Book 2 – Page 88

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby 0beron » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:26 pm

drachefly wrote:I'm pretty sure we haven't been told whether ["unfreezing" is] stack-by-stack, zone-by-zone, or city-by-city.

Hm good point. Parson's Klog says "We can do nothing until attacked" which to me suggests it is stack-by-stack, but it's definitely open to interpretation.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Salem » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:02 pm

I would like to make note that I have to disagree with a lot going on around this thread, and not just the trolling and general mean spiritedness.

There seems to be a lot about Parson being a "gamer" and a gamer goes ftw. You loot corpses and take your spoils. That was Parson's mindset in TBFGK. Even in the first few pages this is confirmed, he thinks it's a dream and says "I always like playing the bad guys." Parson is a good person, he wouldn't get a kick out of being the badguys if he thought it was non game. He probably thinks JS is doofy but not evil. He must obey the tool, but if he can convince the tool and save lives, that seems a win to Parson. He no longer looks at the world as a game, and hence no longer as a gamer, he still looks at battle as a lateral/gamestyle thinker, but not at the units and people and sides. If it must be looked at as a game, think of it as an abnormal one, where the win condition isn't death of all enemies. Think of it like a game of civ with most of the victory conditions ticked off leaving little more than diplomatic. He doesn't want to leave erf devoid of life, he's not a monster. He doesn't think of Erfworlders like players think about NPCs.

Edit: We know some Erfers think this way to, I'm sure Ace wants to save Cubbins for reasons other than "Casters are important." Cubbins just went all noble and got at least 3x Ossomer. I think it's improtant to remember that even the Liliputians are subject to the whims of love and friendship. Perhaps even GASP compassion. Just look at Sizemore.
Last edited by Salem on Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Too cute to (stay) croak(ed)!"
Salem
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Oberon » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:22 pm

Lamech wrote:
Oberon wrote:And please, if you even try to claim that cloney would retain all of the abilities of a duplicate king when somehow the rulership has passed to Ansom, just don't. By your own argument, cloney had to have the natural thinkamancy while Slately was alive in order to pass as the king. For cloney to retain rulership only capabilities while Ansom is king would just as obviously identify him as a duplicate.

How? What would reveal him as a dupe?

I'm really kind of shocked that you need to ask. I laid it out very clearly already. You must wish to bring in some new arguments which might support your position better. I'll wait.

But really, all this is fairly moot. Tremm and company, plus Don and company, plus Charlie and company, all know that cloney is a duplicate by the simple fact of Slately's body being present. All that remains now is for your "Ansom is king" theory to be revealed to be either correct or incorrect.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Oberon » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:55 pm

Zeroberon wrote:While I agree with the sentiment of this statement, I think some of it is incorrect. He is still a Warlord, that's his base unit type and isn't going to change. He may be incapable of attacking (although the fact that Jillian's frequent "escapes" from GK in the modern day are plausible if albiet unlikely, suggests there must be some way for captives to fight/run). Whether he is still some kind of Heir remains to be seen, because Decryption has no precedent.
Decryption has a precedent: Uncroaking.
Zeroberon wrote:Is he still a Jetstone Heir? If so is he capable of inheriting, or does the "special" lay dormant until he turns back? Is he instead an Heir for FAQ because they've captured him? or maybe he is an heir for GK? Or maybe he's not an Heir at all. We simply don't know yet.
I really don't understand why there is so much uncertainty. Being a Jetstone unit is a state which expires when you die. Being a Jetstone heir similarly expires when you expire.

Note that Jillian believes that they need to turn a GK decrypted, just like they would need to turn any other GK unit. Would there be so much uncertainty expressed if Ansom had simply been turned by GK, rather than killed and decrypted? Would anyone believe then that if Slately died that Ansom would suddenly become the king of Jetstone? If this is the case, then we might have expected to see some concern that Ansom would be king if Slately died, and not that the entire side would end.

Let's apply this line of thought to another unit property. Rulership. If you turn the ruler of a side, and they have an heir, who is the king? Now hold that thought.

It may be easier to think of this in terms of being killed and then decrypted, since that's a two step process. If the king is killed, who is the king? Does the corpse somehow retain the rulership? We know that it does not. The rulership passes to the heir. Then decrypt the former king's corpse. What happens now? Is the decrypted former king suddenly made king again? Well, we have no examples from the story, other than the uncroaking of the FAQ king. Who was the ruler of FAQ when Banhammer was croaked? Jillian, right? Or FAQ would have fallen immediately upon his death, and it did not. Who was ruler of FAQ when Banhammer was uncroaked? Still Jillain, I hope you'll agree. Soon to be no one when FAQ fell and Jillian and her company went barbarian. But Banhammer did not retain the property of rulership when he died, and did not somehow regain it when he was uncroaked. Yes, decryption isn't exactly like uncroaking, but this does establish a precedent.
Zeroberon wrote:What we DO know is that Fakely still seems to fit the mechanic function of a King, so the "Search for Heir" function hasn't yet run. So Ansom definitely isn't the ruler right now, regardless of whatever capacity to become Ruler he has or doesn't have.
This I agree with completely. I further speculate that the property of being a unit of a side, or an heir of a side, or the ruler of a side, is not retained across death, and is not restored upon either uncroaking or decryption.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby 0beron » Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:10 pm

Oberon's entire argument depends on the following logical fallacy:
Oberon wrote:Decryption has a precedent: Uncroaking.

Uncroaking is NOT the precedent to Decryption. Decryption mimics uncroaking, but it breaks all the rules. That is what 'Tools do, they break the traditional rules.

You make a good argument by pointing out that decryption technically involves croaking first. I'm inclined to agree with you because of this, but I still consider the possibility that decryption has the potential to deny whatever conventional logic we have based on standard Croakamancy.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Oberon » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:27 pm

0beron wrote:Oberon's entire argument depends on the following logical fallacy:
Oberon wrote:Decryption has a precedent: Uncroaking.
It's not a logical fallacy. In law, you never (or rarely) find the exact same case, but you can use it as a precedent to determine how to rule in the case at hand. Of course I'm not arguing that uncroaking is exactly the same as decrypting. I'm just saying that it serves very adequately as a precedent for how things might be handled. That's what the word precedent means.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby 0beron » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:38 pm

Not when the thing you're finding a precedent FOR is something that is intended to BREAK the law.
Decryption "looks" like croakamancy, but if has defied every restriction of croakamancy that has yet been tested. So to assume that the idea of precedent can apply here isn't logically sound.
As I said above, you pointed out a decryption involves croaking first, and THAT is something we understand more concretely. That is a better argument than trying to consider uncroaking as decryption's precedent.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Beeskee » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:06 am

I can offer some related canon evidence that will help, hopefully. The decrypted gobwins and hobgobwins did not regain their tribal status. So I think some other special statuses, such as ruler and heir, are lost upon croaking, and cannot be regained. Others, like the Archery special, are kept upon decryption. I'm not 100% sure though, so I am looking forward to finding out, if the comic covers those subjects.
User avatar
Beeskee
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:25 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Oberon » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:28 am

Zeroberon wrote:Not when the thing you're finding a precedent FOR is something that is intended to BREAK the law.
Decryption "looks" like croakamancy, but if has defied every restriction of croakamancy that has yet been tested. So to assume that the idea of precedent can apply here isn't logically sound.
As I said above, you pointed out a decryption involves croaking first, and THAT is something we understand more concretely. That is a better argument than trying to consider uncroaking as decryption's precedent.
Well then, let's see if we can justify the precedent:
Requires a dead unit: Check
Brings that dead unit back into play as a unit of the casters side: Check
Said unit requires no maintenance: Check

Looks like a decent basis for a precedent to me, at least as far as any speculations on retention of unit side status or heir or ruler status need be concerned.

Was that somehow different than what you also concluded, using this same precedent?

Beeskee wrote:I can offer some related canon evidence that will help, hopefully. The decrypted gobwins and hobgobwins did not regain their tribal status. So I think some other special statuses, such as ruler and heir, are lost upon croaking, and cannot be regained. Others, like the Archery special, are kept upon decryption. I'm not 100% sure though, so I am looking forward to finding out, if the comic covers those subjects.
I think you are correct, and some status are retained while others are lost. Side specific status such as side affiliation, and any special such as heir or ruler within the side are lost. For example, being a warlord seems to be retained. As does being a heavy. But I'm not sure about what you're saying regarding tribal status. Vurp seemed to have continued both his hobgobwin tribal status and even potentially gained status as a Chief of the hobgobwin allies.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby bladestorm » Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:22 am

Oberon wrote:
Zeroberon wrote:Not when the thing you're finding a precedent FOR is something that is intended to BREAK the law.
Decryption "looks" like croakamancy, but if has defied every restriction of croakamancy that has yet been tested. So to assume that the idea of precedent can apply here isn't logically sound.
As I said above, you pointed out a decryption involves croaking first, and THAT is something we understand more concretely. That is a better argument than trying to consider uncroaking as decryption's precedent.
Well then, let's see if we can justify the precedent:
Requires a dead unit: Check
Brings that dead unit back into play as a unit of the casters side: Check
Said unit requires no maintenance: Check

Looks like a decent basis for a precedent to me, at least as far as any speculations on retention of unit side status or heir or ruler status need be concerned.

Was that somehow different than what you also concluded, using this same precedent?

Beeskee wrote:I can offer some related canon evidence that will help, hopefully. The decrypted gobwins and hobgobwins did not regain their tribal status. So I think some other special statuses, such as ruler and heir, are lost upon croaking, and cannot be regained. Others, like the Archery special, are kept upon decryption. I'm not 100% sure though, so I am looking forward to finding out, if the comic covers those subjects.
I think you are correct, and some status are retained while others are lost. Side specific status such as side affiliation, and any special such as heir or ruler within the side are lost. For example, being a warlord seems to be retained. As does being a heavy. But I'm not sure about what you're saying regarding tribal status. Vurp seemed to have continued both his hobgobwin tribal status and even potentially gained status as a Chief of the hobgobwin allies.

Vurp isn't decrypted, though.
bladestorm
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby 0beron » Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:32 am

Beeskee wrote:The decrypted gobwins and hobgobwins did not regain their tribal status.

Could you clarify which ones you're talking about, and give us a link? People seem to assume you're talking about Vurp, who I don't think was decrypted.

Oberon wrote:Well then, let's see if we can justify the precedent:
Things that go against the precedent:
Unit retains full original stats (including the Archon's spellcasting ability)
Unit does not decay
You're ignoring my point that the 'Tools are supposed to defy the normal rules and even logic of Erfworld. If Beeskee is correct that it's stated somewhere that the decrypted hobgowbins lose tribal status, that would definitely put a nail in the "Ansom is still a Jetstone Heir" coffin (something I considered pretty unlikely anway).
However, I'd still argue he could have retained his Heir "special" in either a dormant state, or that he could be an heir to whatever side he is on, or for Wanda.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Oberon » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:57 am

0beron wrote:You're ignoring my point that the 'Tools are supposed to defy the normal rules and even logic of Erfworld.
I'm not ignoring your point. Your point simply has no relevance when discussing the appropriateness of uncroaked being a precedent for decryption. Yes, there are differences, but as I've tried to point out, differences are fully expected and acceptable when looking for a precedent.

I thought Vurp croaked and was decrypted at the volcano. But perhaps he was one of the very few survivors. If the second is the case, then he is neither an example for nor against decrypted retaining or losing qualities such as "unit of side X" or "heir of side Y" across death.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby bladestorm » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:34 am

Oberon wrote:I thought Vurp croaked and was decrypted at the volcano. But perhaps he was one of the very few survivors. If the second is the case, then he is neither an example for nor against decrypted retaining or losing qualities such as "unit of side X" or "heir of side Y" across death.

He was with Stanley as part of the Knights in Stanley's Service, so he was battling against Transylvito (or on the way back) during the Volcano incident.
bladestorm
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby MarbitChow » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:49 am

0beron wrote:If Beeskee is correct that it's stated somewhere that the decrypted hobgowbins lose tribal status, that would definitely put a nail in the "Ansom is still a Jetstone Heir" coffin (something I considered pretty unlikely anway).

All the Gobwins and Hobgobwins were croaked in the eruption, of course. Wanda decrypted most of those, but they no longer counted as a separate tribe. They were just units of Gobwin Knob's side now.

0beron wrote:However, I'd still argue he could have retained his Heir "special" in either a dormant state, or that he could be an heir to whatever side he is on, or for Wanda.
We don't have any evidence that Heir (or Chief Warlord) is a special trait. It is a role that at most one unit per side can fill. The role can be vacated through demotion or death, but there's no evidence that it becomes an intrinsic part of the *unit*. It appears to be an attribute of the *side*, with modifiers based on which unit is assigned to the role.
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Nnelg » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:34 pm

Look, the way I personally see it is like this:

Uncroaking are the closest thing to a precedent for Decryption that Erfworld has. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect similarities.

However, Decryption is not Uncroaking, and indeed has proven to break many of the normal rules for it. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect differences.

There just isn't any way to tell what the rules of Decryption are until they're tried out.
"The Wizard is Charlie!"
User avatar
Nnelg
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
Location: Internets the World of Webs

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Oberon » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:58 am

Excellent, thank you. Evidence that tribal status was negated by decryption.
MarbitChow wrote:
0beron wrote:However, I'd still argue he could have retained his Heir "special" in either a dormant state, or that he could be an heir to whatever side he is on, or for Wanda.
We don't have any evidence that Heir (or Chief Warlord) is a special trait. It is a role that at most one unit per side can fill. The role can be vacated through demotion or death, but there's no evidence that it becomes an intrinsic part of the *unit*. It appears to be an attribute of the *side*, with modifiers based on which unit is assigned to the role.
No hard evidence, I'll agree. But plenty of "soft" evidence via examples, and your own post regarding the lack of retention of tribal status across decryption supports my position. Tribal status, heir status, ruler status, all of these statuses cease upon death. If you then uncroack or decrypt the unit, they lose those status and become a simple unit if the side which uncroacked or decrypted them.

And I do think that we have evidence that CWL is a is a special trait. Manpower was CWL, and even though he was going to be uncroaked GK needed to promote another CWL. This is evidence that the CWL trait does not covey across death.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Salem » Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:19 pm

Oberon wrote:
0beron wrote:You're ignoring my point that the 'Tools are supposed to defy the normal rules and even logic of Erfworld.
I'm not ignoring your point. Your point simply has no relevance when discussing the appropriateness of uncroaked being a precedent for decryption. Yes, there are differences, but as I've tried to point out, differences are fully expected and acceptable when looking for a precedent.

I thought Vurp croaked and was decrypted at the volcano. But perhaps he was one of the very few survivors. If the second is the case, then he is neither an example for nor against decrypted retaining or losing qualities such as "unit of side X" or "heir of side Y" across death.

First off, I don't think Ansom is heir.

But since we're using the way law is practiced as a point. It is perfectly valid to argue against something being precdent. One side in fact SHOULD. That's how it works. Just because things are similar doesn't make it proper precedence if they're different enough.

Here is my argument against precedence.
Uncroaked - Not sentient - Unlife - Decays - Magic - Made by Mortals
Decrypted - Sentient -2nd Life - Lives - Artifact - Made by Divinity
Wands is a MASTER croakamancer, she knows OODLES about her art, the decrypted STILL suprise her. Their existence was new information AND.

Uncroaked - Mindlessly Loyal - Mindless - Probably a "-" Loyalty stat
Decrypted - Question Orders - Retain memories and beliefs - Return to their father's ranks to die with honor as a son of Jetstone.

I think they're more different than alike. I would say Decrypted are more like the living than the undead. More like mind controlled people. What I mean to say is I could probably draw ALMOST as many parelels between uncroaked and decrypted as I could uncroaked and the living, loyalty to the murderer and death being the only big differences. I could probably draw more parellels to the living than to uncroaked making them possibly better precedent.

HOWEVER, I think that A - Death cancels a lot of things, not being decrypted or uncroaked and B - Heir is probably side linked like a position rather than a unit trait. It has never been shown to give bonuses other than "Heirage" no limited side sense or anything else.
"Too cute to (stay) croak(ed)!"
Salem
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby 0beron » Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:22 pm

Agree with Salem 100% on everything :)
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Nnelg » Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:02 pm

Surprisingly, I actually agree more with Oberon here.

I mean, it's not like you can not say that Uncroaking and Decryption are very much alike.
"The Wizard is Charlie!"
User avatar
Nnelg
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm
Location: Internets the World of Webs

Re: Book 2 – Page 88

Postby Oberon » Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:28 am

Salem wrote:It is perfectly valid to argue against something being precdent.
It's also perfectly valid for the other side to claim that your points against the precedence are invalid. :lol:
Salem wrote:Here is my argument against precedence.
Uncroaked - Not sentient - Unlife - Decays - Magic - Made by Mortals
Decrypted - Sentient -2nd Life - Lives - Artifact - Made by Divinity
Wands is a MASTER croakamancer, she knows OODLES about her art, the decrypted STILL suprise her. Their existence was new information AND.

Uncroaked - Mindlessly Loyal - Mindless - Probably a "-" Loyalty stat
Decrypted - Question Orders - Retain memories and beliefs - Return to their father's ranks to die with honor as a son of Jetstone.
I find your terms to be lacking in sufficient definition or any real meaning.

You claim some difference by using the terms "unlife" and "2nd life." It's far more accurate to say that both died, and that both are now not dead. Both had Motion removed from them, and both had Motion restored to them. Your special terms have no real meaning.

You also claim another difference by using the labels "Made by Mortals" and "Made by Divinity." It's far more accurate to say that both are "made" by the acts of a Croakamancer. Unless you care to cite evidence that a Titan came down to Erf and created all those decrypted which we've seen Wanda create? Another pair of terms which don't have any real meaning.

You claim that decrypted "Question Orders" and "Return to their father's [side]", when those were very specific exceptions to the unwavering loyalty we're seen from the decrypted. You cannot use a single fringe case, an abnormality, and apply it to the entire class of decrypted. Allow me to cite a case of a decrypted being "Mindlessly Loyal" even against very strong personal objections:
Ansom, upon being told that he would be left behind while the flying forces moved to Jetstone: I'll alert the tool. He will order you to allow me to lead the assault!
Wanda: No. You will not.
Ansom: No. ...I will not.

And this example can be applied to all decrypted except for your single, fringe case. You have in fact provided the exception which proves the rule.

Salem wrote:Wands is a MASTER croakamancer, she knows OODLES about her art, the decrypted STILL suprise her. Their existence was new information AND.
This is just a meaningless exclamation of yours in the context of this discussion. Wanda not knowing about decrypted has nothing to do with the similarity of decrypted to uncroaked.

I'll grant you decays vs. does not decay, and not sentient vs. sentient. But I won't give you "retains beliefs" as we have the very strong example of Ansom, who was a complete royalist and called Wanda "witch" and other negative names, upon decrypting adoring Wanda completely and instantly being a convert to toolism.

Oh, and here's another couple similarities I missed listing before:
Both dust upon being killed.
Both are considered to be abominations by royalist sides (examples: Bea, Slately)

They are far more alike than they are different.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Beeskee, Daefaroth, fjolnir, Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests