader, alpha male. As long as these people (politicians, employers, the military etc - the sheepdogs) can use the skills of rhetoric to convince us we can trust them, we will put up with almost anything. If you have a dog, you can kick its ass all day but if you feed it and keep it warm it will love you anyway.

The problem as I see it is that people in this system are constantly, daily indoctrinated through the education system, media and peer pressure so they are kept down to a very basic level of understanding. Even those who think they are an intellectual, cultural or revolutionary elite - socialists, socialist workers, anarchists, marxists, peaceniks, anti-globs, feminists, stalinists, trotskyists - have just found a pack to belong to. This works against unifying humanity. While people are being anti-this and destroy-the-that, they are doing exactly what the exploiters wants them to do - split the masses into warring factions. And the exploiters are not a different species or tribe as your animal/ego mind believes. They are us.

Wayne
Offline
Joined: 28-12-03
Aug 5 2004 13:14
Quote:
This is commonly acheived by stimulation/manipulation of the animal consciousness so that it becomes dominant. Anything which triggers an animal response will do so sex and fear are common tools

The idea that sex is an 'animal response' is unfounded and reactionary. Our sexuality is social and treating it as 'natural' or biological is the foundation of repressive sexual ideologies.

Quote:
While this level of basic, animal, childlike thought processes dominates the consciousness of an individual, they tend to feel someone else should be controlling things - daddy, pack leader, alpha male

Who thinks like this? I don't, you are presenting complex arguments, not sniffing rubbish bins for food, so I don't think you do. Do we have special exemption from base animal consciousness? Actually, I have a friend who was raised by wolves and he's always on the look out for a pack leader, but the rest of us are inherently social beings, and dominance of men in the family happens for complex material and ideological reasons taht should be examined and explained as opposed to resorting to anthropomorphic socio-biological conjecture.

Quote:
And the exploiters are not a different species or tribe as your animal/ego mind believes. They are us.

No I don't believe they are a different species, that would be silly. I believe, for example, they have different class positions to those they employ or manage (not to suggest that class is the only form of exploitation, or that managers may not also be exploited and alienated).

Ghost_of_the_re...
Offline
Joined: 16-06-04
Aug 5 2004 15:30
cantdocartwheels wrote:

And with thousands of nuclear missiles poised over our heads its hard to feel confident isn't it.

Interesting, I'm not sure the state would nuke its own citizens. Nuclear warheads are for scaring other countries into submission. Our citizens are scared into submission by the exponentially more worrying medusa that is David Blunkett.

Also, Bigdave is largely right despite his slightly wanky rhetoric (Bsc psychology at UCL was it? Dont worry mate, I believe you never really wanted to go to Cambridge) Originally class systems were upheld by threats of violence and control over food supplies, but they have become increasingly more subtle as the man appeals to people's fear of loneliness, sexual inadequacy and not having as big a car as that arsehole next door with the labradors you just know he trains to bark at you in order to keep people too busy worrying about themselves to develop any genuine empathy with anyone else.

GenerationDecay
Offline
Joined: 5-11-03
Aug 6 2004 04:45
Quote:
The idea that sex is an 'animal response' is unfounded and reactionary. Our sexuality is social and treating it as 'natural' or biological is the foundation of repressive sexual ideologies.

Not to get too far off topic, but there is a difference between 'sex' and 'sexuality'. Whichever way the latter is constructed, the former remains a natural instinct.

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Aug 11 2004 13:11
Quote:
slightly wanky rhetoric (Bsc psychology at UCL was it? Dont worry mate, I believe you never really wanted to go to Cambridge)

Could you explain why the rhetoric is wanky, mate? Possibly actually debate the point rather than just do the usual thing of attacking?

I left school at 17, did 6 months as an apprentice sparky at Rosyth dockyard, got slung out after slapping an instructor, unemployed or working in factories since. Spent a short time at college in Greenock (hnd computing, hated it, left). And aye you're right, I never wanted to go to fucking Cambridge.

Why not use your own name?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Aug 11 2004 14:41

So you're legal name's bigdave then, or even David Big?

Ghost_of_the_re...
Offline
Joined: 16-06-04
Aug 12 2004 09:45
bigdave wrote:

Possibly actually debate the point rather than just do the usual thing of attacking?

You might well find the wrods 'bigdave is right' in that post, were you to read it. And your prose is distinctly American, though you are right to point out that has precisely no bearing on anything.

My apologies.

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Aug 12 2004 14:02
Quote:
So you're legal name's bigdave then, or even David Big?

No, my legal name is David Murphy, but most people who know me call me Big Dave.

Quote:
You might well find the wrods 'bigdave is right' in that post, were you to read it.

You think I didn't read it? I didn't really have any issue with your agreeing with me, it was just being called "wanky" - why? And now you've really insulted me by suggesting my "prose is distinctly American" - I have to go and have a shower now!

caretaker
Offline
Joined: 28-07-04
Aug 22 2004 20:16

interesting discussion

particullary the reaction that followed big daves post - most interesting use of rehtoric

big dave makes a point that comes from outwith the anarchist frame work and the rehetoric positivly flows.

demonisation can be seen in the labels hes collected

discrediting can be seen from the attack on his manner of speach and assumptions made about his background

deflection can be seen in the pointless arguments that are not about the point he made

most interesting

but a discusion on the issues raised would be a lot more productive - our world is fucked - and we damb well better get our shite together soon or it will be to late

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Aug 23 2004 14:46

I've been quite surprised at some of the reactions to some of my posts. I appreciate I've only said a little about the subject (I have a written summation of the ideas I had but its out being circulated, I'll get it back soon as) but the reaction mostly was like a character assassination. One person even used "scientific" as an insult.

Caretaker, you seem to have a firm grasp of rhetoric - are you a lawyer?

caretaker
Offline
Joined: 28-07-04
Aug 23 2004 21:36

not a lawyer - a disillusioned socialist - had all the rehortic thrown at me

i did not understand what was happening to me at the time and had no idea of rehtoric - now i see it a mile away - bid sad really cos i came here to hang out with some anarchists for a while in the hope that they would be more honest and straightforward and almost the first thread i read was all the rehotic thrown at you - so what u done to piss of the establishment here then?

some of them are reactioning because their thinking is enclosed with their ideology- and anything outwith the ideology is percieved as a threat. mostly they wont even be aware that they are doing it. again i speak from experiance to have an ideology is nice and safe and warm and gives a guide to action in any given situation and its nice and safe and warm in there.

i came to realise (difficult and painful) that my ideology constricted me

it restricted the people who i came into contact with, it restricted my understanding of the world and it restricted the solutions i could consider. its partially thanks to the anarchists that i was able to break the comfort of my ideology and open my mind. a couple of unfortunat anarchists wondered into the socialist party - i liked them - i liked some of what they beleived - perhaps to the anarchists on this site the reaction of the party to them was predictable - but it shocked me and led my to begin the process of questioning my ideology my beliefs.

it was not easy and their are still times i feel idelogically naked - at each given situation i am forced to think for myself - interprt what is happening and decide what action to take. but it is better this way as you said in your original post to be a pack animal is to buy into the needs of the exploiters - it is to remain divided. i also feel it is arrogant to think that nobody else has any answers. i've learned from the couple of anarchists i've met so far and i'm hoping to learn from this forum. a new way of interpreting the world - new solutions to old problems - new ways of challinging the system - and i certainly think the anarchist manage to have more fun than most groups i have come across.

linda

caretaker
Offline
Joined: 28-07-04
Aug 24 2004 01:08
Quote:
The idea that the world is in such a state because we haven't become enlightened enough is idealist guff,

What do you mean by the word enlightenment, what does big dave mean by the word there probably both different from what I mean by enlightenment. I am not a history student but was the revolution that moved us from feudalism to capitalism not preceded by a period known as the enlightenment – I believe that period was comprised of changing the knowledge, understanding and interpretation of the world – initially in small groups – but spreading through the population. And when the enlightenment had spread far enough along comes the revolution. That’s the enlightenment I am looking at, a spread of knowledge to change our understanding and interpretation of the world. Anarchist can offer a lot to the process but they need to stop sitting in their cosy groups feeling like their changing things and open their minds. I am not saying believe everything big dave says – in fact I expressly forbid that you accept his words as gospel – I am asking that the ideas are considered by the rational part of your brain. I don’t think that you have even thought about what big dave has said and to call it a doctrine on the strength of two paragraphs shows you have dismissed it already. Did you not have more questions to ask or had your ideology provided all the answers you needed.

Quote:
the real problems in the world aren't just in our heads there are real material forces that cos these problems, real social relations, yes our internalisation of fucked up hierarchial and capitalist values is a major part of the problem

Our interpretation of the world lies within our head – our understanding of the causes of social problems lies within our heads – our reasoning that leads to action or inaction lies within our heads – our heads are where it’s happening. Racism, sexism, and all the other ism’s live within our heads they do not exist in any material sense. If we are serious about creating a different world then we need to learn more about how our heads work because our enemies certainly know and they manipulate our heads with their knowledge. You cant just dismiss psychology without first examining what is actually being said – I would no more say that psychology has all the answers that I would say that Marxists or anarchists have all the answers – if anyone group had all the answers we would be sorted by now so obviously we have yet to find the answer – so we need knowledge – so we listen to each other with open minds and strive together to supply the answers.

Quote:
however we can only break out of those values by breaking the actual system that spawns them.

Three questions

how do we break the system?

Then when we break it do people automatically let go of the old hierarchies and capitalistic values?

What replaces these old values or is a vacuum created in the head?

Go on enlighten me my friend I have come here to develop my understanding of the problems faced by the world and to search for answers share your knowledge.

olentxero
Offline
Joined: 24-08-04
Aug 24 2004 06:41
Quote:
how do we break the system?

Then when we break it do people automatically let go of the old hierarchies and capitalistic values?

What replaces these old values or is a vacuum created in the head?

We don't break the system, we work for it to be broken. Wanky rhetoric? Not really. The issue is a key one and one that separates anarchism from the socialists and the authoritatian communists. Your 2nd question explains it a bit more clearly. You ask about people automatically letting go of the old system once "we" have broken the system. As I understand anarchism, it's about "people" breaking the system, not the Anarchists breaking the system for "the people". An anarchist revolution will be stronger because it will be directed, not by any political party acting as the vanguard, but by the very people who will be liberated it. So, people don't let go of their hierarchies and capitalistic values after the revolution, they let go of them before the revolution.

As for what replaces these old values, it is impossible to say right now. People's outlooks, views, opinions etc will be different at that time because of the experiences that they have had and the state of the society that they live in. Whatever is built post-revolution will be determined by the thoughts and ideas of the revolutionaries.

As I see it, anarchism today is largely about propaganda. It's about helping people reach a state of consciousness where they begin to question everything that they have been taught to believe. Unfortunately, anarchists tend to spend most of the time bickering with each other about largely pointless things. They tend to be quite dogmatic and inflexible about their ideology, without recognising the individual's right to have their own understanding of anarchism.

For example, can you be an anarchist if you vote? Most people would say no. But why not? Can't you believe in the overthrow of hierarchies and authority and yet still vote in today's society, safe in the knowledge that your vote won't make any difference but it enables you to register your protest in one of the few ways that are recognised by the wider public?

[/i]

rampart
Offline
Joined: 5-07-04
Aug 24 2004 13:06

You are all cordualy invited to the rampART dinner and debate tonight (tuesday 24th august @ 15-17 rampart street, london e1 2la)

Doors open 7pm and dinner will be served shortly after

(donations of £1.50 for a meal would be appreciated)

At 8pm the debate will start with an opening address which introduces the structure of the evening as being somthing like this...

The motion to be debated will be read out and a volunteer sought to facilitate (or chair) the debate. The main speeches will then begin with somebody given a maximum of three minutes to speak in favour of the motion, followed by somebody who opposes the motion. This is will then be followed by anyone seconding, with those for the motion speaking first followed by the seconders against (again three minutes max).

The gloves are now off as the debate opens to the floor. Anyone may now speak either for or against the motion (apart from those who have already done so, unless directly quesioned). In order to be heard, anyone who wishes to speak raises their hand and waits for permission from the facilitator.

After being open to the floor for one hour, the facilitator will asks the initial opposers to give a one minute summary of why people should vote against the motion followed by the proposers with a one minute on why people should vote for the motion. Finally, a vote is organised with a show of hands and counted those in favour of the motion, those against and those who have chosen to abstain.

The facilitator then announces the result and declares that the motion is either passed or defeated and then everyone jumps up to get to the bar first and gets quite drunk while continuing to argue their entrenched views with anyone who will listen or forms up into cliques of apparently likeminded individuals while some loud music is put on and time continues to pass in it's usual fashion totally unaffected by the evenings debate.

so, thats it.. please come along and voice your views.

The motion under debate will be something like 'Some form of government or leadership is essential', 'Anarchy isn't all it's cracked up to be', or 'People need leaders' - you get the idea

-) enjoy

caretaker
Offline
Joined: 28-07-04
Aug 26 2004 23:40

the we refered to we the people not we the anarchists i am sorry my questions were unclear.

socialists would say that events like strikes could esculate to the point of raising serious challanges to the system but what do anarchists think will lead up to the breaking of the system? is it posible to convince enough people to opt out of thee system and create an alternative reality alongside capitalism that will become big enough to put serious strain on the system?

i understand that an anarchist revolution involves the mass of the people - but i do not think anarchists expect the masses to suddenly become anarchists overnight, even allowing for an once of experiance being worth a ton of theory. so if the majority do not embrace anarchism as a whole - will an anarchist society automatically follow an anarchist revolution. capitalist values and more importantly the multitude of discrimatory beliefs that capitalism breeds may continue to interfere with organising the world in a fair manner.

if you think anarchists can bicker you want to try hanging out with the socialists for a while - on second thoughts no you dont wouldnt wish that on my worse enemy.

do anarchists use the word comrade at all or is their an anarchist equivelent?

anarchist dinner - what a wonderful idea but unfortunatly londons a bit far to go for a feed - anything like this happen in scotland? if not would any scots travel to deepests darkest fife for an event like this?

olentxero
Offline
Joined: 24-08-04
Aug 27 2004 05:23
Quote:
what do anarchists think will lead up to the breaking of the system?

As far as I am concerned, the only thing that can lead to the breaking up of the system is an awareness of how bad the system is. Which means that anarchists today should be looking to get their analyses out to the general public as much as possible. This may mean burying the hatchet with lots of other groups. I have always held the opinion that the left is riven with sectarianism simply because the various components that make it up are so far up their arses. As long as we associate with other groupings as anarchists and for purely concrete goals (rather than, say, joining up with them and that's that), we should be in no danger. Luckily, I think many people within the anarchist movement agree with this.

Quote:
so if the majority do not embrace anarchism as a whole - will an anarchist society automatically follow an anarchist revolution.

If the majority don't embrace it, it won't be an anarchist revolution. The best we could hope for is that it will be a revolution by genuine revolutionaries who will be prepared to tolerate an anarchist presence in their post-revolutionary world. History isn't exactly with us on that one!

Quote:
do anarchists use the word comrade at all or is their an anarchist equivelent?

I know lots of anarchists who use the word comrade although it sounds a bit weird to me. Why not call somebody by their name?

Ghost_of_the_re...
Offline
Joined: 16-06-04
Aug 27 2004 11:44

All spot on in my opinion, except i might ammend

Quote:
The only thing that can lead to a break up of the system is an awareness of how bad the system is

to read

Quote:
The only thing that can lead to a break up of the system is an awareness of how bad the system is, and a broad platform of ideas as to what could replace it.

Most people know they're getting screwed by their boss, what they don't necessarily know is how they could live without any boss at all.

caretaker
Offline
Joined: 28-07-04
Aug 28 2004 10:57
Quote:
I have always held the opinion that the left is riven with sectarianism simply because the various components that make it up are so far up their arses.

i agree with you about the divisions on the left being the block to progress. our divisions play into the hands of the rulers and are exploited by the rulers. the question then is - how can we unite the left.

we need to bring together all the people who wwant a better world - and talk i supose till we find a solution - some sort of pluralism would need to exist where each individual had their point of view respected. it seems to me that part of the problem just now is that people who believe differently from us are considered a threat to our beliefs in some way - and we divide ourselves - this is why i would be interested in the things that big dave was saying about our animal side - but we may have chased him away with the hostility - we need to understand WHY we are divided and any opinion that feeds into that debate is welcomed .

good informative answers to my questions - and my thinking does not appear to far from yours

unity is strength

linda

olentxero
Offline
Joined: 24-08-04
Aug 28 2004 13:29

Hi Linda

Well, one thing we can do is to get away from the idea that politics means combat. We're socialised into it by watching those idiots at Westminster as they disagree with each other over everything, even when they agree. That sets the standard for what passes as politics in the UK and that's what we always end up doing: insults and people arguing with their colleagues as if they are enemies. I f we disagree, we disagree and we make it clear why. Those people who agree with us will join us; those people who don't, won't. The fact that the internet dehumanises the person at the other end of the server makes it even easier to treat them like dirt. Anarchists should have the nouse to resist that - after all, if anarchism doesn't have a strong vein of humanism running through it, what does?

The same principle applies to uniting the left. We don't need a strong united left, we just need to work together on common issues. If the Trots are campaigning against something that we are also against, we should join forces. We don't need to avoid mentioning the war, we just need to be clear that we are after the same thing in the short term and we work together with that in mind. There are anarchists who won't work with anybody who isn't an anarchist. I guess they don't do much in a year.

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Aug 30 2004 13:58

Part of the problem as I see it is that people look for a higher authority to follow, whether a political thinker (Marxists, Leninists, Blairites), a body of literature/thought produced by others (Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Anarchists), a war leader (Bush, Blair, Hitler, Che Guevara) and even socially accepted/promoted norms (Sun-readers, men who wear flares, skinheads). There are probably more but the idea is similar - the individual looks outward and upward for a belief system, good or bad. This tendency is ruthlessly used by those who exploit us. Until we find a way of arganising from below rather than above, then not much progress will be made against the exploiters.

The people in "government", the rich and the other people served by the international exploitation of the poor must piss themselves when they see "the Left" (those trying to resist the exploitative system) wasting all their energy squabbling with each other, slagging each other off. I really think its beyond time that we started to analyse why the people of the western "democracies" allow this exploitation to go on. For many, it is permitted because they tell themselves its not our fault (those bloody Africans don't know how to run a country), helped by the media and those other people willing to go along with the lie. There are also those who are so scared by the propaganda of the rich that they think there's no alternative. Again, there are others but I hope you get the point - our inaction allows this system to continue. Imagining future wonderful systems is useless unless you work out how to go from here to there.

I consider myself an Anarchist in the sense that I think, for a society to be healthy, it must stop trusting leaders - "no rulers", not "no rules". I don't hate anybody, regardless of their politics or beliefs. I don't hate Christians although I despise religion as an instrument of repression and exploitation - the Christians are victims as well as perpetrators. The same goes for the rest of them. All these people can cast off the chains they have chosen to wear.

Ghost_of_the_re...
Offline
Joined: 16-06-04
Aug 30 2004 21:13
olentxero wrote:
The fact that the internet dehumanises the person at the other end of the server makes it even easier to treat them like dirt. Anarchists should have the nouse to resist that.

You are of course correct there and I apologise again for my sniping against bigdave earlier in this thread. Especially since his post above is well-written and, in my opinion, very accurate.

Although I'm sure I've said this a thousand times, I'd like to reccomend Guy Debord's 'the society of the spectacle' to anyone who wishes to understand why people are so accepting of exploitation.

olentxero
Offline
Joined: 24-08-04
Aug 30 2004 22:29

Good for you, ghost. Accepting that everybody is entitled to their opinion (and that that opinion might have some truth behind it) doesn't have to mean that we embrace the liberal view of life. We can see where somebody is coming from and yet oppose them vigorously if needs be. The point is that you may think that Big Dave is wrong but this is nothing more than your opinion. Anarchism -to me- is about welcoming diversity in the belief that many worlds can fit in this world. To do that, you neeed to be secure in what you believe and understand that it will be able to stand alongside the likes of the worlds of Big Dave et al.

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Aug 31 2004 12:55
Quote:
sorry linda but the reason people had a go at his posts were because he placed everything within this pseudo psychological notion of animalism.

Call it what you want but its just my current personal opinion. It was arrived at after a long period of thought and writing (to help the thought processes). I had asked myself the question "Why does the majority of the population of this planet live in pain, fear etc when it seems obvious people would rather be happy and safe?" One conclusion I came to was that the basic problem is OUR lack of awareness about how we can be exploited and THEIR knowledge of how it works. A further conclusion was that the method must be specific to the workings of the minds of those controlled. The conclusion that the human consciousness is composed of several levels/parts, including what I call "animal consciousness" and Pink Freud referred to as Ego/Id came because, after a great deal of thought, it seemed that one of the few things we are never taught is how the mind works - despite all the psychologist/psychotherapist exploiters finding out loads of stuff about it.

So I don't have clever, notable people to quote to back up my case and give me some legitamacy amongst those who need such things. I also don't have any academic backgroud to help in the same way. There's just me and my head - no -isms, no doctrine. If you disagree with any points I make, please make your point and I'll try my best to retort. OK? Cheers.

captainmission
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Aug 31 2004 18:17

phrenology fun with Bigdave.....

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Sep 1 2004 14:13

And so it goes on.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 1 2004 17:11

fuck me this has to be the funniest day on the forums ever!