info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Normal Code": Portland's Slander and Libel Problem, 2022
176 views
Skip to first unread message
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 16, 2022, 5:35:24 PM2/16/22
to
(Somehow: Why I Won't Be Staying With People That Look Suspiciously Like Members of the Bush Family, and Don't Even Have an Error of Judgment To Thank)
"Enough whining, feeb. This is now the end of the beginning of a new era in detesting low-earning curb-burners like you."
Oh, goody. Because we wouldn't necessarily want to return to an old "Oregon Favorite" even your "extropian" keister would be chafed by, "normal code". The thought, even among some "liberally" people closely attuned to Salem, was that invocations of Federal acts like I was listing off in the other thread was *nicht so*: the "rubber hits the road" only in terms of state and local statutes.
Well, kids:
The "normal code" version of Li'l Jeffy's complaint about almost a year-and-a-half of strangely-bearable, predictably-unbearable homelessness terminating in... whatever is something like this:
Yesterday I was precipitously "evicted" from a Portland homeless shelter which may have become somewhat notorious in its periods of "popping up" over the years. The "stated problem" was that I had "called someone the n-word". The problem with this, and many would be familiar with "brain teasers" of this kind, is that I then went on to assert that I in fact had never used the hate phrase to designate an African-American in my life. "Logically" this statement contradicts the "stated problem"; it was actually not openly doubted, and yet I still had to "make tracks".
("Tell 'the other part'.") A number of residents had *actually* been throwing that hate speech around, sort of "experimentally" but very much as though they had been born to have a "cavalier" attitude about it. Considering my "political orientations" and realism about where we seemed to be, I found this rather strange. The words of a Mr. Jones on the topic were referenced. Now, those who openly are "confessed" to have said this thing remain in "good standing" with the shelter, and I have had to leave and there's "more in store". See how this sort of thing "works", when it does? Not entirely admirably.
The problem at "common" or state law, and it's a fairly thorny one, is called "multiple libel": you assemble an inconsistent set of fairly outrageous but somehow-plausible smears on someone and assume it's enough to "scotch" them as someone deserving of normal consideration with respect to an issue. The problems with calling people "everything at all" are twofold: 1) it's inherently nuts, "it's not true but it has to be right", and 2) by and by it is a problem for "legitimate authority", which wants very badly to "play nice" with the socialite types that do this sort of thing but also really technically needs to not be an "accessory" to criminal activity conducted through outrageous mendacity.
Simple on the face of it, really. "Saying doesn't make it so", but it can make it so unfortunate. "That's the point." I don't think I like that sort of person too well, even by this age.
Jeffrey Rubard
"Enough whining, feeb. This is now the end of the beginning of a new era in detesting low-earning curb-burners like you."
Oh, goody. Because we wouldn't necessarily want to return to an old "Oregon Favorite" even your "extropian" keister would be chafed by, "normal code". The thought, even among some "liberally" people closely attuned to Salem, was that invocations of Federal acts like I was listing off in the other thread was *nicht so*: the "rubber hits the road" only in terms of state and local statutes.
Well, kids:
The "normal code" version of Li'l Jeffy's complaint about almost a year-and-a-half of strangely-bearable, predictably-unbearable homelessness terminating in... whatever is something like this:
Yesterday I was precipitously "evicted" from a Portland homeless shelter which may have become somewhat notorious in its periods of "popping up" over the years. The "stated problem" was that I had "called someone the n-word". The problem with this, and many would be familiar with "brain teasers" of this kind, is that I then went on to assert that I in fact had never used the hate phrase to designate an African-American in my life. "Logically" this statement contradicts the "stated problem"; it was actually not openly doubted, and yet I still had to "make tracks".
("Tell 'the other part'.") A number of residents had *actually* been throwing that hate speech around, sort of "experimentally" but very much as though they had been born to have a "cavalier" attitude about it. Considering my "political orientations" and realism about where we seemed to be, I found this rather strange. The words of a Mr. Jones on the topic were referenced. Now, those who openly are "confessed" to have said this thing remain in "good standing" with the shelter, and I have had to leave and there's "more in store". See how this sort of thing "works", when it does? Not entirely admirably.
The problem at "common" or state law, and it's a fairly thorny one, is called "multiple libel": you assemble an inconsistent set of fairly outrageous but somehow-plausible smears on someone and assume it's enough to "scotch" them as someone deserving of normal consideration with respect to an issue. The problems with calling people "everything at all" are twofold: 1) it's inherently nuts, "it's not true but it has to be right", and 2) by and by it is a problem for "legitimate authority", which wants very badly to "play nice" with the socialite types that do this sort of thing but also really technically needs to not be an "accessory" to criminal activity conducted through outrageous mendacity.
Simple on the face of it, really. "Saying doesn't make it so", but it can make it so unfortunate. "That's the point." I don't think I like that sort of person too well, even by this age.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 16, 2022, 6:59:27 PM2/16/22
to
Furthermore, if one's real attitude is "Yeah, talk in Portland is fast and loose, run with the
big boys etc" maybe... that's just not going to be enough for people. They're sort of
more like local "factotums" than "big boys", and all the untruths you tell don't "get at
the point" of much other than the scam you're running.
The main objection might be that "inference preserves truth', like Leibniz said, not
useful falsehood. That "fib" you told always needs *endless* "care and feeding", and
it really is impossible to tell how it cuts against people's veridical beliefs. Furthermore,
the "real backdrop" of gamers, hard realism of the "bigger is better type", also "turns
truths into truths": they're just sort of banal ones, ones *we* even know from elsewhere.
So? The appeal of "We lie, then they die" is supposed to be... what?
Jeffrey Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 17, 2022, 6:10:16 PM2/17/22
to
That's not how that expression works, man. Sometimes it's better not to "borrow" too much.
With respect to the particular charge resulting in losing substandard-but-very-needed housing, there are approximately three levels:
Personal. I am "on record" as saying I admire the words of Nasir Jones on the topic of this slur:
"If they call you a -------/ain't nothing to it, tell 'em Nas made you do it." So if I'd been hypocritical
and really "dropped a bomb" on the topic, then I'd really be in for it, huh? Sometimes you
"don't really remember" things you've done, right? So maybe "segueing" out of the facility as
quickly as possible, turning down "severance" gifts clearly designed to "manufacture consent",
was just the thing! You could do this over and over again, depriving people of their professional
and personal reputation and various *Lebensmittel* at the same time! Awe-some, right?
Kind of not really. But close!
First of all, there is a disturbing rise in the number of Caucasian people who think casually using
the n-word, or with some bizarre "sophistication", is "a jam". It isn't. (Even if I, for the first time in
my life, had managed to do so. "Oh, I see how this works." I don't think you see how it doesn't work.
The score would then be Personal Idiocy: 2, Obligatory Social Politeness: 0 or something like that.
Sure, "that's a common score", kid.) Secondly, the "normal sociological perspective" now being
maligned as "critical race theory" would be something like: "Honestly, that's just kind of the
feeling of meeting you sometimes, even if you're 'fastidious' about terminology, or maybe
even more so as you get older. Don't add it to your repertoire but on some level it's not the
essential thing. Right? You got me?"
Social role: In terms of abruptly terminating a resident "without further ado" or much attention
to any systematic, logical process the questions are twofold. Firstly, although many would have
their Foucauldean ears perked up for a fiendish "self-moving mover" unable to be stopped as
an instance of command-and-control, there is a critique which is not quite as "forbidden" as
the fashionista who handed this pseudo-judgment down might think. "Was the charge one
with 'a factual basis'? Often complainants about something like this wouldn't want to come
forward personally, so it's indeed possible there wouldn't be a specific, precise person to
refer to here on the level of 'let me at 'em'. Furthermore, maybe you wouldn't know whether it
was exactly a true complaint or not but it'd be clearly believable, it could be a 'factually
accurate' claim or not and it'd be worth pursuing on that level. So it was like that, right?
Oh, it wasn't like that."
Furthermore, in terms of the 'wise ones' casually littering their North Portland residences
with learned uses of the n-word there is a further, harder rationale to consider: "the opposite
of a witch-hunt is no witch-hunt". Consider: "I guess you really understand how I feel
when I hear that, man. No lie. On the other hand, considering how f-ed up transients of any
background are and how much you just need to 'keep the peace', it actually really couldn't
be the shibboleth she acted like it could be. Like, maybe I would really want it like that, but
it isn't like that. Furthermore, as the years have gone on I've found that there are some
former 'racists"'I actually have a broad level of moral agreement with, and many 'liberal
optimists' I formerly admired who turned out just to be bags of tricks. So it doesn't
really wash on a 'moral outrage' level, either, unless they're about it." What "the actual
rules" for the generic question would have to be, in other words.
Social context: In a similar fashion to "But I've actually never said that in my whole life",
I have recently made in *various* online fora certain professional claims "unpopular"
with some people in Portland who would have an interest in such things. They have
not really been "refuted"; the general procedure is more "confutation", "I'll show you",
"See what happens to them on a given day, what a pathetic loser they are." This shows
a high level of persecutory stick-to-it-iveness and a low level of logical imagination:
"confutation" is not a refutation, it can comfortably coexist with the literal truth of
claims it downplays. A major American author is a weaselly, "obscure" loser?
Those with better knowledge than "our best" would easily say: "This is the problem?
This is difficult for you to conceive?" So it is more the charge's "consilience" with
this general culture of defamation, rather than being deprived of certain social
supports I wasn't exactly owed, that is the galling thing.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 18, 2022, 4:38:28 PM2/18/22
to
the one that works only with Oregon statute. The alternative, usually more common,
approach would be to ask if this facility were violating the Fair Housing Act by
spending Federal dollars (perhaps not all, but most, of its funding) to handle local
"housing-insecure" people extremely individiously.
The "long and the short" of this distinction is: the "common law" as implemented
at a state level is "what we can agree with", the thing that permits normal
ampliative and precisifying reasoning about an "affair at law". The other side,
the reason the common law was *always* modified after the ratification of
the Constitution by Federal law, is that only national acts and regulations
guarantee *uniform* treatment of US citizens: civil rights are a Federal, not a
local, affair. So "keeping it all on the low" may be a bit beneath us, if you see now.
Message has been deleted
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 19, 2022, 7:16:45 PM2/19/22
to
something in one's life by 6 am, the rest of the events of the day will not "undo" it.
(Had I used this terrible epithet against a fellow resident who was a person of color
by 6 am today? Silence.)
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 19, 2022, 7:19:41 PM2/19/22
to
6 pm today? Um... you don't really think like that, do you? You just think sophisticated
"fuckery" during the day is the be-all and end-all of "what's happening", right?
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 20, 2022, 7:24:45 PM2/20/22
to
"That's what I'm in it for." Maybe not everybody is, though.
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 24, 2022, 6:08:33 PM2/24/22
to
I guess Peter Courtney is retiring?
OPB says it's true, but in the past "idle speculations" to that effect could even get me in serious trouble.
"Yes, Peter Courtney is retiring."
Do you suppose it mattered when we personally learned this fact, or that we learned it personally?
"--"
Yeah, I don't say stuff sometimes too.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 25, 2022, 5:23:12 PM2/25/22
to
personal preferences, but sic erat scriptum so... anybody "growing up" a little?
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 26, 2022, 4:35:59 PM2/26/22
to
desires, and similarly.
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 27, 2022, 6:06:41 PM2/27/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 27, 2022, 7:05:05 PM2/27/22
to
what difference does a day make? "I could imagine that..." I bet you could imagine something
that made it "unavailable" the next day. But what if it had been printed in a durable format?
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 27, 2022, 7:06:50 PM2/27/22
to
Maybe you have an essentially "realist" epistemology for yourself ("It's either true or it isn't, you betcha")
and an irrealist psychology for those stipulated to be your social inferiors ("You can think whatever I liiike...")
Maybe that's kind of... crazy, though?
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 28, 2022, 7:09:13 PM2/28/22
to
"Wouldn't it be like that?"
It would be the way it was, very generally.
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 1, 2022, 6:58:51 PM3/1/22
to
When someone says something, even if you "trust" them, that doesn't make it so.
When someone you don't "buy" says something, that doesn't automatically make it *not* so, either.
Your "blinders" are "blinkers" in in this respect.
(Not as always -- more than ever, as I think more people appreciate this point through tragic "misadventure").
Jeff Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 2, 2022, 4:04:53 PM3/2/22
to
You don't disagree that "either something is true, or it isn't".
It's just that the focus is on whether *you* are untrue, or not --
And more in the "personal" sense.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 5, 2022, 5:37:47 PM3/5/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 6, 2022, 6:37:49 PM3/6/22
to
(Mostly, PDXers, things are not like that. Choices I made when I was in my teens, twenties... well,
never mind, but you really should know pretty freaking well it's not "up to you" usually.)
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 8, 2022, 4:35:52 PM3/8/22
to
Also, *anything that is actually true is true*. "Well, I think that..." is not really the form of this.
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 9, 2022, 5:40:15 PM3/9/22
to
So there are "pathological projections" as well as pathological liars about past history.
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 16, 2022, 7:16:05 PM3/16/22
to
that many facts of history and facts of our lives would actually be *quite independent* of what
a Peter Courtney would think, and even at a "second order": if Peter were to have the "facts of
something" right, his reasoning in extrapolating from them could be poor. "Guidelines for retirement?"
Oh, come on, man. You don't issue people "ultimatums" like that. But wouldn't it be so?
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 20, 2022, 6:44:20 PM3/20/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 31, 2022, 6:05:27 PM3/31/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 4, 2022, 7:42:05 PM4/4/22
to
at least 'in the abstract', than you might say: a person's date of birth, for example, is not 'visually inspectible' but does not
change during their lifetime. (Yeah, "it's like that", people.)
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 6, 2022, 6:27:03 PM4/6/22
to
The logic behind things like "disorderly conduct".
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 11, 2022, 5:56:27 PM4/11/22
to
By which "reproof isn't disproof" is evident to everyone in the world except...
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 12, 2022, 3:20:50 PM4/12/22
to
which it may be uncharacteristic (or even *characteristic*) and refute the idea
that it would be easily established as true that one had, for example, not
voted in the 2020 general elections rather separately.
(Perhaps you were homeless and it would be illegal to do so, for example.)
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 13, 2022, 5:24:25 PM4/13/22
to
would not be 'subject to change' day over day.
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 14, 2022, 5:03:39 PM4/14/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 16, 2022, 4:31:32 PM4/16/22
to
It would compel... a certain forbearance in dealing with strangers?
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 18, 2022, 5:46:41 PM4/18/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 19, 2022, 5:34:17 PM4/19/22
to
day after day and we would not need to have "kerfluffles" over them, such as to "give the lie" to things which
were actually factually true?
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 20, 2022, 4:02:24 PM4/20/22
to
by violent episodes contained within?
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 21, 2022, 4:53:42 PM4/21/22
to
"Umm..."
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 23, 2022, 1:43:39 PM4/23/22
to
Sometimes things within them don't change "on cue", either.
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 24, 2022, 6:46:14 PM4/24/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 25, 2022, 5:49:57 PM4/25/22
to
Whether you "liked it or not".
Whether you wanted to "tell it true", or to "give the lie".
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 25, 2022, 8:25:47 PM4/25/22
to
"I wrote all the books I wrote".
Number: 0 to...
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 29, 2022, 6:39:10 PM4/29/22
to
do for the rest of the day and in the future.
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 30, 2022, 7:31:42 PM4/30/22
to
(Just at all, "kidders".)
Jeffrey Rubard
May 4, 2022, 5:31:03 PM5/4/22
to
"You mad, bro?" (I know, unlike some, the BEV expression itself works different.)
They, across the state, are a bit fazed by a positive answer to the question
"You fey, bro?" i.e., a "fandango" followed by a severe assault (including from
people who are as *tiny* as me or smaller even).
Jeffrey Rubard
May 6, 2022, 4:32:36 PM5/6/22
to
status of "known states of affairs", things that are known by this or that person
to be thus-and-so. (We are, somehow, not in complete possession of such a
body of factual data as individuals.) They would either "reprove" the author
or admirer of such actions and "things done", or serve to *suppress* information
about those *faits accomplis* among the larger public.
Jeffrey Rubard
May 7, 2022, 1:41:33 PM5/7/22
to
"Train keeps on rolling, bro."
"Is this a Union Pacific, SP, or BNSF train?"
Jeffrey Rubard
May 9, 2022, 4:52:25 PM5/9/22
to
"Yeah, I guess. Can you provide evidence of your claims?"
"It's actually not something you 'handle in person', it's very rude and dangerously inapropos."
"Oh, yeah, I see how that would be."
"I kind of can't, heh heh, but we don't 'get into it'."
Jeffrey Rubard
May 18, 2022, 7:52:36 PM5/18/22
to
Furthermore, the "skeptical" (not adiaphoric) audience always falls for the plausibility of something like:
"I wrote all the books I wrote". If they were still in bookstores and libraries (and I guess they are), that'd
usually be about it. It's the "extry" (lang., not sorry) elements that cause any difficulty...
Jeffrey Rubard
May 19, 2022, 6:38:32 PM5/19/22
to
1) These books are out there to read
2) "If he wrote 'em, he wrote 'em".
This scam never works differently, and was a thing to skip.
Have a great Friday.
Jeffrey Rubard
May 21, 2022, 7:04:24 PM5/21/22
to
change the truth of these statements? (Isn't that a tiresome mentality?)
Jeffrey Rubard
May 22, 2022, 1:27:26 PM5/22/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
May 24, 2022, 2:43:53 PM5/24/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
May 25, 2022, 7:02:03 PM5/25/22
to
Earlier: "The Special Olympics of injustice" -- but that's an incautious formulation.
Jeffrey Rubard
May 25, 2022, 8:59:14 PM5/25/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
May 26, 2022, 6:41:29 PM5/26/22
to
You may choose to "not look into" something, and that's often smart.
But then you really don't *know* anything about it, so whether you "don't believe" someone
on the topic is less than critically important.
Jeffrey Rubard
May 30, 2022, 5:17:56 PM5/30/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
May 31, 2022, 4:32:40 PM5/31/22
to
so you should keep up a "bafflegab network" around them for as long as possible and
then go back to the "normal story".
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 1, 2022, 2:45:09 PM6/1/22
to
in the hereafter, then?
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 3, 2022, 3:25:12 PM6/3/22
to
We talk too much then, I think.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 5, 2022, 1:48:37 PM6/5/22
to
"Nomore."
That stays the same day to day: a defective rhetorical contribution to a "conversation", and so on.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 5, 2022, 4:47:02 PM6/5/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 6, 2022, 2:49:28 PM6/6/22
to
Tomorrow is Tuesday, "whether you like it or not".
Other *facts* are like that. So in terms of
doing some type of "fandango", then violating
other people -- maybe... not?
(It was our traditional attitude. Furthermore, that
wouldn't change the factual status of statements
you "contest" or "doubt" or "question" or "wonder
at" or anything like that.)
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 7, 2022, 3:23:27 PM6/7/22
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 8, 2022, 4:00:35 PM6/8/22
to
when you're not interacting "strategically" with others?
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 9, 2022, 11:57:15 AM6/9/22
to
Only you "dissemble" endlessly about them...
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 11, 2022, 4:34:39 PM6/11/22
to
about those games of "misdirection"?
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 26, 2022, 1:07:20 PM6/26/22
to
"Against the way": Libel and slander (not quite differentiated by the mode of communication, BTW)
are at the very core of dangerous "runaround" games. Portland-area people are continually told
"astounding" things about themselves to their face; this is the nucleus of that.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jan 12, 2023, 3:25:05 PM1/12/23
to
One then talks to those who will listen about things they want to hear about.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jan 13, 2023, 3:52:38 PM1/13/23
to
That'd be a thing.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jan 17, 2023, 6:17:20 PM1/17/23
to
Like that it's Tuesday?
Jeffrey Rubard
Jan 20, 2023, 4:43:07 PM1/20/23
to
I see where you're going with this, here!
Jeffrey Rubard
Jan 23, 2023, 5:04:02 PM1/23/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Jan 25, 2023, 5:32:21 PM1/25/23
to
I... I...
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 3, 2023, 3:03:35 PM2/3/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 5, 2023, 7:47:41 PM2/5/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 9, 2023, 1:49:47 PM2/9/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Feb 11, 2023, 4:28:44 PM2/11/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 3, 2023, 4:55:57 PM3/3/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 4, 2023, 5:21:44 PM3/4/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 7, 2023, 6:44:35 PM3/7/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Mar 8, 2023, 3:39:49 PM3/8/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 7, 2023, 4:05:37 PM4/7/23
to
Everybody, thanks for being there.
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 8, 2023, 5:15:18 PM4/8/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 19, 2023, 11:48:32 AM4/19/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 20, 2023, 11:31:27 AM4/20/23
to
"Good to know."
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 23, 2023, 11:24:17 AM4/23/23
to
"Kind of hard to know what you mean here, guy."
Jeffrey Rubard
Apr 25, 2023, 5:52:42 PM4/25/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
May 2, 2023, 7:41:46 PM5/2/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
May 16, 2023, 11:32:17 AM5/16/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
May 16, 2023, 5:55:08 PM5/16/23
to
In the power of the number-theoretical "successor" function? Sure.
Jeffrey Rubard
May 17, 2023, 3:36:38 PM5/17/23
to
You don't have an at-all 'scientific' understanding of the world when you don't 'get' what that is.
Jeffrey Rubard
May 24, 2023, 12:04:56 PM5/24/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
May 24, 2023, 3:09:34 PM5/24/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
May 29, 2023, 11:32:37 AM5/29/23
to
"You're daft."
You're using the word wrong.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 5, 2023, 4:25:42 PM6/5/23
to
"Now, you're daft."
No, I'm dense.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 9, 2023, 2:40:38 PM6/9/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Jul 9, 2023, 6:22:36 PM7/9/23
to
Very much true.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jul 10, 2023, 11:29:28 AM7/10/23
to
Perhaps you could direct your own attention to those actual facts which interest you?
Jeffrey Rubard
Jul 13, 2023, 11:15:45 AM7/13/23
to
Could you?
"What?"
Well, could you, say, stop dissembling and discern how things that interest you "actually are"?
Jeffrey Rubard
Jul 19, 2023, 2:41:09 PM7/19/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Jul 19, 2023, 6:14:39 PM7/19/23
to
Jeffrey Rubard
Jul 20, 2023, 11:26:38 AM7/20/23
to
lost their purchase.)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages