SUBMITTED: Holy Spit co-author Ehenhet Dralgad

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:39 pm

[title] Holy Spit

[desc] The elderly lady who spat on you during last night's press conference spent the night under police surveillance and interrogation. The police believe that she believes her story of protecting you from the evil eye, and have thus dragged her into your office to determine how to respond to this going forward.

[validity] co-authors Australian rePublic and Ehenhet Dralgad

[option] "@@LEADER@@, you're a very good looking @@MAN@@," insists @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, the perpetrator, spitting on your furniture. "I didn't want anyone to curse you with the evil eye. It's real, you know! My hairdresser's sister's husband's best friend's wife was cursed by the evil eye before she caught a cold! I was just trying to protect you!"
[effect] supporters of @@LEADER@@ are more likely to spit on @@HIM@@ than opponents

[option] "This is a disgusting superstition," claims @@RANDOMNAME@@, your germaphobic health minister, unwilling to approach the woman without @@HIS@@ biohazard suit on. "How can anyone justify spitting on anyone? Even if it is to ward off the evil eye. Surely, there's a better way.. ahy..." @@HE@@ flees at the sight of a discarded sock
[effect] talking with your mouth full is a criminal offense

[option] "Just get one of these evil eye jewels, @@LEADER@@," suggests a jewels dealer, drawing attention to an armlet @@HE@@ is wearing by adjusting it. "That'll fend it off without the saliva! In fact, let's hand these out to people in visible positions across the government. If we spread awareness of these, everyone can be clean, bright, and free of curses! Everyone who can afford one, at least."
[effect] ancient jewelry is thought to prevent evil

[option] "This is the work of the work of the evil one!" informs @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a clergyman of @@FAITH@@, brandishing a handful of holy amulets. "Take these for your ministers, but know the best method of preventing a curse is merely prayer. You need only remind your population of that! The works of the evil one can be defeated in prayer!"
[option validity] must allow religion
[effect] secularists are in despair as superstitions fall to prayer

[option] "This might be the first good thing to come out of this nation's superstitiousness," says the nation's most infamously unwashed epidemiologist, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If plagues spread through spit, fast food would be a death sentence. This will have people exercising each other's immune systems. The government should endorse this practice." @@HE@@ grins and adds, "Besides, the videos of celebrities spitting on each other and smiling about it will be priceless."
[effect] the nation's youth have mysteriously lost their desire for fame

by **Umpus** » Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:11 pm

Might wanna change the "You are a very good looking man" part.

by **Australian rePublic** » Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:18 am

Umpus wrote:Might wanna change the "You are a very good looking man" part.

Cheers. Changed

by **Australian rePublic** » Fri May 03, 2019 4:46 am

by **Ehenhet Dralgad** » Sat May 04, 2019 5:33 am

Do the police believe that she protected @@LEADER@@ from the evil eye, or do they believe that she believes it?

The validity might be more restrictive. Spitting on someone for their own good has a primitive feel to it.

There's a grammatical error in the first option where the wrong exit to a quotation is used and the first word after it is inappropriately capitalized. '@@MAN@@" Insists' should instead be '@@MAN@@," insists'. I don't know for sure given the inherent peculiarity of the phrase, but I also think the sequence 'hairdresser's, sister's, husband's, best friend's, wife' should be sans commas. It's the kinda thing people say quickly if they say atoll.

I think throwing feces is too much escalation. My suggestion for effect would be:
[effect] supporters of @@LEADER@@ are more likely to spit on @@HIM@@ than opponents

'superstition" claims' in the second option should be should be 'superstition," claims'. Where you've written ware, you should have ward. I'd also suggest a small change. Instead of "wearing a biohazard suit", perhaps try, "unwilling to approach the woman without @@HIS@@ biohazard suit on". It suggests he's also not suited enough to approach the discarded sock.

In the next one, jewls should be jewels, and jewellry should be jewelry. Ware should be ward again, or actually I'd suggest fend for this one. (I believe they're fully synonymous.) I'd also suggest effect:
[effect] jewelry is thought to prevent evil
or even [effect] new jewelry is thought to prevent evil
which makes it more consumeristic.

For the next one, I've got a potentially clever idea for effect:
[effect] secularists are in despair as superstitions fall to prayer

Finally... Well, I'm going to box these up for you, and I'm going to take a stab at replacing the last one with something properly unexpected.

[title] Holy Spit

[desc] The elderly lady who spat on you during last night's press conference spent the night under police surveillance and interrogation. The police believe that she believes her story of protecting you from the evil eye, and have thus dragged her into your office to determine how to respond to this going forward.

[validity] positive primitivism

[option] "@@LEADER@@, you're a very good looking @@MAN@@," insists @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, the perpetrator, spitting on your furniture. "I didn't want anyone to curse you with the evil eye. It's real, you know! My hairdresser's sister's husband's best friend's wife was cursed by the evil before she caught a cold! I was just trying to protect you!"
[effect] supporters of @@LEADER@@ are more likely to spit on @@HIM@@ than opponents

[option] "This is a disgusting superstition," claims @@RANDOMNAME@@, your germaphobic health minister, unwilling to approach the woman without @@HIS@@ biohazard suit on. "How can anyone justify spitting on anyone? Even if it is to ward off the evil eye. Surely, there's a better way.. ahy..." @@HE@@ flees at the sight of a discarded sock
[effect] talking with your mouth full is a criminal offense

[option] "Just get one of these evil eye jewels, @@LEADER@@," suggests your exuberant minister of quarries and mining, drawing attention to an armlet @@HE@@ is wearing by adjusting it. "That'll fend it off without the saliva! In fact, let's hand these out to people in visible positions across the government. If we spread awareness of these, everyone can be clean, bright, and free of curses! Everyone who can afford one, at least."
[effect] new jewelry is thought to prevent evil

[option] "This is the work of the work of the evil one!" informs @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a clergyman of @@FAITH@@, brandishing a handful of holy amulets. "Take these for your ministers, but know the best method of preventing a curse is merely prayer. You need only remind your population of that! The lies of the evil one can be defeated in prayer!"
[option validity] must allow religion
[effect] secularists are in despair as superstitions fall to prayer

[option] "This might be the first good thing to come out of this nation's primitivism," says the nation's most infamously unwashed epidemiologist, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If plagues spread through spit, fast food would be a death sentence. This will have people exercising each other's immune systems. The government should endorse this practice." @@HE@@ grins and adds, "Besides, the videos of celebrities spitting on each other and smiling about it will be priceless."
[option validity] scientific advancement is not extremely low
[effect] the nation's youth have mysteriously lost their desire for fame

Edit: In the box, I accidentally typed "new jewelry is thought to protect evil". When I went in to fix that, I looked at the "minister of superstitions" idea. It occurred to me that I could boost the consumerist angle on that further by changing which minister is in play and giving him more character. Then I gave the clergyman amulets and messed with his lines, but I might have been getting carried away doing that.
Editx2: In the option I wrote, the word video should have been plural. Fixed. I added a new validity option. Also, a thought occurred to me that I'd like to share. I expect favoring the health minister would be at least slightly friendly to science. If a society has extremely low scientific advancement, wouldn't the additional investment in mining and metalworking from something like option 3 also tend to advance its science? I wonder if that kind of thinking ever benefited a historic nation.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:11 pm

Ehenhet Dralgad wrote:Do the police believe that she protected @@LEADER@@ from the evil eye, or do they believe that she believes it?

The validity might be more restrictive. Spitting on someone for their own good has a primitive feel to it.

There's a grammatical error in the first option where the wrong exit to a quotation is used and the first word after it is inappropriately capitalized. '@@MAN@@" Insists' should instead be '@@MAN@@," insists'. I don't know for sure given the inherent peculiarity of the phrase, but I also think the sequence 'hairdresser's, sister's, husband's, best friend's, wife' should be sans commas. It's the kinda thing people say quickly if they say atoll.

I think throwing feces is too much escalation. My suggestion for effect would be:
[effect] supporters of @@LEADER@@ are more likely to spit on @@HIM@@ than opponents

'superstition" claims' in the second option should be should be 'superstition," claims'. Where you've written ware, you should have ward. I'd also suggest a small change. Instead of "wearing a biohazard suit", perhaps try, "unwilling to approach the woman without @@HIS@@ biohazard suit on". It suggests he's also not suited enough to approach the discarded sock.

In the next one, jewls should be jewels, and jewellry should be jewelry. Ware should be ward again, or actually I'd suggest fend for this one. (I believe they're fully synonymous.) I'd also suggest effect:
[effect] jewelry is thought to prevent evil
or even [effect] new jewelry is thought to prevent evil
which makes it more consumeristic.

For the next one, I've got a potentially clever idea for effect:
[effect] secularists are in despair as superstitions fall to prayer

Finally... Well, I'm going to box these up for you, and I'm going to take a stab at replacing the last one with something properly unexpected.

[title] Holy Spit

[desc] The elderly lady who spat on you during last night's press conference spent the night under police surveillance and interrogation. The police believe that she believes her story of protecting you from the evil eye, and have thus dragged her into your office to determine how to respond to this going forward.

[validity] positive primitivism

[option] "@@LEADER@@, you're a very good looking @@MAN@@," insists @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, the perpetrator, spitting on your furniture. "I didn't want anyone to curse you with the evil eye. It's real, you know! My hairdresser's sister's husband's best friend's wife was cursed by the evil before she caught a cold! I was just trying to protect you!"
[effect] supporters of @@LEADER@@ are more likely to spit on @@HIM@@ than opponents

[option] "This is a disgusting superstition," claims @@RANDOMNAME@@, your germaphobic health minister, unwilling to approach the woman without @@HIS@@ biohazard suit on. "How can anyone justify spitting on anyone? Even if it is to ward off the evil eye. Surely, there's a better way.. ahy..." @@HE@@ flees at the sight of a discarded sock
[effect] talking with your mouth full is a criminal offense

[option] "Just get one of these evil eye jewels, @@LEADER@@," suggests your exuberant minister of quarries and mining, drawing attention to an armlet @@HE@@ is wearing by adjusting it. "That'll fend it off without the saliva! In fact, let's hand these out to people in visible positions across the government. If we spread awareness of these, everyone can be clean, bright, and free of curses! Everyone who can afford one, at least."
[effect] new jewelry is thought to prevent evil

[option] "This is the work of the work of the evil one!" informs @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a clergyman of @@FAITH@@, brandishing a handful of holy amulets. "Take these for your ministers, but know the best method of preventing a curse is merely prayer. You need only remind your population of that! The lies of the evil one can be defeated in prayer!"
[option validity] must allow religion
[effect] secularists are in despair as superstitions fall to prayer

[option] "This might be the first good thing to come out of this nation's primitivism," says the nation's most infamously unwashed epidemiologist, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If plagues spread through spit, fast food would be a death sentence. This will have people exercising each other's immune systems. The government should endorse this practice." @@HE@@ grins and adds, "Besides, the videos of celebrities spitting on each other and smiling about it will be priceless."
[option validity] scientific advancement is not extremely low
[effect] the nation's youth have mysteriously lost their desire for fame

Edit: In the box, I accidentally typed "new jewelry is thought to protect evil". When I went in to fix that, I looked at the "minister of superstitions" idea. It occurred to me that I could boost the consumerist angle on that further by changing which minister is in play and giving him more character. Then I gave the clergyman amulets and messed with his lines, but I might have been getting carried away doing that.
Editx2: In the option I wrote, the word video should have been plural. Fixed. I added a new validity option. Also, a thought occurred to me that I'd like to share. I expect favoring the health minister would be at least slightly friendly to science. If a society has extremely low scientific advancement, wouldn't the additional investment in mining and metalworking from something like option 3 also tend to advance its science? I wonder if that kind of thinking ever benefited a historic nation.

I like your version a lot, and I will credit you as a co-author. However, there are a few rhings that I wish to change with your version:
1. I wouldn't exactly call this a primative thing. It's more of a cultural thing, more specifically, Eastern European/Middle Eastern thing. I come from Greek ansestry, and know quite a few Greeks and Arabs. Many Greeks and Arabs believe in the evil eye. And we're talking about highly educated people here. Like, very, very educated people. I myself have been spat on by educated Greeks (us Greeks value education a lot). And this is in Australia. Greeks in Greece are even more superstitous. Plus, don't forget that many cultures who believe i such things are located in the European Union, and the EU is one of the least primative places out there
2. You seem to think that religion and superstition are the same thing. As a Greek person, I have extensive experience with both superstition and religion, as Greeks are both, religious and superstitious. Therefore, trust me when I tell you that religion and superstition are very, very different things
3. Most of the Orthodox Christian world convers a geographic area which believes in the evil eye. Therefore, naturally, the church has rulings about the evil eye. This is what we Orthodox (or atleast those of us who aren't ignorant of our faith) believe in te evil eye. Or atleast this is what I think we believe. It's very hard to find info. We believe that the devil or one of his demons will curse anything that we like. However, Satan can't read our minds, so if we spit on someone, the we decieve him into thinking that we don't like that person, causing Satan to leave that person alone. There are, however, better ways of detering Satan than spitting on things, but many people are ignorant of their faith (many don't even know the meaning the spitting, they just spit). Some people who are more into the superstitious aspect of the evil eye will even adopt pagan traditions (condemned by the Orthodox Church) and wear blue eye amulets to wear off the evil eye. I know that Islam also has some beliefe in the evil eye, but know what they believe. None the less, if you see a series of blue eyes across Eastern Europe or the Middle East, now you know what they mean. Welcome, my new co-author

This what they look like:

by **Ehenhet Dralgad** » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:14 am

Interesting. I admit I'm not basically familiar with the Evil Eye concept. In my country, the concept of the Evil Eye seems to have been in decline for the past two hundred and thirty years or so. The idea that the Evil Eye is a curse of inverted affinity makes it uncommonly comprehensible.

The spitting to deceive Satan thing actually seems clever. That works in real life when people rape privacy; this kind of thing is an example of why I have in other contexts called privacy rape a primitive conduct, since it pressurizes society towards incomprehensible and unproductive opacity. I've had some fun in my own life scrambling my apparent preferences when I caught people being too broken by the inquisitor's fears to mind their own business. Tormenting people who won't admit that they're doing anything wrong in ways that can only possibly torment them if they're doing a wrong thing is fun, and moreso because if it's an undue suspicion on my part, it becomes conduct harmful only to me. If there's anyone I'm certainly allowed to torment it's myself! Given some of what I've heard about Grecian police (really not flattering, to be honest), I wouldn't be surprised if some people are having that kind of fun at the expense of the cops, thereby preserving a superstition even among the educated in Greece.

Conduct harmful only to oneself is not really a thing that can be said for actually spitting on someone. That superstition goes far enough to be quite persuasive, but perhaps also it goes a bit too far. That makes this a more interesting issue than I expected. Choosing option 1 would make it a lot harder to discern whether people supported or opposed @@LEADER@@. Political punishments would become harder to inflict as allegiances grew more shadowed. This could protect political freedoms even as it de-intensified political partisanship in a society, promoting peace (also because spitting on people would become less of a casus belli), yet it's also rude and a health hazard. If the practice becomes TOO common, or is unnecessary given the political state of the nation, it could fail at preventing fights, and instead begin to cause fights (as rude, unsanitary conducts sometimes do).

If I'd had enough social context to have been thinking about all of this before, I would've written quite differently, although I'm not sure I would've written better.

This feedback sweeps the primitivism factor off. Beyond that, the option I'd most immediately change from that feedback is this:

[option] "This might be the first good thing to come out of this nation's superstitiousness," says the nation's most infamously unwashed epidemiologist, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If plagues spread through spit, fast food would be a death sentence. This will have people exercising each other's immune systems. The government should endorse this practice." @@HE@@ grins and adds, "Besides, the videos of celebrities spitting on each other and smiling about it will be priceless."
[effect] the nation's youth have mysteriously lost their desire for fame

Gets rid of the scientific advancement gate, changes primitiveness to superstitiousness.

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:03 am

Ehenhet Dralgad wrote:Interesting. I admit I'm not basically familiar with the Evil Eye concept. In my country, the concept of the Evil Eye seems to have been in decline for the past two hundred and thirty years or so. The idea that the Evil Eye is a curse of inverted affinity makes it uncommonly comprehensible.

The spitting to deceive Satan thing actually seems clever. That works in real life when people rape privacy; this kind of thing is an example of why I have in other contexts called privacy rape a primitive conduct, since it pressurizes society towards incomprehensible and unproductive opacity. I've had some fun in my own life scrambling my apparent preferences when I caught people being too broken by the inquisitor's fears to mind their own business. Tormenting people who won't admit that they're doing anything wrong in ways that can only possibly torment them if they're doing a wrong thing is fun, and moreso because if it's an undue suspicion on my part, it becomes conduct harmful only to me. If there's anyone I'm certainly allowed to torment it's myself! Given some of what I've heard about Grecian police (really not flattering, to be honest), I wouldn't be surprised if some people are having that kind of fun at the expense of the cops, thereby preserving a superstition even among the educated in Greece.

Conduct harmful only to oneself is not really a thing that can be said for actually spitting on someone. That superstition goes far enough to be quite persuasive, but perhaps also it goes a bit too far. That makes this a more interesting issue than I expected. Choosing option 1 would make it a lot harder to discern whether people supported or opposed @@LEADER@@. Political punishments would become harder to inflict as allegiances grew more shadowed. This could protect political freedoms even as it de-intensified political partisanship in a society, promoting peace (also because spitting on people would become less of a casus belli), yet it's also rude and a health hazard. If the practice becomes TOO common, or is unnecessary given the political state of the nation, it could fail at preventing fights, and instead begin to cause fights (as rude, unsanitary conducts sometimes do).

If I'd had enough social context to have been thinking about all of this before, I would've written quite differently, although I'm not sure I would've written better.

This feedback sweeps the primitivism factor off. Beyond that, the option I'd most immediately change from that feedback is this:
[option] "This might be the first good thing to come out of this nation's superstitiousness," says the nation's most infamously unwashed epidemiologist, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If plagues spread through spit, fast food would be a death sentence. This will have people exercising each other's immune systems. The government should endorse this practice." @@HE@@ grins and adds, "Besides, the videos of celebrities spitting on each other and smiling about it will be priceless."
[effect] the nation's youth have mysteriously lost their desire for fame

Gets rid of the scientific advancement gate, changes primitiveness to superstitiousness.

That's interesting. May I ask which country you're from?
In either case, I've never heard of anyone spitting on cops to wish them luck. (Though to be fair, I've only been to Greece once, for a month and a half, before I was a teenager, so therefore I have no idea how they interact with cops). But this also applies to Greeks of diaspora as much as it applies to Grrrks in Greece. I've been spat on by Greeks, and I live in Australia. And don't forget, as said earlier, many Greeks are ignorant of the meaning of this tradition. One of my friends in Australia asked me whether or not non-Greeks can be cursed with the evil eye. The answer they can be. God and Satan see no difference between Gentile cultures (or at the very least, they so no difference between Gentile Orthodox Christians) when it comes to these things, and Greeks are from the only peoples who believe in the evil eye, but that's the level of ignorance we're dealing with. And it's not very likely that a Greek person in Australia would ever deal with a Greek cop.

As for the option that involves the minister for mining. That implies that the amulets are made of a precious metal. I don't actually know what they're made of. They could very well be made of a precious metal, but for all I know, they could be made of glass, or even cheap plastic, I don't know. (Though, I doubt they're made of plastic for many reasons, not least of which is because they predate plastic by centuries, but you never you). Can we please change "minister of quaries and mining" to "a jewls dealer". Not even a jewl merchant, because it could be a socialist country.

by **Trotterdam** » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:32 pm

I assume amulets are made of whatever con artists can scam gullible people into thinking will work.

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:41 pm

Trotterdam wrote:I assume amulets are made of whatever con artists can scam gullible people into thinking will work.

Maybe some of them, but many jewl dealers would believe in the evil eye themselves

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:43 pm

And there we go, it's made of glass.... They're believed to distract the devil. As for the effect line about buying jewls, these jewls date back to the 1600's BC. The predate bloodletting by several centuries. It's quite likely that they also pre-date the Old Testament. There's nothing new about them.

by **Australian rePublic** » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:49 pm

And the next draft is up

by **Ehenhet Dralgad** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:40 am

I was thinking the amulets would be expensive, with the idea that they would encourage among the people the idea that the rich and politically connected are all immune to the devil's curses.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:53 am

Ehenhet Dralgad wrote:I was thinking the amulets would be expensive, with the idea that they would encourage among the people the idea that the rich and politically connected are all immune to the devil's curses.

Pfffttt. They're like $5. Don't forget, this is based on a real superstition. This is a millenia old tradition which pre-dates bloodletting. We don't wanna re-invent the wheel

by **Ehenhet Dralgad** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:17 am

Australian rePublic wrote:
Ehenhet Dralgad wrote:I was thinking the amulets would be expensive, with the idea that they would encourage among the people the idea that the rich and politically connected are all immune to the devil's curses.

Pfffttt. They're like $5. Don't forget, this is based on a real superstition. This is a millenia old tradition which pre-dates bloodletting. We don't wanna re-invent the wheel

Why not? Don't forget that millenia old traditions often date back to when random pieces of crud represented meaningful amounts of wealth. Glass beads were expensive when they were a new invention. If the leaders want to have protection "without the saliva", I'd expect them to use the cheapest material that would be out of the price range of the hoi polloi. So the traditional material of the amulets would be lodged into the culture as whatever was sitting just out of the average person's price range at the time when the tradition was kicked in. Over time, it would drift into the accessibility of poorer and poorer people, until eventually it might come to define the poorest rather than the richest; this is a common procession.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:55 am

Ehenhet Dralgad wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Pfffttt. They're like $5. Don't forget, this is based on a real superstition. This is a millenia old tradition which pre-dates bloodletting. We don't wanna re-invent the wheel

Why not? Don't forget that millenia old traditions often date back to when random pieces of crud represented meaningful amounts of wealth. Glass beads were expensive when they were a new invention. If the leaders want to have protection "without the saliva", I'd expect them to use the cheapest material that would be out of the price range of the hoi polloi. So the traditional material of the amulets would be lodged into the culture as whatever was sitting just out of the average person's price range at the time when the tradition was kicked in. Over time, it would drift into the accessibility of poorer and poorer people, until eventually it might come to define the poorest rather than the richest; this is a common procession.

Yea, but that's the thing. Millenia old is millenia old. If it was out of the price of the plebs 3700 years ago, it don't mean it is now. I'd really prefer to remain true to the tradition as much as possible

by **Bears Armed** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:27 am

Australian rePublic wrote:
Ehenhet Dralgad wrote:I was thinking the amulets would be expensive, with the idea that they would encourage among the people the idea that the rich and politically connected are all immune to the devil's curses.

Pfffttt. They're like $5. Don't forget, this is based on a real superstition. This is a millenia old tradition which pre-dates bloodletting. We don't wanna re-invent the wheel

But if we re-invent it then, this time around, we can patent it and rake in the cash...

by **Trotterdam** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:33 am

If protection against curses is cheap enough that everyone can afford it, there must not be a lot of people getting cursed anymore...

by **Australian rePublic** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:43 am

--EDITED-OUT--

by **Australian rePublic** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:43 am

Trotterdam wrote:If protection against curses is cheap enough that everyone can afford it, there must not be a lot of people getting cursed anymore...

Superstitions don't tend to get reinvented in this day and age

Trotterdam wrote:If protection against curses is cheap enough that everyone can afford it, there must not be a lot of people getting cursed anymore...

But not everyone believes it, which is the crux of this issue. Also, not everyone who believes in the eye believes in the amulets. I intend for this issue to be more about if the evil eye exists, and the best existing of waring it off. Not about reinventing the wheel

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:42 pm

Last call

by **Australian rePublic** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:47 am

submitted

SUBMITTED: Holy Spit co-author Ehenhet Dralgad

SUBMITTED: Holy Spit co-author Ehenhet Dralgad

Who is online