tangentoid:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europ...ope/
4649423.stm
Astrologer sues Nasa over probe
Image credit: Maas Digital
Ms Bai failed in her attempts to prevent the experiment
A Russian astrologer is suing Nasa for crashing a probe into a comet, claiming it has distorted her horoscope.
Marina Bai is seeking $300m (£170m) in damages, saying the probe's impact on Comet Tempel 1 violated her "life and spiritual values".
She had tried to have a Moscow court prevent the experiment from taking place but her action was rejected.
northanger's Russian twin (sorry, that was a bit obvious)
the method is rigorous and uncontroversial, but your characterization of its results as monstrous isn't! with a shift of context one can imagine infinites of cardinalities above A0 as seraphim who flee with legerity from the tyranny of a deranged demiurge. going by the classical conceptualization of god one would probably say it us who the greater infinites elude, not a god unconstrained by anything. this god is often defined by its containing all qualities (leibniz, aquinas) and since this entails it possessing qualities which contradict each other, we might conclude that it is impossibility- it is the transversed void. the diagonalization is a gateway which opens onto the eightfold city of god- "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me": christ, the primordial contradiction. the kingdom of heaven is a backwater.
your macrocosm=microcosm commented reminded me of a deleuze quote about leibniz and i while i was searching for it i stumbled onto this:
Hence, immersive environments creating a fictitious or illusory ‘virtual’ space by projecting images onto the walls of a closed room have been investigated for quite a long time, though new technologies give a new impetus because of the ease of creation and of the " realism " of the constructed space... Gilles Deleuze in his study of Leibniz (Le pli, Leibniz et le baroque 1988) considered that the closed room, without any windows, is the best visualisation of the Leibnizian concept of monad (Monadology 1714), and is best exemplified in baroque art by the studiolo of Francesco I da Medici in the Palazzo Vecchio (Florence 1570-72). A monad is an entity, a soul (‘a subject as metaphysical point’ would say Deleuze) " without doors nor windows " and containing the whole world ‘folded’ within itself.
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~codogn...odognet/
VR.html
the quote i was searching for:
“Matter thus offers an infinitely porous, spongy, or cavernous texture without emptiness, caverns endlessly contained in other caverns: no matter how small, each body contains a world pierced with irregular passages, surrounded and penetrated by an increasingly vaporous fluid, the totality of the universe resembling a ‘pond of matter in which there exists different flows and waves.”
my paper on the application of the diagonalization method to the monadology of leibniz: http://www.sendspace.com/file/f5irxf
CAB - 'Monstrosity' is meant in the sense of a demonstrable anomaly, and thus still seems an apt term for diagonal creatures to me.
Your Jesus quote only confirms my suspicions: If invocations of 'God' naturally fall back upon a descriptive vocabulary based on primate family structure, it is hard to see the affinity with levels of infinity exceeding even the most sublime extremities of categorical definition.
But then, I share the dream of the FOX (666): The City of God in Flames.
The category of contradiction strikes me as a relatively weak approach to diagonalization, since it implies aporetic paralysis, rather than elusive (unshackled) creation. To diagonalize is not merely to deconstruct - it is to spawn monsters.
Just grabbing your article from Cyberspace now. Thanks.
nick. :-þ
Is that on behalf of God or Marina?
i'm a free agent, honest!
nine µ = 360
i'll continue to play the devil's advocate in making points about god as classically conceived and say that when you're refuting god's ability to categorically define the anomalies you're making the assumption that god categorically defines.
very good point about contradiction being a weak term but i think that diagonalization applies that contradiction does have a creative capacity so in that sense the term may not be entirely weak. also the idea of contradiction conveniently implies a transversal of the interstice between the opposites and without quite having enough energy to get to the idea by rational means i have this physical sensation of the diagonalization turning a nothing or interstice back on itself, hence the pun 'backwater'.
i'm approaching these concepts as a pseudo-scientist after a longer stint as a pseudo-psychotic. i use the kingdom of heaven somewhat spuriously since the 'backwater' is a kind of unbeing deterministic and machinic by virtue of its self-definition by systematic diagonal contradiction. what was a city becomes a house and then a hallway, perhaps then a spine and next a siphuncle. the eightfold city is "characterized by an armillary coherence"- eight concentric circles, an octal numogram.
AQ 114 = EXCEPT THE LORD BUILD THE HOUSE, EXCEPT THE LORD KEEP THE CITY
northanger - what is it with you and 114 misinformation?
CAB - I'm going to need more coffee before processing your latest (by which time I might have had more opportunity to study your Leibniz stuff - it's a demanding work period for me right now so I'm likely to be annoyingly slow).
Thing is with God (this is always my problems with Gnostic theology), One that doesn't define categorically doesn't do any of the stuff God is designed for - judgement, law-giving, text-messaging, cosmic structuration, etc. - and therefore shouldn't be called God, maybe not even Yog Sothoth (although that's much better), but something else ...
nick. what misinformation?
GON 27 = 114 MISINFORMATION = PETITIO PRINCIPII.
Cantor's Diagonal Argument, An Extension to the Socialist Calculation Debate:
http://www.mises.org/journals/qj...f/
qjae9_2_1.pdf
CAB,
Scanning your paper on monadology and poro-elasticity. The topic surely deserves a thorough ratiocination. Look for Urbanomic's Collapse 2 (forthcoming), there are a couple of essays addressing your interests regarding monad mechanics, impossibility and plenum vs. volumetric spaces.
While sharing Nick's 'teratopologic autonomies vs. God', I can see what you are pursuing here can lay out a rigorous heretical system. In fact there is no way to dig into theology in a healthy way.
Will try to post more comments as I read the text.
80s- i'm still puzzling over what you mean by 'healthy', but it's true that the more rigorous is one's ontology, the more arbitrary is the designation of any construction within it by the term 'god'. i have no reason to disagree with you that beings are autonomous, that the reason for a being is self-evident in its being, and by extension i agree that leibniz's reasoning for god's necessity, as fulfilling the post of original reason, is very dubious.
still, like chaitin, i'm fascinated by the implication of his theological thought when we bring it along with his precursory work on computation into a modern context. the preeminent supporters of digital physics and cellular automata as theory-of-everything tend to construct deterministic ontologies, but the monadology is very different in its solipsistic focus on subjective experience and the capacity of will to influence changes in the material world.
my opinion is that the foundations of digital physics imply that consciousness is insoluble merely within a material basis- if every particle has variables, where are the values stored and of what do they consist?
i'll restate the argument of my article: a theory of everything which necessarily excludes nothing must exclude subjective experience as well, not because experience is nothing but because it encompasses nothing through in-between states, a phrase i use less as a term with a consistent meaning than as a hint at various associations- what it is that is between discrete particles at the scale of planck's constant, what it is to be a quantum particle before the collapse of the wave function, what it is to be a consciousness in purgatory.
the solution to all this riddling may very well be 'nothing', but the point is to ground that inexhaustable nothing within being in order to collapse the grounds for completeness- to throw open the windows of the kingdom onto the original void, that serpentine shape insinuated in the roots of the heavens.
CAB - any chance of a few more clues viz "the eightfold city"?
what city?
The health enigma can be summed up as: the more rigorous a theology is built, the more vigorous and timesaving it can be militarized as a heresy.
However, if Islam - with the least coherent theology - compared to Christianity enjoys a quantitative triumph in spawning heresies it is because it is a mass of loose ends. (yet this is not the only reason)
Eighty something (sixlike) - why does Islam have "the least coherent theology" - my intuition would have been the opposite, or at least that Jews and Muslims could [fight] politely debate over the matter, while confidently marginalizing the 'coherence' of the baroque, trinitized, genealogized crash-landing that constitutes Christianity.
nick, i cannot remember the original source of 'eightfold city'; i think i found it in a robert graves book but i do not remember the source he quoted it from. 'house' or 'city' appeal to me as words for the 'monstrosity' produced by diagonalization, or perhaps for the 'place' this monstrosity it opens up onto. place is a mysterious quality. any place is a kind of haunting, as mark hints in one of the recent k-punk entries; the place we call 'this shed' is what the shed is not– not walls, roof, etc. but an elusive interior. what diagonalization produces are interiors with no exterior, like leibniz's windowless monads.
the implication of diagonalization is that there can be no complete set of everything, since there is not a bijection between that set and the set of all its subsets. what if we were to imagine a set that does not contain itself, although this is logically impossible as russell's paradox and cantor's theorem prove– a set that is that which it is not, an interior without an exterior? this is the only complete 'whole' that there can be– a contradiction, an emptiness. what we're talking about is a remainder, like the stone in the dream of the red chamber.
The Empress Nü Wo, (the goddess of works,) in fashioning blocks of stones, for the repair of the heavens, prepared, at the Ta Huang Hills and Wu Ch’i cave, 36,501 blocks of rough stone, each twelve chang in height, and twenty-four chang square. Of these stones, the Empress Wo only used 36,500; so that one single block remained over and above, without being turned to any account. This was cast down the Ch’ing Keng peak. This stone, strange to say, after having undergone a process of refinement, attained a nature of efficiency, and could, by its innate powers, set itself into motion and was able to expand and to contract.
cao xueqin perhaps is hinting here that the nature of selfhood is disinclusion?
you may have been inquiring about my characterization of this phenomenon as octal, which i can't give a reasonable explanation for. i've seen a sort of four-dimensional astrolabe, an armillary hypersphere, as a map of this mysterious interior. unfortunately i'm a poor draftsman. it's characterized by octally occurring intersections, when flattened onto a lower-dimensional plane. i can't rigorously connect the number eight to any diagonalization, although it's hinted at in cellular automata which as a function of time necessarily allows diagonalization– like the eight neighbors of one cell in conway's game of life? not that eight neighbors as opposed to two or nine is anything but arbitary... but the function by which a multitude is contained within the one = eight-in-one? any coincidence that the numogram's resident solipsistic serpent-creator MURMUR is represented by that ratio?
and when you play the cabalistic summing-the-digits game base eight is very neat no matter what you multiply it by:
01234567
02461357
04152637
01234567
01234567
03625147
02461357
06543217
04152637
05316427
01234567
01234567
04152637
02461357
01234567
01234567
05316427
04152637
06543217
02461357
03625147
01234567
01234567
06543217
01234567
of course when you multiply it by 0 or equivalencies of 7 you're going to end up with a mess but that necessarily happens with 0 and the highest digit with any base.
ku. found out similar interesting patterns adding up 15, 51 & 33.
0+15=15
15+51=66
66+33=99
99+15=114
114+51=165
165+33=198
198+15=213
213+51=264
264+33=297
297+15=312
312+51=363
363+33=396
396+15=411
411+51=462
462+33=495
495+15=510
510+51=561
561+33=594
594+15=609
609+51=660
660+33=693
693+15=708
708+51=759
759+33=792
792+15=807
807+51=858
858+33=891
891+15=906
906+51=957
957+33=990
990+15=1005
1005+51=1056
1056+33=1089
1089+15=1104
1104+51=1155
1155+33=1188
1188+15=1203
1203+51=1254
1254+33=1287
1287+15=1302
1302+51=1353
1353+33=1386
1386+15=1401
1401+51=1452
1452+33=1485
1485+15=1500
1500+51=1551
1551+33=1584
1584+15=1599
1599+51=1650
1650+33=1683
1683+15=1698
1698+51=1749
1749+33=1782
1782+15=1797
1797+51=1848
1848+33=1881
1881+15=1896
1896+51=1947
1947+33=1980
1980+15=1995
1995+51=2046
2046+33=2079
2079+15=2094
2094+51=2145
2145+33=2178
2178+15=2193
2193+51=2244
2244+33=2277
2277+15=2292
2292+51=2343
2343+33=2376
ht*p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor'
s_diagonal_argument
With reference to the above scheme I note the following:
1) Given s(n,m) is not defined in completion to any degree whatever prior to Cantor's Diabolical Diagonal Delusion, then s(0,m) is also not defined because m is not defined. If s(0) is not defined how can it be either in the list or not in the list? (Reductio ad absurdum.)
2) Once we define m, s(0) itself then becomes a ghostly "apparition" able to take on a number of finite forms, rather than a syncretic monster negated by its own inherent oxymoron. Here, monsters by definition do not exist; ghosts, however, are enumerable yet ethereal. As soon as the ghost is summoned (by defining m) its existence becomes indeterminate yet of finite possible identity; a "genie" awaiting its master's command. [We could surmise that s(0,m) is the containing set defined by m.]
3) By way of clarification, this can be more readily acceded to thus:
s(n,m)
s(0,m)=[T] =>"Theos"
s(0,3)=[???]=>"Un-(w)holy Ghost"
s(1,3)=[000]
s(2,3)=[001]
s(3,3)=[010]
s(4,3)=[011]
s(5,3)=[100]
s(6,3)=[101]
s(7,3)=[110]
s(8,3)=[111]
4) To construct s(0) we are required to define m. Once we define m, there are finite implications beyond an arbitrary diagonal - as is evident from the case m=3 above; crucially, there is no default diagonalisation and any attempt to construct the same will necessarily neglect the full range of possible values for s(0). Hopefully it is clear that [for m>1] we already know (by way of ghostly incantation) the full finite possibilities defined by m, so that any arbitrary diagonal will necessarily fall short. Contradiction overruled.
5) Using binary as our base we have 2^3=8 where m=3, n=8. We can of course [equivalently] fix m=1; requiring that n must become the base, hence:
s(n,m)
s(0,m)=[T]=>"Theos"
s(0,1)=[?]=>"(W)holy Spirit"
s(1,1)=[a]
s(2,1)=[b]
s(3,1)=[c]
s(4,1)=[d]
s(5,1)=[e]
s(6,1)=[f]
s(7,1)=[g]
s(8,1)=[h]
...etc, ad infinitum.
This has reverted the "polytheistic" nature of m>1 to a rectified/normalised, "monotheistic": m=1.
6) We now have unigrams which extend into infinitude; exposing the realisation that a second power of unigrams is impossible; since an infinity of unique symbols must reside in the first order which can never be exhausted. Using this construct there are no diagonals, as such, beyond the initial suggestion that each unigram must be unique. [And hence that while m>1, the rest of T is beyond and external to the subset s(0), but for m=1, s(0) holds T within itself.]
7) Moreover, notice [in the case m>1] that once we conjure the ghostly hordes, via s(0), the aspiring demoniac ironically becomes wholly possessed of finitude - a state of deluded infidelity. This suggests that T remains uncountable yet indicates that s(0) does not: T is an indivisible continuum, yet s(0) is a quantal matrix. The "water" of
damn, it truncated... here is the rest of it:
7) Moreover, notice [in the case m>1] that once we conjure the ghostly hordes, via s(0), the aspiring demoniac ironically becomes wholly possessed of finitude - a state of deluded infidelity. This suggests that T remains uncountable yet indicates that s(0) does not: T is an indivisible continuum, yet s(0) is a quantal matrix. The "water" of T always slips through the "net" of s(0). Attempt to utter the blasphemy of s(0) in the face of T and your soul becomes possessed by a finite multitude of heretical demons [aka "the integers"] vying to escape their abysmal incarceration within the confines of T's infinitely hellish dungeons of torpidity. Caught in the net, a terrifying subterranean Tower of Babel reaching endlessly (and with ever increasing damnation) into the Pit - the only escape by way of a single exit/entrance atop the apex, opening at groundlevel onto the vista of G*d's Earthly countenance. No wonder Cantor was driven to insanity by suggesting that we take the elevator down into the basement - the hottest part of Hell reserved for such monstrosity. Our only salvation is to turn the net into a balloon - this of course 'holds water'.
8) We now have the "map" of s(0) versus the "territory" of T.
That said, the map should never be confused with the territory; however, to do so would be to reify ghosts into monsters. Cantor, it would be argued, was seminal in this regard. Reified ghosts become monstrous delusions of grandeur before G*d, all doomed to eternal subjugation; notwithstanding the misconception of transfinite cardinality. [The set of transfinite cardinals ultimately evaporates into the integers.]
Although, multi-dimensionality may seem to provide a partial neuroleptic for Cantor's affliction, we have seen that dimensional equivalence would indicate that this approach is redundant. It seems that with the death of a monster, a ghost is liberated; demonic [m>1] or angelic [m=1]. R.I.P. Georg Cantor.
[sultan]
PS - possible analogy with the creation story of Genesis: Trees of "Life v Knowledge" => "Territory v Map" => "T versus s(0)". Satan's lure could be expressed as s(0) containing T, which by the foregoing analysis indicates that he wasn't lying.
PPS - click 'Homepage' below for link to source wiki
hmmm - interesting
[still mostly cut off by earthquake btw]
I would like to revise point 7) in my previous post:
The 'subterranean Towel of Babel' would be better described as opening out onto the seabed - the watery confines of T being the countenance of an infinite, boundless ocean. Once we open the hatch (as it were) the Tower is engulfed with water and hence each level [m>1] can be subdivided to contain new intra-integer infinities which enable a further degree of scalar 'depth' to fill with water.
This suggests that our net has scalar '(w)holes' - each (w)hole functions as a new universe of scalar proportion. If we take each level of the Tower to be built up (or down!) from cubes, then the infinite ocean at the apex alluded to above becomes the 'benben' of a pyramid (see Homepage link below):
"Benben, in Egyptian mythology, or more specifically, in the Ogdoad, is the mound that arose from the primordial waters, Nu, that had upon it Atum, sitting. It was said to have turned into a small pyramid, located in Annu, which was the place Atum was said to dwell within."
This seems to tie in with CAB's octal basis: "In Egyptian mythology, the Ogdoad are the eight deities worshipped in Hermopolis."
s(n,m)
s(0,m)
s(0,2)
s(1,2)=[1]
s(2,2)=[4]
s(3,2)=[9]
s(4,2)=[16] ...etc
This suggests n^2=p as being the simplest such 'pyramid'. Now, of course this pyramid is descriptive of the infernal business suggested by Satan. Above the apex we have a singular columnal obelisk corresponding to the normalised m=1 case mentioned previously; reaching upwards to the heavens as a single elongated benben stone. Notice that each successive layer of our pyramid can be adequately described as a specific number of sections of the obelisk; the first level has effectually a single "water-logged" benben stone to describe its infinite scalar capacity. In such a way each level can be described equivalently as finite sections of our obelisk - a certain string of integers. Again we see that dimensional equivalence renders all pyramids obsolete. The obelisk/benben further reiterates Satan's claim of T residing within s(0).
We now have a 'Holographic' system of arrayed benben stones. Each stone within each layer is soaked with infinite scalarity by way of containing the veritable benben within itself: "a chip off the old block" => benben becomes a pyramid.
Conceptually, "Atum" becomes a holographic infinity of nested pyramids isomorphic to an obelisk. The obelisk represents the meta-leap from a never-ending string of (hollow) integers to a singular continuum; a completed (holographic) infinity, T contained within s(1,1).
Furthermore, it seems all we need is this single meta-integer to index any arbitrary scalar pyramid.
[sultan]
a lot to process, sultan. indeed the diagonal monstrosity is aptly characterized as ghostly- in naming it, after all, it is not summoned into existence as a demon might be but merely shifts to a new and as-yet-unnamed-and-unknown host, leaving the summoners with a cursed husk. with diagonalization we are always talking about place, insides and outsides. the purely inaccessible s(0) is an exterior without an interior, just as leibniz's conception of god, as a preeminent reason for being that can be found only outside of being, is an interior without an exterior, as might be indicated by the below:
"We can’t find in any individual thing, or even in the entire collection and series of things, a sufficient reason why they exist. Suppose that a book on the elements of geometry has always existed, each copy made from an earlier one, with no first copy. We can explain any given copy of the book in terms of the previous book from which it was copied; but this won’t ever lead us to a complete explanation, no matter how far back we go in the series of books. ...The different states of the world are like that series of books: each state is in a way copied from the preceding state - though here the ‘copying’ isn’t an exact transcription, but happens in accordance with certain laws of change. And so, with the world as with the books, however far back we might go into earlier and earlier states we’ll never find in them a complete explanation for why there is any world at all, and why the world is as it is."
in the terms of set theory, we might understand this to be a preemptive, vague resolution of the monist's heartbreak entailed by diagonalization: that the powerset, the set of all subsets, of a set will always be of a greater cardinality than that set itself, disallowing a complete set to ever be found. why, what a simple solution it would be if we could allow all the sets of a system to be contained by another set that is not a member of that system, and so cannot be contained by any set within it!
(in the above quote leibniz makes the assumption that to go back in time, linearly, is possible. i found the intuitive revelation of reversible cellular automata- that in some automaton systems there will always be enough information present to return to any previous state of the world, and that for each state there will always be only one possible previous state leading to it- to be that such worlds are minority cases. humans tend to easily think of the future as an infinite array of possibilities, whereas the past can seem immutable. yet in the majority of universes, the current moment has as many possible histories as it has futures!)
we might leap to conclusions and equate sultan's T with the platonian world of forms, since it is after all so reminiscent of the unreachable, atemporal realm of pure ideals
...that plato is enamored of. i am convinced that the theory of forms can be modeled as a diagonalization, the prompt being rosamund purcell's question "is the leg of a chair still a chair"? if one allows fragments, intermediary states, multiples, abstractions, etc., to have counterparts in the world of ideal forms, it quickly seems less like an algorithmic compression of the temporal world than an arbitrarily large continuum that resists compression. to be sure, for the endless multitudes of wooden chairs in the realm of objects there can be only one 'ideal wooden chair', but there is also the 'ideal chair' and the 'ideal wooden object', as well as the 'ideal chair leg' and 'ideal chair seat' which might describe objects described equally well by 'ideal part', not to mention such composites which with other objects the wooden chair makes up, such as 'ideal sitting room', ad infinitum...
and atum, ah yes. the god who creates his own limbs from the celestial waters and spawns the rest of divinity by ejaculating into his own mouth. is there any better encapsulation of reciprocality to be found outside of that image?
GON 54 = FULL RANGE OF POSSIBLE VALUES FOR S(0).
GON 45 = M IS NOT DEFINED = ARAB NATION.
GON 49 = DON'T REPEAT THAT MISTAKE = S(0,M) IS ALSO NOT DEFINED = TO CONSTRUCT S(0) WE ARE REQUIRED TO DEFINE M.
GON 26 = DEEP = FOUR CENTRAL PROVINCES.
GON 52 = DEEP DEEP = RING AN AREA.
GON 78 = DEEP DEEP DEEP = CONFIDENCE REGION.
GON 104 = DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP = HOW DOES THAT PLAY IN THE ARAB MEDIA?.
GON 15 = DEEP ETYMOLOGY = IRAQI ARMY.
GON 48 = HERE IN DEEP ETYMOLOGY EAST MEETS WEST = CIRCULAR ERROR PROBABILITY = SCARLET THREAD = SHACHARAYIM.
GON 3 = ASHUR (Iraq's National God) = RILLY, RILLY DEEP ETYMOLOGY.
GON 39 = S(0) IS NOT DEFINED = SOLAR CALF.
GON 45 = BULL OF HEAVEN
http://mailgate.supereva.com/hum...t/
msg04461.html
GON 65 = DEEP ETYMOLOGY OF LATIN PECUNIA.
GON 42 = DEFINE M = WINNING POKER HAND.
GON 36 = M DEFINITION = MALIKI GOVERNMENT.
m :: the basic unit of length adopted under the System International d'Unites (approximately 1.094 yards) [syn: meter, metre]
google :: MARDUK + NECRONOMICON
GON 95 = 50 NAMES OF MARDUK NECRONOMICON SPELLBOOK (GON-130 appears on page top).
GON 130 = DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP = IPB WARNING [2] IMPLODE() [FUNCTION.IMPLODE]: BAD ARGUMENTS.
Brother Eabatu makes a very pertinent point here. These spirits will aid you so long as you treat them with respect and try not to treat them like pimps. These are extremely ancient and extremely powerful spirits. If you dissrespect them, they will bitch slap your ass back to the Medieval
GON 49 = IPB'S WARNING SYSTEM - HOW TO USE THIS FEATURE EFFECTIVELY.
GON 156 = DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP.
GON 182 = DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP = RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL BY SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER ARAB STATES (Spengler).
Soldier 3,000: His name is Dustin Donica
Iraq (real blueprint for peace in Iraq), by Ali Allawi, former Iraqi Defence Minister - via oxon :: Perceptive analysis contrasts with White House rhetoric
support grows for Iraq peace plan.
GON 208 = DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP = ANAL NATHRACH, ORTH' BHAIS'S BETHAD, OD CHEL DENMHA (Merlin's Charm of Making).
northanger is a bot
botnets :: Attack of the Zombie Computers Is Growing Threat
mortgage loan lead texas mortgage loan lead texas mortgage loan lead texas. auto bad credit loan persontoperson auto bad credit loan persontoperson auto bad credit loan persontoperson.
Commenting by HaloScan
