Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck... - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck... - Ubuntu ; Dragomir Kollaric wrote: > On 2008-09-07, AV3 hit the keyboard and wrote: > > > >> The times they are a-changin'. I recently downloaded an >> album that contains a .pdf-file of the booklet that >> accompanies counter-purchased albums. I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

  1. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    Dragomir Kollaric wrote:
    > On 2008-09-07, AV3 hit the keyboard and wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> The times they are a-changin'. I recently downloaded an
    >> album that contains a .pdf-file of the booklet that
    >> accompanies counter-purchased albums. I hope that is the
    >> start of a trend. I keep hoping that display of lyrics
    >> becomes a regular feature of music players, supposing that
    >> text files will be interspersed with their matching music
    >> files.

    >
    > Sure and what keeps people from putting *.pdf files in it's
    > own directory? I've just recently started to do so myself,
    > because I finally got fed up to run "locate *.pdf" if I
    > couldn't find a manual for something (non-PC). The same I do
    > for a long time with my mp3's. And I keep the various audio
    > formats separated.
    >



    As I did, until I got the .pdf-booklet in the same directory with the
    downloaded sound files. It suggests the eventual possibility of such
    text and lyrics together on a music player, so the collocation of text
    and matching music files might become a convenience.



    > It looks to me the OP'S problem aren't Gnu/Linuxes faults,
    > but self-inflicted. But I wonder if the OP really installed
    > Gnu/Linux, but maybe I should give him the benefit of the
    > doubt.
    >




    I never noticed the OP's post. I was replying directly to TomB's post.



    --
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=== ==+=====+=====+====++
    ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., ||
    ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., ||
    ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
    || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=== ==+=====+=====+====++
    NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
    Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
    They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You
    have no recourse or protection.

  2. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On 2008-09-07, wisdomkiller & pain wrote:
    > Toby Newman wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-06, wisdomkiller & pain
    >> wrote:
    >>> Toby Newman wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I love Amarok but I have to admit that it does chug the hard disk
    >>>> somewhat on my collection of around 30000 files.
    >>>>
    >>> Change to the mysql database, not sqlite.

    >>
    >> I did, the last time I installed it. Didn't notice any real change in
    >> performance.
    >>

    > Hmm. Mine almost never got to an end indexing about 60G of mp3s, and the
    > load skyrocketed. Now, with mysql, it takes one minute or so.


    I do have two users on my machine both using Amarok (with two
    different MySQL databases) which will be doubling the load.

    --
    -Toby
    Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

  3. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:42:39 GMT, TomB wrote:

    > On 2008-09-07, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    >
    >> To answer everyone in this one post, I have about 80,000 files of various
    >> formats and some oddball files are problem in the collection as well like
    >> zip files, rar etc so maybe that's the source of my problems.

    >
    > Why would you have rar and zip files hanging around in your music
    > collection tree? A music collection tree should *only* contain audio
    > files imho.


    I have a lot of my stuff archived on a disk system so I can copy over when
    needed.
    Sometimes I'm a little sloppy in removing the zip/rar file from the
    destination.
    Media Monkey just ignores them and I'm not talking about a lot of files.
    A few here and there.
    Also some track list files etc sometimes slip in.

    > But then again, I have the impression that nowadays people just put a
    > heep of files together in a couple of directories, and trust the
    > applications to sort them out. This approach seems to be supported by
    > a lot of Apple apps; just hang your files anywhere in the tree, and
    > we'll do the rest. I don't like that. I organize my files through my
    > file manager (bash mostly, nowadays), so it's all nice and tidy
    > without any application having to sort out things first based on
    > metadata.


    No,
    I don't work like that but you have to understand I move a lot of files
    around depending upon projects and I also use various programs depending
    upon my clients, Soundforge, Nuendo, Protools etc which themselves leave
    around peak files etc.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  4. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:58:29 +0000 (UTC), Dragomir Kollaric wrote:

    > On 2008-09-07, AV3 hit the keyboard and wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> The times they are a-changin'. I recently downloaded an
    >> album that contains a .pdf-file of the booklet that
    >> accompanies counter-purchased albums. I hope that is the
    >> start of a trend. I keep hoping that display of lyrics
    >> becomes a regular feature of music players, supposing that
    >> text files will be interspersed with their matching music
    >> files.

    >
    > Sure and what keeps people from putting *.pdf files in it's
    > own directory? I've just recently started to do so myself,
    > because I finally got fed up to run "locate *.pdf" if I
    > couldn't find a manual for something (non-PC). The same I do
    > for a long time with my mp3's. And I keep the various audio
    > formats separated.
    >
    > It looks to me the OP'S problem aren't Gnu/Linuxes faults,
    > but self-inflicted. But I wonder if the OP really installed
    > Gnu/Linux, but maybe I should give him the benefit of the
    > doubt.
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>> ...
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > Dragomir Kollaric


    Oh it's installed and it's Linux's problem.
    Specifically Amarok.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  5. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:34:05 -0400, AV3 wrote:

    > TomB wrote:
    >> On 2008-09-07, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    >>
    >>> To answer everyone in this one post, I have about 80,000 files of various
    >>> formats and some oddball files are problem in the collection as well like
    >>> zip files, rar etc so maybe that's the source of my problems.

    >>
    >> Why would you have rar and zip files hanging around in your music
    >> collection tree? A music collection tree should *only* contain audio
    >> files imho.
    >>

    >
    >
    > The times they are a-changin'. I recently downloaded an album that
    > contains a .pdf-file of the booklet that accompanies counter-purchased
    > albums. I hope that is the start of a trend. I keep hoping that display
    > of lyrics becomes a regular feature of music players, supposing that
    > text files will be interspersed with their matching music files.


    I've had the same experience.
    Collections, often include PDF files.



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  6. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    On 2008-09-08, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    > On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:34:05 -0400, AV3 wrote:
    >
    >> TomB wrote:
    >>> On 2008-09-07, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    >>>
    >>>> To answer everyone in this one post, I have about 80,000 files of various
    >>>> formats and some oddball files are problem in the collection as well like
    >>>> zip files, rar etc so maybe that's the source of my problems.
    >>>
    >>> Why would you have rar and zip files hanging around in your music
    >>> collection tree? A music collection tree should *only* contain audio
    >>> files imho.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> The times they are a-changin'. I recently downloaded an album that
    >> contains a .pdf-file of the booklet that accompanies counter-purchased
    >> albums. I hope that is the start of a trend. I keep hoping that display
    >> of lyrics becomes a regular feature of music players, supposing that
    >> text files will be interspersed with their matching music files.

    >
    > I've had the same experience.
    > Collections, often include PDF files.


    Well, to each his own of course. I have set up a crontab that searches
    my music tree for zip, rar, txt, nfo, jpg, pdf and a couple of other
    formats, and automatically deletes them. I don't want that stuff.

    On the other hand, music players shouldn't choke on those files, and
    just ignore them. I know mpd doesn't. Don't know about Amarok. It
    would surprise me though...

    --
    Nice party, Hapsburg... I see a lot of familiar face lifts.
    ~ Frank Drebin

  7. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    TomB wrote:
    > On 2008-09-08, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    >> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:34:05 -0400, AV3 wrote:
    >>
    >>> TomB wrote:
    >>>> On 2008-09-07, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    >>>>
    >>>>> To answer everyone in this one post, I have about 80,000 files of various
    >>>>> formats and some oddball files are problem in the collection as well like
    >>>>> zip files, rar etc so maybe that's the source of my problems.
    >>>> Why would you have rar and zip files hanging around in your music
    >>>> collection tree? A music collection tree should *only* contain audio
    >>>> files imho.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> The times they are a-changin'. I recently downloaded an album that
    >>> contains a .pdf-file of the booklet that accompanies counter-purchased
    >>> albums. I hope that is the start of a trend. I keep hoping that display
    >>> of lyrics becomes a regular feature of music players, supposing that
    >>> text files will be interspersed with their matching music files.

    >> I've had the same experience.
    >> Collections, often include PDF files.

    >
    > Well, to each his own of course. I have set up a crontab that searches
    > my music tree for zip, rar, txt, nfo, jpg, pdf and a couple of other
    > formats, and automatically deletes them. I don't want that stuff.
    >
    > On the other hand, music players shouldn't choke on those files, and
    > just ignore them. I know mpd doesn't. Don't know about Amarok. It
    > would surprise me though...
    >



    I won't be installing .pdf and text files on my music player until I get
    a player that can handle them. I installed only the music files, but I
    left the .pdf file where it downloaded amidst the music files in hope of
    joint reinstallation in a future model. My fifty or so lyric text files
    are still in a segregated text directory, but I anticipate
    redistributing them to their corresponding music files, when the time
    comes and joint installation is possible. My Mac iTunes does have a
    place for text files in the computer program, but they can't be seen on
    a Classic iPod, the last model I have any experience with.


    --
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=== ==+=====+=====+====++
    ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., ||
    ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., ||
    ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
    || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=== ==+=====+=====+====++
    NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
    Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
    They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You
    have no recourse or protection.

  8. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:42:53 GMT, TomB wrote:

    > On 2008-09-08, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    >> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:34:05 -0400, AV3 wrote:
    >>
    >>> TomB wrote:
    >>>> On 2008-09-07, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    >>>>
    >>>>> To answer everyone in this one post, I have about 80,000 files of various
    >>>>> formats and some oddball files are problem in the collection as well like
    >>>>> zip files, rar etc so maybe that's the source of my problems.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why would you have rar and zip files hanging around in your music
    >>>> collection tree? A music collection tree should *only* contain audio
    >>>> files imho.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The times they are a-changin'. I recently downloaded an album that
    >>> contains a .pdf-file of the booklet that accompanies counter-purchased
    >>> albums. I hope that is the start of a trend. I keep hoping that display
    >>> of lyrics becomes a regular feature of music players, supposing that
    >>> text files will be interspersed with their matching music files.

    >>
    >> I've had the same experience.
    >> Collections, often include PDF files.

    >
    > Well, to each his own of course. I have set up a crontab that searches
    > my music tree for zip, rar, txt, nfo, jpg, pdf and a couple of other
    > formats, and automatically deletes them. I don't want that stuff.


    That would be a very dangerous thing for me because if I ever screwed up I
    would be deleting track sheets, notes etc that I have made during recording
    sessions.


    > On the other hand, music players shouldn't choke on those files, and
    > just ignore them. I know mpd doesn't. Don't know about Amarok. It
    > would surprise me though...


    I've just confirmed it was SQLite that was causing the problems.
    I switched to MySQL and things are running along fine.
    See my other post.

    Amarok seems to ignore the non-music files fine BTW.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  9. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    On 2008-09-08, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    > On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:42:53 GMT, TomB wrote:


    >> Well, to each his own of course. I have set up a crontab that searches
    >> my music tree for zip, rar, txt, nfo, jpg, pdf and a couple of other
    >> formats, and automatically deletes them. I don't want that stuff.

    >
    > That would be a very dangerous thing for me because if I ever screwed up I
    > would be deleting track sheets, notes etc that I have made during recording
    > sessions.


    So you keep own audio production files in the same tree you keep your
    regular music files?
    See, that's something I'd never do. All project data from Ardour,
    Rosegarden, etc. goes into a dedicated tree. I couldn't stand my music
    library being cluttered with e.g. Ardour takes.

    >> On the other hand, music players shouldn't choke on those files, and
    >> just ignore them. I know mpd doesn't. Don't know about Amarok. It
    >> would surprise me though...

    >
    > I've just confirmed it was SQLite that was causing the problems.
    > I switched to MySQL and things are running along fine.
    > See my other post.
    >
    > Amarok seems to ignore the non-music files fine BTW.


    Okay. Have fun with it.

    --
    Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old.
    All you have to do is live long enough.
    ~ Groucho Marx

  10. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:48:27 GMT, TomB wrote:

    > On 2008-09-08, Moshe Goldfarb. was urged to write the following:
    >> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:42:53 GMT, TomB wrote:

    >
    >>> Well, to each his own of course. I have set up a crontab that searches
    >>> my music tree for zip, rar, txt, nfo, jpg, pdf and a couple of other
    >>> formats, and automatically deletes them. I don't want that stuff.

    >>
    >> That would be a very dangerous thing for me because if I ever screwed up I
    >> would be deleting track sheets, notes etc that I have made during recording
    >> sessions.

    >
    > So you keep own audio production files in the same tree you keep your
    > regular music files?


    No.
    They are on a completely different disk subsystem(s) but you never know
    what one finger check can do!

    One missed check box on "Music Library Location" and all hell could break
    loose.

    I have 2 copies of most everything, one off site so it's not like it's lost
    forever but a PITA.



    > See, that's something I'd never do. All project data from Ardour,
    > Rosegarden, etc. goes into a dedicated tree. I couldn't stand my music
    > library being cluttered with e.g. Ardour takes.


    Sometimes I need to move stuff around in order to send out copies of tracks
    etc to clients for various needs so that's why they might end up in my
    normal music tree.






    > Okay. Have fun with it.


    It seems pretty nice.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  11. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    TomB wrote in
    news:%Yhxk.187955$6s4.118249@newsfe14.ams2:


    > Rosegarden


    Thanks.....I hadn't heard of that one. Looks like it's worth checking out.


  12. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = not as good

    On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 01:28:21 +0000 (UTC), DanS wrote:

    > TomB wrote in
    > news:%Yhxk.187955$6s4.118249@newsfe14.ams2:
    >
    >
    >> Rosegarden

    >
    > Thanks.....I hadn't heard of that one. Looks like it's worth checking out.


    It's a good program.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  13. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:45:54 +0200, Hadron wrote:


    > Well answered. He was another idiot who refuses to believe other people
    > can have issues. About as useful to Linux advocacy as a chocolate
    > teapot is to the art of brewing tea.


    I've done a lot of testing wrt to Amarok, mostly because many people like
    and use this program yet others seem to have troubles.

    What I have discovered is that Amarok seems to be very picky with the
    distribution and WM you run it under.
    Mandriva was the worst in that it was taking hours to scan my collection.
    Ubuntu with gnome is the best which is odd because Amarok is a kde app.
    Ubuntu with kde 3.x was reasonable, but the program was sluggish.
    Ubuntu with kde 4.x was horrible, almost as bad as Mandriva.

    I'm not sure why this is but the system is the same, the collection is
    pretty much the same etc.

    > It *has* improved a lot. I remember when I first mentioned its
    > shortcomings I was called a liar in COLA. Rick even said it met his
    > needs and could not understand why it froze when I imported my
    > collection. It turned out his collection was about 10 songs. Whereas
    > mine was over 10,000 in various formates.


    Of course.
    Mine is between 40k and 80k depending on which file systems I point Amarok
    to.
    Apples have to be compared with apples.
    When I use say 100 files Amarok runs great on any distribution and WM.

    > Fortunately I did some work with the developers and a lot of issues were
    > quickly ironed out.


    When it works, it's a great program.
    So is Rhythm Box and Exaile.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  14. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On 2008-09-21, Hadron wrote:
    > "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >
    >> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:19:23 +0200, Christian Thönnes wrote:
    >>
    >>> Moshe Goldfarb. schrieb:


    [deletia]

    >> Switching to MySql from SqlLite solved all the problems.
    >> Thanks.

    >
    > Well answered. He was another idiot who refuses to believe other people
    > can have issues. About as useful to Linux advocacy as a chocolate


    Nope. We just refuse to trust him in particular.

    Big difference.

    > teapot is to the art of brewing tea.
    >
    > It *has* improved a lot. I remember when I first mentioned its
    > shortcomings I was called a liar in COLA. Rick even said it met his
    > needs and could not understand why it froze when I imported my
    > collection. It turned out his collection was about 10 songs. Whereas
    > mine was over 10,000 in various formates.


    My collection is also in the thousands.

    >
    > Fortunately I did some work with the developers and a lot of issues were
    > quickly ironed out.



    --
    My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  15. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On 2008-09-22, Firey Bird wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:19:23 +0200, Christian Thönnes wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Moshe Goldfarb. schrieb:

    [deletia]
    >> collection. It turned out his collection was about 10 songs. Whereas
    >> mine was over 10,000 in various formates.
    >>
    >> Fortunately I did some work with the developers and a lot of issues were
    >> quickly ironed out.

    >
    > I love rhythmbox (apart from the speling) and hate amarok. But not cos of
    > technical issues.


    Yup. Some people can express preferences without being a total asshat
    about it. Even my own potshots at iTunes are very precise and particular.

    >
    > It's a sheer gui thing. Rhythmbox is cosy (apart from the speling) and
    > amarok is all glacial and omnipotent.
    >
    > [Note: I know I spelt rhythmbox corectly. I checked ]



    --
    My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  16. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On 2008-09-21, Hadron wrote:
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >>
    >>> Switching to MySql from SqlLite solved all the problems.

    >>
    >> Well answered. He was another idiot who refuses to believe other people
    >> can have issues. About as useful to Linux advocacy as a chocolate

    >
    > Nope. We just refuse to trust him in particular.
    > Big difference.
    >
    >> It *has* improved a lot. I remember when I first mentioned its
    >> shortcomings I was called a liar in COLA. Rick even said it met his
    >> needs and could not understand why it froze when I imported my
    >> collection. It turned out his collection was about 10 songs. Whereas
    >> mine was over 10,000 in various formates.

    >
    > My collection is also in the thousands.
    >
    >> Fortunately I did some work with the developers and a lot of issues were
    >> quickly ironed out.


    Show us the change notices.

    --
    Excerpt from a conversation between a customer support person and a
    customer working for a well-known military-affiliated research lab:
    Support: "You're not our only customer, you know."
    Customer: "But we're one of the few with tactical nuclear weapons."

  17. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Chris Ahlstrom belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-21, Hadron wrote:
    >>> "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Switching to MySql from SqlLite solved all the problems.


    Oops. Sorry about Hadron bleeding into here. Didn't notice the
    crossposts.

    Let that be a lesson!

    --
    "Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor
    of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated,
    it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."
    -- Oscar Wilde

  18. Re: Rhythmbox = kool. .Amarok = Suck...

    On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:27:20 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-21, Hadron wrote:
    >>> "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Switching to MySql from SqlLite solved all the problems.
    >>>
    >>> Well answered. He was another idiot who refuses to believe other people
    >>> can have issues. About as useful to Linux advocacy as a chocolate

    >>
    >> Nope. We just refuse to trust him in particular. Big difference.
    >>
    >>> It *has* improved a lot. I remember when I first mentioned its
    >>> shortcomings I was called a liar in COLA. Rick even said it met his
    >>> needs and could not understand why it froze when I imported my
    >>> collection. It turned out his collection was about 10 songs. Whereas
    >>> mine was over 10,000 in various formates.

    >>
    >> My collection is also in the thousands.
    >>
    >>> Fortunately I did some work with the developers and a lot of issues
    >>> were quickly ironed out.

    >
    > Show us the change notices.


    Don't expect anything from the M$ fanboi & troll....

    --
    ɐ ɯoɹɟ ʇuǝs sɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ sıɥʇ
    pǝǝʇuɐɹɐnƃ sı ɥɔıɥʍ ɹǝʇndɯoɔ
    ˙snɹıʌ ǝzopuıʍ $ɯ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝǝɹɟ %00⇂
    -- sɯǝʇsʎs xnuıl/nuƃ --


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2