User talk:HighInBC/Archive 26
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Contents
Please be civil and do not make false accusations. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Do you post that to everyone who gives you a civility warning? If you think I have been uncivil or made a false accusation you can post diffs here. Also you can seek further scrutiny towards any action I have taken. I will return the favor to you. Chillum 03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I generally post it when someone makes false accusations. I have the diffs, yours and James'. I have no obligation to share them with you or anyone until a time of my choosing, or requested by an admin. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- You say I have been uncivil and made false accusations yet you refuse to show the diffs? You must realize what that does to your position. It is poetic how you accuse me of false accusations while having no basis for that very accusation. Well, almost poetic. If you cannot back up your accusations I cannot address them. Chillum 03:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Likewise, you say I have been uncivil yet you haven't shown the diffs, nor are you obligated to do so unless you wish to make an official complaint. And even if you show them to me, that doesn't mean that I will agree that they represent uncivil behavior. You have no obligation to provide the diffs unless I make a complaint about you or you make a complaint about me and we are requested to provide supporting evidence. I never asked you to address your false accusations, just to stop making them. What it does for my position? I don't have a position except to request you to stop making false accusations. You have a choice to stop making them, or to continue. One thing's for sure: there is no end to the extent to which you can interpret something differently than I do. I thank someone for a question, you interpet it as uncivil. I ask someone to back up a comment they make, you interpet it as uncivil. I make a statement that I agree with you, you interpret it as uncivil. I express an opinion about the quality of an article, you interpret it as uncivil. I try to welcome newcomers to an article, you assume bad faith (and I suppose you interpret it as uncivil). You can interpret my comments any way you want, just stop making accusations toward me that have no basis in reality. And I don't intend to argue back and forth endlessly with you here. It's pointless because you will either interpret anything I say as uncivil or not credible. So I'll continue collecting my diffs, and you will do what you think you should do. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- That is such a long list of crimes you describe me doing, once again I need diffs to convince I did thing I don't remember. I asked you to be civil only when you were uncivil. You never asked for diffs. Now that you have(or have you? You seem unclear on this matter. I am gathering them anyways.), give me some time and I will gladly do this for you. Just watch my contributions if you like. I asked for the diffs for my own enlightenment and I will provide them to you for the same reason. Regarding any sort of official complaint, that is not needed unless this behavior continues. Chillum 03:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
"Now that you have": Except I didn't. Once again, I say one thing, you interpret it differently. You can post all the diffs here you want. It's your talk page. That doesn't mean I'll agree with any of them. But if that's the way you want to spend your time, post away. Just don't start making any demands that I respond to baseless accusations on this talk page. In fact, the more I respond to your false accusations, the more likely you will interpret it as uncivil. Once again, Chillum, just because you post it on a Wikipedia talk page doesn't mean it's true. And likewise to you: there is no need for an official complaint about your false accusations unless you continue making them. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Like I said, you were unclear on that matter. Do you want diffs or not? I want diffs to support your accusations, and I am willing to supply them for mine. It is strange how you call my accusations baseless while at the same time saying you don't want diffs(you know, basis?). Like I said before I am always open to scrutiny of my actions, I invite it. To be frank I think you only gave me a civility warning because I gave you one, not because I was uncivil. That is why you don't want to prove it. Chillum 04:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
And to be frank, you have once again assumed bad faith with no basis. I don't mind occasionally repeating myself, just not over and over and over. So here's the first repeat: I never asked for diffs. I have no obligation to provide you or anyone any diffs I have unless I make any official complaint. If that's not clear I'll try one more time, but that's likely the last time I'll try to explain those concepts. Oh ... and one more repeat: I don't intend to go back and forth endlessly here with you here unless you continue to make false accusations, because you either interpret it as uncivil or not credible. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- My basis is that you gave me a civility warning immediately after I gave you one and I don't remember being uncivil and you can't show where I was. From Assume good faith: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence."
- I would far prefer that you went back and forth with me here than on the article talk page. I know you think Wikipedia is a joke but I take it seriously and wish at the very least you could take your commentary on other people off that article talk page and onto user talk pages. This debate is difficult enough without it being inflamed by belittling comments. Chillum 04:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
See? Here we go. You assume you know why I do something, which apparently to you means you know why I do what I do. Twice in the edit immediately above you assume you know what I'm thinking. You assume you know why I post a request for you to stop making false accusations. You assume I think Wikipedia is a joke. I have never said that Wikipedia is a joke. I think Rorschach test is a disaster ... a joke ... pick your term. Now I suppose I'll be told I'm being uncivil because I've expressed an opinion about an article. Chillum, I am seriously not going to argue endlessly here with you. It accomplishes nothing except to push you into making additional false accusations about me. End of discussion. Believe it or not, I have learned a few things in my 30 years as a psychologist, and it doesn't take much here for me to see that this is going absolutely nowhere except out of control. And before you make another accusation about me simply because I don't care to waste my time on your talk page, do you very best to remember that it was you who sent me a message that started all of this. To whatever extent you have good intentions here, I thank you but must state that some reasonable discussions are simply impossible. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- First off: "Wikipedia is a joke" - User:Ward3001 22:05, 6 May 2009
- Secondly you leave me no option except to assume why you posted a request for me to stop making false accusations, because you won't provide me with diffs. This is not very helpful, unless you have something concrete to show please lets just end this. Chillum 04:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
First off: "on some issues (the Rorschach being one), that Wikipedia is a joke": ON SOME ISSUES. There's a difference in meaning. Yet another false accusation.
Secondly, assume any damn thing you want. You have no idea what I'm thinking, and remember Chillum, you started this discussion.
And finally, I've been trying to end this pointless discussion for a long time, but you kept pushing it. Ward3001 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I have blocked User:Auntjemima001 for abusive use of your user space. It was clearly a sock puppet seeking to avoid scrutiny. If I see another similar sock puppet I will use the autoblock feature as well and that should hit the persons regular account. Chillum 04:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, I noticed that page of his, though I have not yet looked through his links. I have a similar one of my own. Chillum 20:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I know what you mean about running out of steam. While short on evidence and policy based arguments there is no shortage of staying power in their arguments. I wonder how many people who disagree with Ward and Faustian just gave up after enough months of debate simply because the arguments don't seem to change or react to being refuted? Chillum 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Folks, you know that I am quite capable of collecting diffs and storing them in a computer without adding them to my user space on Wikipedia. Maybe you believe I'm too stupid to know that anything on Wikipedia can be read by anyone. Maybe you believe that I'm the only editor who has noticed incivility and/or false accusations by one or both of you. But believe what you wish. Ward3001 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Nope, I never thought any of those things. Chillum 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Glad to hear that, especially that you're aware other editors besides me have noticed your false accusations. Thanks for the reply. Ward3001 (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I think Faustian has made similar claims(I may be mistaken). Still no evidence. Chillum 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not referring to Faustian, and yes there's evidence. But before we get into another pointless discussion here, let's just leave it at: you say that there is no evidence and I say there is evidence. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- The whole point of evidence is that it is "evident". If you don't present it then it is not really evidence as it is not evident. I say there is no evidence and until you show otherwise there is not. The burden of proof is on the accuser, I have offered my proof, you have not offered yours. Chillum 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Like I said, I don't care for another pointless discussion. Your "challenging" me to provide evidence means neither that "there is not" nor that I and others don't have it, just like your "challenging" me to provide diffs meant neither that I didn't have them nor that I was obligated to provide them to you. End of discussion. Thanks and have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Okay. Feel free to pop by again if there is anything else you don't want to talk about. Chillum 22:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
First, read the entirety of the talk page and the archives in detail. Secondly, read my response to another editor who requested similar information [2]. Please read them in that order. If you do both of those in the order stated, you should have adequate information. If you don't read the entirety of the talk page and archives first (even if you have already read them), don't ask me to do your reading for you. I'm happy to answer reasonable requests, but not spoon-feeding. Enjoy your reading. Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- It is incredibly unproductive to just keep asking me to read the debate I have read a few times now. I was there for a lot of it, I used to be known as Until(1 == 2). If you are not willing to simply state your evidence how on Earth do you expect to bring people around to your point of view. I feel this is needlessly adversarial, the goal here is to come to the correct conclusion. Holding back information in no way accomplished this. Chillum 02:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Chillum, to use a phrase that you have been fond of, I will not be "baited" into another endless argument with you. That has happened one too many times. The information is on the talk page and archives, and I even provided you to a link to a quick summary I gave to Bob K31416. And after I gave the info to Bob K31416, he never asked me to read the archives for him. If you have read everything, and have been in this discussion since the beginning, you have the information plus a neat (albeit brief) summary. End of discussion. End of "baiting". You can write on and on and on in this section if you want; it's your talk page. But not me. And by the way, Chillum, I'm making another request that you stop making false accusations about me, as you did in this edit summary. Another diff for my collection. Have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I really don't understand your strategy, if I was trying to prove a point I would put my sources where everyone can see them. Again I will tell you that did in fact read the archives. I was also there when it all happened. All I see are a few sources presented by Doc and one source from you that states the Rorschach test can detect suicidality. Once again, where is the source that says showing the images will cause harm? Chillum 02:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Also don't worry about this argument being endless. I think it is coming to a strong consensus that will last a good long time. Once again you are always welcome to come by and refuse to talk about something. Heck, you can even engage in productive dialog with me if the mood ever strikes you. Chillum 02:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
As I've told you several times, just because you write something on a Wikipedia page doesn't mean it's true. It's there Chillum. Read the talk page and the archives. One more tip. Find any comments by Luna Santin, and read any responses I made to him. That's not all the information, but all the information is in the archives. I will not do your research for you. End of discussion. And I don't mean to treat you like a child, but you don't seem to get it when I say it the first time or two, so again, end of discussion and end of baiting. Ward3001 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- What is this a riddle? Your are giving me hints? I have news for you, I don't support your point of view so why would I go about following clues trying to find something you said once but won't say what? It is you who seems to want me to do the research to prove your point, why would it be my burden? Just tell me what your source is or don't expect me to believe it exists. Chillum 02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Oh and by the way, as I have said more than a few times in the past day, go ahead and collect the diffs and file a complaint. I welcome scrutiny of my actions. I always have and I always will. If I am right then it will be shown, if I am wrong then I can learn. I understand your motives for not wanting the images on the article, but I cannot understand your motives to refuse to provide this source. It seems very contrary to your goals. Chillum 03:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've made at least two polite requests for you to stop making false accusations, yet you persist, as you did here. This is the third (or fourth) request. Please stop it. So far I haven't worded any of these requests as warnings. And I don't want to do that. But the next time, it will be a warning. Thank you for your understanding. Ward3001 (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I honestly think that most people would not interpret things the way you have. Exactly which part of what I said was false or an accusation? Please man, I really want reasonable discussion with you, but you just keep using every opportunity for conflict. There is no need for this to be an adversarial situation, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Just because we have a disagreement does not mean we should snipe at each other. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably.
- I will tell you once again, if you think I have acted inappropriately please seek scrutiny of my actions. Go ahead and draw all the attention you want to what you perceive to be an injustice, I warn you though you may find the result contrary to your line of thinking. Chillum 02:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's right, it doesn't need to be adversarial, but you are making it that way. You could have easily expressed your opinion to Bob K31416 that you don't see the information without adding that I am unwilling to provide the information. I provided information to him (which he apparently felt was sufficient as he has not requested anything more or accused me of not answering his question), and I provided it to you. Just because you don't wish to take the time to go through the archives in no way means that I did not direct you to the information. So if you want this to not be adversarial, then don't make any more false accusations about me. It's as simple as that. I'm not trying to turn this into a battle between you and me, but at the same time I will not sit back quietly as you sling out unfounded crap about me. If I was really malicious I could not request you to stop or warn you, simply collect the diffs, and make a complaint. But I am trying to be reasonable. Now, this can be the end of it if you will stop the false accusations. It's that simple. And again, I have better things to do that have another endless argument with you. So I'll wish you a good day. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- But you haven't provided the information. I am still waiting for it. All I saw in the section you pointed out was that the test could detect "suicidality". Asking for a source isn't adversarial, I am just following Wikipedia norms. I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply said I was unable to get the information from you and that I wondered if Bob could find it. What do you expect when you refuse to simply reference the source you are talking about? Chillum 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Telling someone, or announcing in an edit summary, a lie about me is adversarial. End of discussion. End of discussion. End of baiting. End of baiting. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- You keep saying that, yet you keep posting. I never lied about you. I simply said you would not tell me what your source is, and yet you still have not told what it is(for some reason). Can you explain to me what you think a lie is because I am thinking perhaps we have different understandings of the word. Chillum 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really innocent of this myself, but you should consider using the PREVIEW button! You have, in short order, taken top spot on Talk:Rorschach test (before / after). At the very least, use the "minor" edit button when adding or copyediting. =) –xenotalk 13:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- There is a problem with my brain where I don't see spelling and grammatical errors until after I have saved, preview just does not seem to work.(no wonder my edit count is so high hehe) Chillum 13:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yea, I have the same problem. But not to the same degree as you ;p –xenotalk 13:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I seek to excel in whatever I do. Chillum 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
As a preface, let me point out that the links I gave to Luna Santin on the Rorschach talk page here go to the same section that I linked for you here. Luna Santin was gracious enough to acknowledge that I gave him the information, the very same information (plus an additional summary) I gave you. And since you didn't bother to read the information closely enough to see that (or you intentionally lied, only you know that for sure), you have made another false accusation about me here. Consider this your first warning. And mulitple other editors have commented about your multiple mispresentations throughout the Rorschach debate. Chillum, I have told you repeatedly I'm not going to argue with you when you refuse the see the bare facts right in front of you. And that applies to this warning. I will not respond to any denials you make. I will not split hairs with you. So your next response here either needs to be nothing or an acknowledgment of your errors (I wouldn't even hope for an apology). It's your talk page, of course, so you can write on and on and on if you wish. But I will not respond to denials, or other misstatements by you here, or semantic quibbling about the meanings of words in this message. If you respond with nothing and do not make another false accusation about me, everything will be fine and we can put this behind us. If you respond with an acknowledgment of your errors, that's fine too; I can be forgiving quite easily and have no intentions of throwing this in your face in the future. If you want to argue, however, you're wasting your time. And if you make another false accusation about me, I may or may not give you another warning before proceeding with a discussion with an admin (I may begin with Luna Santin). Ward3001 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I don't know if I have mentioned this yet, but I invite you to draw scrutiny to my actions. Please have a discussion with an admin, get this all sorted out. My errors seem to amount to not scouring megabytes of archives for your sources when all you had to do was post them in a modern venue. You say "false accusation" so often it has begun to lose all meaning. If you look through my talk page archives you will see that I generally get along with people fine, even those I disagree with. Chillum 15:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
My warning stands. Your denials are meaningless. Have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I am encouraging you to do the very thing you are warning that you are going to do. That is not really the same thing as a denial, rather I welcome outside examination of this situation. I can't stop doing something I am not doing so I guess you will just have to draw scrutiny towards my behaviour or let it drop. Chillum 16:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's simple. You stop denying. You stop making false statements about me. That ends its. And as I have said many times before, I don't intend to argue endlessly with you, here or on my talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I really am not sure how to respond to you. You are unwilling to accept that I think you are wrong about your charges against me, fine. But you are also unwilling to seek further scrutiny of my actions or really justify them in any way. So whatever man, I will do my best to debate the facts without pissing you off somehow. I really cannot keep responding in circles with you but I won't be chased off from the debate either. The only advice I can give you is not to take every little perceived slight personally. Chillum 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm serious (but friendly) in this comment. It could really do wonders for the disagreements on Rorschach if two editors who had disagreed so much could agree on something. I have changed my vote to the drop-down option as a compromise. I certainly understand if that's out of the question for you, and if you ignore or delete this message I will take no offense, and I will never bring this up again anywhere if that's the case. Just think about it. I don't plan to change my vote back in either case. Thanks for your consideration. Ward3001 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- While I personally object to the idea of hiding relevant information, should consensus go that way I will willingly except it. I do not desire to ignore or delete your messages, I honestly think if we both remain reasonable that our interaction can be productive. I have also answered your request for another book with a Rorschach inkblot on the cover, this one is not altered in any way. Chillum 17:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for considering what I had to say. I accept that anything you do regarding this particular point is done with careful consideration and in good faith. All the best. Ward3001 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- It has always been my intention to accept a consensus that was contrary to what I wanted, that is the spirit of compromise that I believe WP:CONSENSUS is talking about. Sometimes the points I debate are accepted, other times they are rejected, the trick is to accept the result and move on. Chillum 18:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE SMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE SMILESMILESMILESMILESMILESMILE
DMacks (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Chillum smiles back. 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.