So is this a pro-communist movie?
Thoughts
sharea) What, exactly, is a pro-communist movie?
b) How could any film out of Hollywood, or indeed America, ever be pro-communist?
c) Why do you care whether it is "pro-communist"? Do you think communism is infectious?
Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.
a.) Really? Well a pro-communist movie is a movie that sheds a positive light on communism.
b.) Really????Because it was created that way.
c.) I care because Socalism and Marxism have taken root in the American culture and society under Emperor Obama, and once those two things are implimented their big brother Communism tends to follow suit.
I suspect that this is an anti-fascist movie that sheds light upon that time in history when dangerous opponents of free speech held sway. Reading the many comments on this board, I see that America still has many brainwashed idiots who support a totalitarian ultra-right ideology.
shareAnd how does a movie specifically about blackballing communists, or suspected communists, shed a positive light on communism, Billy? Given that absolutely zero communism is actually on display in this movie, or any other movie about the Hollywood blacklist, how can it show communism in any light at all - negative or positive?
As for Hollywood being created communist I can only say - on what planet? Hollywood has never even been a co-operative (with the possible exception of the studio started by Charlie Chaplin), never mind anything approaching communist. You do know what communism means, don't you? Because you don't seem to. It is a very specific political system based on wealth sharing. Name me one single, solitary Hollywood studio that has ever, at any time in its history shared wealth. Unless, of course, you consider capitalism to be a form of communism?
Lastly, no matter what you think about Obama, he has no influence on the huge media conglomerates that are Hollywood studios. The idea that Marxism gets anywhere near their shiny gold-plated doors is so risible that your belief virtually constitutes a mental illness. Or wilful ignorance. I'll leave you to decide which.
Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.
"Lastly, no matter what you think about Obama, he has no influence on the huge media conglomerates that are Hollywood studios. The idea that Marxism gets anywhere near their shiny gold-plated doors is so risible that your belief virtually constitutes a mental illness."
Can't. Stop.............Laughing.
Obama doesn't have any influence on the media Chancery_stone????!!!!
Clearly you have been living off-planet for the last 7 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYffLk1wURw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_d72pbBBY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqFFNyxbm5s
Emperor Obama is their savior....their Messiah....because none of them believe in a real God.
Are you serious? You send three Youtube videos made by people with a political axe to grind, showing talking heads, and only talking heads, airing their opinions, and this is some kind of proof of... what, exactly? That there are people who spend all day combing TV stations looking for talking heads to back up their conspiracy theories?
If you want to show me some evidence of giant Hollywood conglomerates backing Obama then show me some substantiated figures of money changing hands. Show me Warner Brothers, Rupert Murdoch, or any large Hollywood firm paying into Obama's campaign funds and then I'll believe that there might be some possibility of influence. But bear in mind, that even if they are paying for him to dance, that would be what he would be doing, not the other way round, so him having no influence on Hollywood media would still stand.
Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.
That Obama is corrupted should be quite certain, there has been strong signs that informal interest groups allready use the all-encompassing surveillance networks to blackmail key figures and smear demostratory leaders etc.
They both come from the same informal interest group and even if Obama clearly is the lesser evil USA needs someone like bernie Sanders elected (which will be hard as elections are being influenced - you can easily find information about this around the web with key numbers and powerful whistleblowers, i'm not going to educate you on this if that is something you lack insight into as it is easy to do by yourself).
*NOTE - correct the adress.
http:// web.archive [gro.] /web/20140217190314/http://justsecurity [gro.] /2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-waiting
[EDIT] Removed a space that somehow found it's way into the adress and made it invalid.
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.
Shide, that address doesn't go anywhere, nor have you explained its relevance or why you have included it. And you still haven't explained what "intellectual dishonesty" you were talking about. Nor does "strong signs that informal interest groups allready use the all-encompassing surveillance networks" mean anything. "Strong signs" are not facts; they're not even conjecture, just gossip of the most unreliable sort. We want facts please.
Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.
*NOTE - correct the adress.
http:// web.archive [gro.] /web/20140217190314/http://justsecurity [gro.] /2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-waiting
[EDIT] Removed a space that somehow found it's way into the adress and made it invalid.
I've now added the "[EDIT]" as the sign above wasn't enough to go through the adress (blanks spaces are often filled with %20 in url's - for your next time).
Nor does "strong signs that informal interest groups allready use the all-encompassing surveillance networks" mean anything.
It means exactly what it states, if you can't understand it or have lacking contextual information educate yourself - social media is full of links to direct sources where casuality in todays world are explained.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3203606/board/flat/243915323?p=3&d=249888708#249888708
Though there is no note of editing that message I could have sworn there this part was not there before ", Shide?"
-That part should have been quite obvious, it was directed to "sommerderek" for this note;
AWW That was an enjoyable time reading through these genuinely hilarious and farcical posts, got nostalgic the old times on this site. LOLtrying to incite a reaction while at the same time putting her or himself above others (trolling, the sign of him making an ironical joke to create a divide between himself and the time he had on the forum by insulting those still here, it's not for the audience of the forum that he spews that onto but himself to reassure he made the right decision in using it less often/leaving it - thus the intellectual dishonesty remark) - a person with the intelligence to distance her himself should have no problem understanding that reasoning even if it's not spelled out for them.
"Strong signs" are not facts; they're not even conjecture, just gossip of the most unreliable sort. We want facts please.
First off, ad hominem are not rich, they make you look like an idiot when correlated with not following a simple note.
I've never said that strong signs = facts, I've used the term i deemed correct and it's not equal to "gossip of the most unreliable sort". It equals word of mouth and it's based off how much credibility you give the person stating it and what has been available to you informationwise. You clearly lack the honesty to yourself to even ask me what makes me say that, you did not even check the adress properly as asked to one source that could sway you towards my point of view by strengthening my claim. You could just aswell have done your own search without the main search engine and found a few articles after everything from seconds to a few hours.
You are obviously not read up on it (or missrepresent yourself on purpose) and I'm not going to teach you or the ones on the account you are on in this matter, putting down my time to help you find the relevant sources online that can actually be trusted (after you've had a look at their sources in its turn) takes a long time - and to me a random person or people on the net which insults me are not worth that time With the added bonus that i canno't verify if you are an astroturfer or not, missconstrewing the things you do means you're basically telling me to be careful with what i tell you.
It's down to contextual information, most of the users of social media today should have been unable to forego the narrative in the NSA scandal and how it has been portrayed to have been the result of 9/11 while talks about Echelon or echelonv project has been going on a long time. There has also been several whistleblowers (that risk their lives, until the information is freed) that has been more or less censored out of mainstream (well except partly Snowden).
We want facts please.
If you are a skeptic you are supposed to search those out yourself (that is why you question everything as a skeptic - to create the motive to search out and educate yourself. Yes, lack of intersubjectivity, read: credibility of the source, plays a key role in this.), I have no clue where this notion that anyone owes you to educate you comes from, especially in subjects where there are copious amounts of material to go through.
I can give you a starting point - censorship of TTIP versus democracy, the manipulation of currency exchange, the manipulation of the official narrative on the bankcrash (homeowners versus banks priting their own currency). If you feel like it move over to 9/11 and 7/11 (the London bombs).
You could also be a part of a group, maybe astroturfers(?).
Or you are playing some missguided paranoia-card.
Or you are holding the asumption you speak for more people than yourself, in which case: it's enough that you speak for yourself - lending moral credibility from others does not make for a honest conversation.
Anyway have an actual look on these subjects, there are plenty of none mainstream media outlets that have posted news that have become to big for mainstream to dismiss. Democracynow is a good place to start.
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered. share
Shide, I can say in all honesty I have never, ever seen such a long post about absolutely nothing. Do you actually have any point at all to make or do you just delight in doing long, rambling, semi-literate posts as a form of trolling? If so, you are a maestro at it. You manage to combine being unintelligible with being offensive, while remaining mind-numbingly boring. That's no mean feat.
Next time you have what you think is a thought - please don't share it.
Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.
Reflection, rhetorically attacking me (for trolling) for what I'm pointing out that you could be (an astroturfer) is a bad path to take logically, feel free to actually care enough for yourself to read up on these subjects before you go on your next fishing expidition (why is is bad? it exposes that you do not have any ground to stand on, just like Ad Hominem or ad absurdum does, the latter to be awaited in your next post).
Anyone who takes the time to read this can see that i both stick to the points discussed with a legitimate rationale and supply plenty (in the context of this discussion) evidence to someone not being easy to deal with.
Your game is to get me to spend as much time as possible debating while you spend none, you do realise it's not for your sake I'm still speaking to you right? Some people are bad but the majority is morally good - those are the ones i turn to.
You claimed i supplied a broken/not working link (before that you asked me for any signs that would point to informal interest groups working behind the scenes - i did, i also supplied instances where leaks have clearly showed another story than the mainstream narrative), which it was - that means you are now lying when you claim that it's a post about nothing.
I even pointed out how you couldn't even follow a simple direction to be able to read the link I had supplied (that came with a note to fix the link before using it, something common to avoid bots etc). When this was not enough i afterwards put down an EDIT to it in a none defamatory way:
[EDIT] Removed a space that somehow found it's way into the adress and made it invalid.
But hey point taken - i shouldn't have bothered doing that because you obviously have a feather unplucked with me from something previously or you would not get this upset. You do not care about the actual subject - that is now clear. Thanks for making that clear.
By that the support for you being an astroturfer or a troll grew (read further down) and personally attack me instead of actually focusing on the points made.
It's always good to know you have a real "fan", someone that most likely have been reading my history to find cracks.
I'll quote a former exchange on another IMDb forum http://imgur.com/sSHkvBX. The link is to an exchange i had with another person when antoher account (cinesimonj http://www.imdb.com/user/ur22825125/) interjects agressively having gotten a fact wrong before doing so, i point the error out and make this comment:
You do realise this is mostly a reworked series that is turned into a movie right?
So before you go on your next rampage, don't.
Compared that to this, that Chancery posted:
Next time you have what you think is a thought - please don't share it.
Disregarding that little tidbit, back to the matter at hand for my part as someone else obviously been striving away from the actual points made and avoiding to actually put any kind of effort down in the discussion, focusing on ad hominem (personal assaults) a sign of a serious and intelligent person sitting behind the account if ever there were one (oh right, seing as I with my unreliable gossip have both provided the link asked for, names on proven conspiracy theories, places where to look and rationale in between - this to someone who won't even bother taking some time to read.
I'll ad on a fact, questioning if there are informal interest groups working behind the scenes is really unintelligent, even in formal politics there are widely known lobby groups that work both formally and informally to impact politicians by support/corruption. If you think that world events take place by happenstance (by a random chance) you are really ignorant or probably have another agenda.
Feel free to prove that no informal interest groups were involved in the London and WTC bombings by referring to NPO documents or reports.
Feel free to attack the information that whistleblowers like Snowden and Binney has supplied, but do it through NPO (to try to achieve some neutrality).
Feel free to prove that the leaks about the 5 eyes and the Echelon project are false by supplying NPO reports.
Or something easier like;
Feel free to prove that there is no corrupting elements in a normal every day situation like hiring for a specific lucrative position at a job (studies that no cronyism etc occurs), also NPO.
If that is not in your next post, give me one reason that I (or anyone reading this thread) after supplying you with all you need to start looking and getting insults in return should take anything that you post serious ever again...
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered. share
Shide, I have very good tolerance for the idiocies in people's arguments. I don't know if it is a good thing or not, but I will debate with anyone, no matter how ludicrous or badly informed or even downright ignorant they may be. What I do no longer have good tolerance for is people wittering on. And you, my friend, are wittering on. I'd like to think you are doing it as some form of trolling, because that would give you possibly the finest panache of anyone I have ever seen pulling off a fake persona to annoy people. But I regret in your case it just is not so; you really are floundering around with no clear idea of what you are trying to say.
You have not, as yet, said anything. You have made a lot of noise and given yourself a lot of work, but you are saying nothing. Why?
Forget everything that has gone before. Tell me, in one sentence, what it is you would like to observe about this discussion. One sentence, and only one, so make it a good one please.
Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.
Shide, I have very good tolerance for the idiocies in people's arguments. I don't know if it is a good thing or not, but I will debate with anyone, no matter how ludicrous or badly informed or even downright ignorant they may be. What I do no longer have good tolerance for is people wittering on. And you, my friend, are wittering on. I'd like to think you are doing it as some form of trolling, because that would give you possibly the finest panache of anyone I have ever seen pulling off a fake persona to annoy people. But I regret in your case it just is not so; you really are floundering around with no clear idea of what you are trying to say.
Well that was a load of *beep*
First off by proven in our exchance so far you jump straight to ad hominem.
You have not, as yet, said anything. You have made a lot of noise and given yourself a lot of work, but you are saying nothing. Why?
This is simply not true, I on my hand has argued in length, while you have replied in short messages, whereof more than one has personal assaults in them.
Forget everything that has gone before. Tell me, in one sentence, what it is you would like to observe about this discussion. One sentence, and only one, so make it a good one please.
First you insult me then when you want me to forget everything just because you say so? Then you want me to write down the content of previous posts into one sentence to somehow prove myself to you? Obviously if i can't do that i'm the hypocrite...
*beep* brilliant, idiocy.
Ok so anyone not wanting to read up on the history of this thread here comes a rundown (which in relation is short):
I enter the discussion on premise that people generally don't recognise that USA went into the war when they wanted - postulating that their material support to Russia proved that without doubt (supporting one of their greatest enemies).
I also post a comment to jstevens-967-140993 about the being or not so of communism.
I then discuss with soylentmajority (Mon Oct 12 2015 17:19:09) for a bit.
Then sommerderek makes this post (Tue Oct 20 2015 17:06:55)
AWW That was an enjoyable time reading through these genuinely hilarious and farcical posts, got nostalgic the old times on this site. LOL
Whereupon i reply (Fri Oct 23 2015 15:47:13)
Ahh, there is nothing like the smell of intellectual dishonesty on a forum.
Then diurnalemissions (Wed Oct 28 2015 11:51:09) makes the following claim:
Do you appreciate that pretty much every major war of the last 100 years was entered into while the Democrats were in power?
I then make this (Wed Oct 28 2015 18:56:10) post to illustrate how wars do not spring from people enjoying more and more wealth (mentioned as "wellfarism").
Here (Thu Oct 29 2015 10:33:58) Chancery_Stone initiates a conversation by asking
What intellectual dishonesty do you have in mind, Shide?
Chancery_Stone then makes a doublepost and go off on BillyBeefCake post (Thu Oct 29 2015 07:00:20) in which he posts 3 links that he claims support his arguement that Obama (read; the white house) can affect the mainstream media (I've not looked at the links supplied), I hold it for obvious that the white house and senate can affect the larger mainstream media outlets, if nothing else (meaning passively, retracting support in policies and funding) with a NSL.
Chancery_Stone then makes this (Thu Oct 29 2015 10:48:09) post:
If you want to show me some evidence of giant Hollywood conglomerates backing Obama then show me some substantiated figures of money changing hands. Show me Warner Brothers, Rupert Murdoch, or any large Hollywood firm paying into Obama's campaign funds and then I'll believe that there might be some possibility of influence. But bear in mind, that even if they are paying for him to dance, that would be what he would be doing, not the other way round, so him having no influence on Hollywood media would still stand.
I then make this post (Thu Oct 29 2015 15:20:12)
In which i speak of the impact of Barrack Obama and George W. Bush being part of the same informal interest group. I also state that i hold for clear that Obama is the lesser evil of the two and that someone like Bernie Sanders which works for the majority and not the aristocracy is needed.
I also post some text about the sweeping surveillance efforts being used to blackmail people in key positions. I post a link
*NOTE - correct the adress.to an article that supports my claim and make a reference to previous whistleblowers.
http:// web.archive [gro.] /web/20140217190314/http://justsecurity [gro.] /2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-waiting
Chancery_Stone then makes this (Fri Oct 30 2015 12:56:35) post:
Shide, that address doesn't go anywhere, nor have you explained its relevance or why you have included it. And you still haven't explained what "intellectual dishonesty" you were talking about. Nor does "strong signs that informal interest groups allready use the all-encompassing surveillance networks" mean anything. "Strong signs" are not facts; they're not even conjecture, just gossip of the most unreliable sort. We want facts please.
The adress goes somewhere, and it's clearly noted that it's been tweaked not to be caught by as many bots that crawl the forums. The link supports my claim and so does the previous whistleblowers i refer to - that info is easily accessible all over the net and asking for it instead of taking 5-10minutes to read for yourself is highly arrogant (get someone else to spoonfeed information that is readily available if you actually do care).
Instead Chancery_Stone posts;
"Strong signs" are not facts; they're not even conjecture, just gossip of the most unreliable sort. We want facts please.gossip of the most unreliable sort, to make a claim like that to someone when an example source has been given (that you do not care enough to look twice at) is insulting. At most a normal person would call it speculative or hearsay/word of mouth, gossip implies a source without anything to substantiate it with - anyone who has followed the global news the last decade should be able to attest that the narrative presented is not always true.
Any adult person knows that real life is complicated, if you have ever been up for a post together with several other people you know that office politics plays a part in whom gets that position (you have 14 years on IMDb which means you have some age under your belt - which implies you know things like these).
After that i make this (Mon Nov 2 2015 09:59:23) post:
In which i make clear to whom (not Chancery) my first post about intellectual dishonesty was made, that Chancery_Stone has not followed the note to the link and corrected it, I even took the fall for the space in the adress as i was not 100% sure if i had added that or not - which wouldn't matter that is supposed to correct the adress.
I make clear that the narrative being spread today (before a couple of Snowdens "re-exposures" and even still) that the all-encompassing surveillance did start after 9/11 is wrong with specifically mentioning the name this "conpiracy theory" went under previously (Echelon/EchelonV).
I also post several examples on narrtive manipulation in mainstream media.
I also point out how s/he has a few tendencies poiting to him her being an astroturfer.
I also end with a none mainstream media outlet to visit to get started.
4, 1/2 hours later Chancery_Stone posts (Mon Nov 2 2015 14:31:52):
Shide, I can say in all honesty I have never, ever seen such a long post about absolutely nothing. Do you actually have any point at all to make or do you just delight in doing long, rambling, semi-literate posts as a form of trolling? If so, you are a maestro at it. You manage to combine being unintelligible with being offensive, while remaining mind-numbingly boring. That's no mean feat.
Next time you have what you think is a thought - please don't share it.
That last part is a clear reference to my history which i also post in my next post (Tue Nov 3 2015 11:50:56):
By that the support for you being an astroturfer or a troll grew (read further down) and personally attack me instead of actually focusing on the points made.
It's always good to know you have a real "fan", someone that most likely have been reading my history to find cracks.
I'll quote a former exchange on another IMDb forum http://imgur.com/sSHkvBX. The link is to an exchange i had with another person when antoher account (cinesimonj http://www.imdb.com/user/ur22825125/) interjects agressively having gotten a fact wrong before doing so, i point the error out and make this comment: 'You do realise this is mostly a reworked series that is turned into a movie right?
So before you go on your next rampage, don't.'
Compared that to this, that Chancery posted:
'Next time you have what you think is a thought - please don't share it.'
Chancery follow up with another short post (Tue Nov 3 2015 12:19:22):
Yep, Jack, you can't beat institutionalised paranoia to make an electorate stupid. Sadly, governments know it and breed it any way they can, as does the media, who just love them some good old knee-jerk jingoistic scare stories. Nothing sells like unthinking idiocy.
As a reply to this post:
jacksflicks (Mon Nov 2 2015 18:51:56)
Re Shide, two words: Travis Bickle
With the highly ironic part
Nothing sells like unthinking idiocy.
as the one completely ingoring discussing the arguements has been Chancery_Stone. This comment also illustrates hostility coming through more clearly, if you can't argue the point argue the person, if you can't argue the person...
Overall I'm close to my limit argueing one sided as the other part consistantly just redirects, reflects and muddle the water. Chancery_Stone is on a 14 year old account that is a reason I believed it was not truly an aggregator or astroturfer account - then again alot of people can today get hold of someone elses account and if you are willing to put down some cash anyone can hire someone to do it.
I've yet to make one comment on the actual movie, that fact hasn't even been commented on, I came into this forum to look up if it was a movie I might want to watch. Reading some to me blatantly strange concepts and commented, ending up staying for a bit because of insults. People who come into an arguement without an open mind but one set in stone are sad, even if they troll, aggregate posts or turf.
[To those who bother reading, excluding that one case of sarcasm for this, excuse smaller errors if there are any - this post became to long but it's still short compared to the prologue]
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered. share
That's not one sentence.
If you'd like to discuss this movie, or the concept of whether it's pro-communist or not, feel free to drop me a line. Otherwise, life's too short.
Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.
You don't want to answer points with points and then want to dictate how and on what terms your opposition argue. Then limit that to one sentence, yeah that sounds reasonable.
When I've taken the time to *beep* write the post you can take the time to reply to it, seing as the posts you've written hardly amount to any time at all just by the sheer amount of text.
Well I'll give you that atleast you read the ending where i specifically state:
I've yet to make one comment on the actual movie, that fact hasn't even been commented on, I came into this forum to look up if it was a movie I might want to watch. Reading some to me blatantly strange concepts and commented, ending up staying for a bit because of insults. People who come into an arguement without an open mind but one set in stone are sad, even if they troll, aggregate posts or turf.
Then you post this comment:
If you'd like to discuss this movie, or the concept of whether it's pro-communist or not, feel free to drop me a line. Otherwise, life's too short.
Like you even tried to argue in a serious manner in the first place, whenever i held a point and supported it you hightailed it.
Now you "walk away", I take the time to give you enough information to educate yourself. You now clearly show that you never had any intent on argueing points - just out to spread missinformation and doubt.
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered. share
I can only repeat, if you want to discuss the actual movie, feel free to let me know.
Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.
Great.
Well atleast this was not a full case of blowing time as people will be able to read the posts, too see what you posted and what I posted.
I do believe you are an astroturfer, troll or something thereof (which i state earlier in this convo.) This "total silence" you now do is either down to you being happy with what has been produced so far (me wasting my time on you, from your perspective) or you noticing you've made a misstake or two.
To anyone at all reading all this, keep up the work of spreading light on information and making humanity more efficient by doing so in opposite to those who spread darkness (whomever or wherever that may be).
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.
I'm sorry, but you appear to have hit the 'report abuse' button. I don't believe in censorship, or any attempt at it, especially an underhand one, so I am afraid I am not prepared to engage with you any longer.
Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.
I reported you for being an astroturfer/troll on decently good grounds (i refered to the long post explaining our exchange and previous posts) as previously stated. I stand for that, as I also stand for the right to put forth information (free speech) - which is the whole purpose I argue against you when you try to spread missinformation about the complexities of global politics without anything backing it up. Free speech is impaired but not broken if astroturfers who get payed to spread missinformation get to roam freely.
I also now know that you have some sort of association with an admin/mod or are admin/mod yourself, or else you would not know who reported you (you can pull the I guessed card) but I'm not going to believe that. That is because after last post I did take the time to view your recent posting history, as you did to mine at the getgo, in one thread you try to incite a flamewar regarding race, that is more likely to attract reports than anything else.
To me it was obvious you were trying to waste my time (which I previously wrote), which would incline trolling. Seing as you denied obvious things that most people with an online presence would know of, that spoke for having an actual agenda of some unknown sort.
Regarding the report: "Normal" users do not get that information (so that also speaks for my point and partly reassures me i did do the correct thing) seing as you were contacted I do doubt that IMDb bothered to check IP logs for your activity to see if the IP has changed in the recent years or where it originates (to see if the account you are on has been overtaken). Admin/mods giving you notice of that other user(s) have reacted towards something you've done and it's time to dial it down a notch strongly do suggest something is up with the account you are on.
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I enjoy it very much, thank you!
share