Ok guys who are reading this ..
I have a friend's wedding coming and I wanna do a special stag night for him. Been to those typical KTV, health center, Pubs, transvestite shit .... now I am looking for a "Thai-girl show" equivalent in Singapore. Where can I find such?? Anyone heard of anything like that locally?
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
War of the Worlds (1953) - 72%
Now that the War of the Worlds 2005 is upon us, let's do a quick review of the original 1953 Classic.
When the original 1953 was released, it was a sci fi megaton. The special effects (then) were groundbreaking and the "forcefield" effect they did with the miniatures were very impressive. The scenes of people going chaotic and crazy trying to flee the city and how looting started occurring when the city was under attack, were done pretty realistically. I realised that you as an audience, would just watch the chaos unfold, but you never question why people would turn mean and uncivilized the moment foreign attack was upon them. And in a way, we understood, that human nature is in its very roots, selfish and cold.
And had I watched this film earlier, I would have noticed all the references made by the movie "Independence day" to this classic. One scene blatantly ripped from the original was how nuclear bomb was unleashed upon the enemy but to no effect. It goes to show that in more than 4 decades, the nuclear bomb is still the lingering threat that exists in all the major superpowers' crackheads. I guess in these recent years, terrorism is the new threat, and I'd be interested to see how the new movie would play to exhibit that.
The original story was written by HG Wells, with a political reference to the British Imperialism in the 19th century. The movie in 1953, was obviously a knock on US's then "superiority" with their Nuclear bomb. I guess in these recent years, terrorism is the new threat, and I'd be interested to see how the new movie would play to exhibit that.
What to expect from the 2005 version?
Now the original 1953 classic was groundbreaking in the special effects department. The movie also garnered an Academy Award for Best Special Effects. So I would expect this 2005 version to be visually impressive as well. What I didn't like about the original was its ending. Maybe I shouldn't give it away for those who hasn't seen it, but let's just say that it felt like they had ran out of ideas or budget to kill the aliens so they made one pretty lame excuse for it. "Independence Day's" ending was pretty damn ridiculous too. So was "Mars Attack", but at least they made it funny. I hope they would make this ending a satisfying one.
When the original 1953 was released, it was a sci fi megaton. The special effects (then) were groundbreaking and the "forcefield" effect they did with the miniatures were very impressive. The scenes of people going chaotic and crazy trying to flee the city and how looting started occurring when the city was under attack, were done pretty realistically. I realised that you as an audience, would just watch the chaos unfold, but you never question why people would turn mean and uncivilized the moment foreign attack was upon them. And in a way, we understood, that human nature is in its very roots, selfish and cold.
And had I watched this film earlier, I would have noticed all the references made by the movie "Independence day" to this classic. One scene blatantly ripped from the original was how nuclear bomb was unleashed upon the enemy but to no effect. It goes to show that in more than 4 decades, the nuclear bomb is still the lingering threat that exists in all the major superpowers' crackheads. I guess in these recent years, terrorism is the new threat, and I'd be interested to see how the new movie would play to exhibit that.
The original story was written by HG Wells, with a political reference to the British Imperialism in the 19th century. The movie in 1953, was obviously a knock on US's then "superiority" with their Nuclear bomb. I guess in these recent years, terrorism is the new threat, and I'd be interested to see how the new movie would play to exhibit that.
What to expect from the 2005 version?
Now the original 1953 classic was groundbreaking in the special effects department. The movie also garnered an Academy Award for Best Special Effects. So I would expect this 2005 version to be visually impressive as well. What I didn't like about the original was its ending. Maybe I shouldn't give it away for those who hasn't seen it, but let's just say that it felt like they had ran out of ideas or budget to kill the aliens so they made one pretty lame excuse for it. "Independence Day's" ending was pretty damn ridiculous too. So was "Mars Attack", but at least they made it funny. I hope they would make this ending a satisfying one.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Crime fears.
Straits Times. Home Section. June 25, 2005.
Debate in court over accused's access to lawyer.
A recent brutal murder case has rattled the island. In case you're not aware, a 22 yr old lady from China, is found dismembered - body severed into 2, upper and lower torso wrapped in plastic bag, head severed, feet still missing. The suspect, her supervisor at work, is arrested while investigation is still undergoing.
The case is definitely gruesome and disturbing. The suspect, in almost every certainty at this point, looks to be the most likely killer in this case. However, no matter how the case at hand is going to unfold from this point, the suspect is still unconvicted, and dare I say, innocent until proven otherwise. That's why he's named, a suspect. He's in custody, and arrested based on suspicion. He is not yet convicted.
What boggles me is why the question of him having access to his lawyer is even mentioned. Why should he not be given access to the lawyer, and most intriguingly, the block was done by the DPP (Deputy Public Prosecution) and even more surprising, upheld by the Distric Judge.
The DPP's reason for the block was that the police had to expend much time and resources to locate and verify parts of her body. DPP Koh told the courts yesterday "the scope of an order of investigation necessarily excludes any external meetings or conversations". Honestly, I do not understand what the hell that means nor does it seems like it made any justification for blocking an accused access to his lawyers.
The Judge said that the court has a duty to balance the rights of the accused and the obligations of the police. Why would the rights of the accused to have access to his counsel be in danger to or jeopardize the obligations and the investigative work of the police? Makes no sense to me, and if anyone who is a lawyer could help enlighten me, I'd truly appreciate.
District Judge also says "I am also aware of the view that the interests of the accused will not be compromised by the lack of access to the counsel at this stage". This puzzles me even more. His rights as an unconvicted accused to a lawyer is being compromised, and why wouldn't his interests be?
Debate in court over accused's access to lawyer.
A recent brutal murder case has rattled the island. In case you're not aware, a 22 yr old lady from China, is found dismembered - body severed into 2, upper and lower torso wrapped in plastic bag, head severed, feet still missing. The suspect, her supervisor at work, is arrested while investigation is still undergoing.
The case is definitely gruesome and disturbing. The suspect, in almost every certainty at this point, looks to be the most likely killer in this case. However, no matter how the case at hand is going to unfold from this point, the suspect is still unconvicted, and dare I say, innocent until proven otherwise. That's why he's named, a suspect. He's in custody, and arrested based on suspicion. He is not yet convicted.
What boggles me is why the question of him having access to his lawyer is even mentioned. Why should he not be given access to the lawyer, and most intriguingly, the block was done by the DPP (Deputy Public Prosecution) and even more surprising, upheld by the Distric Judge.
The DPP's reason for the block was that the police had to expend much time and resources to locate and verify parts of her body. DPP Koh told the courts yesterday "the scope of an order of investigation necessarily excludes any external meetings or conversations". Honestly, I do not understand what the hell that means nor does it seems like it made any justification for blocking an accused access to his lawyers.
The Judge said that the court has a duty to balance the rights of the accused and the obligations of the police. Why would the rights of the accused to have access to his counsel be in danger to or jeopardize the obligations and the investigative work of the police? Makes no sense to me, and if anyone who is a lawyer could help enlighten me, I'd truly appreciate.
District Judge also says "I am also aware of the view that the interests of the accused will not be compromised by the lack of access to the counsel at this stage". This puzzles me even more. His rights as an unconvicted accused to a lawyer is being compromised, and why wouldn't his interests be?
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
HDB owners??
Recent survey shows .... 2.84 million singaporeans live in HDB flats (CNA report 21 june 05, HDB Household Survey). That's up 5.2%. The report does not show how many percent of the Singaporean population is that, but using 4million (2000 survey) as an estimate, it would make it about 71%.
Now the report also says ""buying" beat "renting" hands down - an overwhelming 95.6 percent of households interviewed prefer to own rather than rent a flat. ".
My question now would be:
1) How many of these people actually think that they "own" their 99 year lease hold flat?
2) How many of these people actually know that they are actually "renting" these HDB flats from the government, and not "buying" them?
3) Or are these people voicing their unhappiness that these flats are "leasehold"?
If they fall into (1) and (2), that means they need to be educated about how stupid they are, thinking that they "own" these flats. Thus more than 70% of Singaporeans are not home owners. And if we look upon houses as assets, then 70% of Singaporeans do not own any assets. Gulps ..... that truly sucks ....
Why HDB is a scam?
- They are 99 leaseholds.
- "lease" n. definition: A contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified period in exchange for a specified rent. Go read your HDB contract, you are a "leasee" and HDB is the "leasor".
- Assuming they cost between $200-$300,000 for an average unit, and assuming you are using 0% loan (only assuming) you are paying rent of $210 per month for a unit costing $250,000. In fact there are the new HDBs that costs more than $400,000 to "lease", so the monthly rent is even higher. But hey ... no one lives for 99 years, and in fact, I don;t think anyone even buys a HDB until they are at least married or 35 if you're single. So if u take that into account, the effective rental for the HDB per month goes up even more considering that you live there for only 30 to 40 years!! And at the rate of 30-40 years, the rental rate of a $250,000 zooms up to at least $500!! Assuming you'd still have to pay about $200 per mth for carparking, you're paying more than $700 for rent.
- I pay $500/mth for rental of a condo unit, with free parking and gym and swimming pool facilities. Compare that with the numbers above.
- Oh yes ... you are supposed to pre-pay your 99 year rent to the HDB for "leasing" their unit. I mean, the banks have to lend you the money to pay the HDB for renting their place! If you don't call this a scam I don't know what is?
Wait a minute? ... Isn't this supposed to be government property? And if it is, it is paid for by the tax payers money? So the government basically takes our money, builds some apts and we have to pay to use it somemore?
Food for thoughts ....
Now the report also says ""buying" beat "renting" hands down - an overwhelming 95.6 percent of households interviewed prefer to own rather than rent a flat. ".
My question now would be:
1) How many of these people actually think that they "own" their 99 year lease hold flat?
2) How many of these people actually know that they are actually "renting" these HDB flats from the government, and not "buying" them?
3) Or are these people voicing their unhappiness that these flats are "leasehold"?
If they fall into (1) and (2), that means they need to be educated about how stupid they are, thinking that they "own" these flats. Thus more than 70% of Singaporeans are not home owners. And if we look upon houses as assets, then 70% of Singaporeans do not own any assets. Gulps ..... that truly sucks ....
Why HDB is a scam?
- They are 99 leaseholds.
- "lease" n. definition: A contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified period in exchange for a specified rent. Go read your HDB contract, you are a "leasee" and HDB is the "leasor".
- Assuming they cost between $200-$300,000 for an average unit, and assuming you are using 0% loan (only assuming) you are paying rent of $210 per month for a unit costing $250,000. In fact there are the new HDBs that costs more than $400,000 to "lease", so the monthly rent is even higher. But hey ... no one lives for 99 years, and in fact, I don;t think anyone even buys a HDB until they are at least married or 35 if you're single. So if u take that into account, the effective rental for the HDB per month goes up even more considering that you live there for only 30 to 40 years!! And at the rate of 30-40 years, the rental rate of a $250,000 zooms up to at least $500!! Assuming you'd still have to pay about $200 per mth for carparking, you're paying more than $700 for rent.
- I pay $500/mth for rental of a condo unit, with free parking and gym and swimming pool facilities. Compare that with the numbers above.
- Oh yes ... you are supposed to pre-pay your 99 year rent to the HDB for "leasing" their unit. I mean, the banks have to lend you the money to pay the HDB for renting their place! If you don't call this a scam I don't know what is?
Wait a minute? ... Isn't this supposed to be government property? And if it is, it is paid for by the tax payers money? So the government basically takes our money, builds some apts and we have to pay to use it somemore?
Food for thoughts ....
Monday, June 20, 2005
I LOVE it :)
This was a great weekend .... mainly cos I finished a wedding DVD for a friend and it was one of the prettiest. Man .. the look on their faces when they saw the DVDs, the packaging, the designs, the menus ....man I LOVE it ...
That's why i love doing wedding videos. Yes it is pretty good money ... but it is also pretty hard work.
I hope I can keep doing this until I die.
There's this movie called "The final Cut". About an unknown future, where people can implant a certain chip in their brains (or their child's brain) and then at their death, have it reedited by a "cutter" into a "rememory" for friends and family to watch. Or even have it on their grave for people to watch. Very interesting, and me doing wedding videos for people, makes me feel like somewhat a "cutter" of some sorts. :) nothing morbid about weddings of course.
I am helping people to "rememorize" their weddings :)
That's why i love doing wedding videos. Yes it is pretty good money ... but it is also pretty hard work.
I hope I can keep doing this until I die.
There's this movie called "The final Cut". About an unknown future, where people can implant a certain chip in their brains (or their child's brain) and then at their death, have it reedited by a "cutter" into a "rememory" for friends and family to watch. Or even have it on their grave for people to watch. Very interesting, and me doing wedding videos for people, makes me feel like somewhat a "cutter" of some sorts. :) nothing morbid about weddings of course.
I am helping people to "rememorize" their weddings :)
Friday, June 17, 2005
Power of inaction
Deep thoughts of a Singapore Critic
When people do not act, the power is given to those who do.
Quote by? Yours Truly :)
Grammar fixed :P
When people do not act, the power is given to those who do.
Quote by? Yours Truly :)
Grammar fixed :P
Thursday, June 16, 2005
I promise
I promise .... these coming weeks. .... less play .. more rest ..
I will say with great resolve ... that I shall sleep more this week ....
I promise ....
I will say with great resolve ... that I shall sleep more this week ....
I promise ....
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
MJ is aquitted
Well ... Wacko Jacko is aquitted. I am really not surprised. In fact if he was guilty, I'd be very surprised. I guess those who followed the case closely wouldn't be surprised either. I was a fan, but even I had my doubts. But as the case unfolded, the prosecution just didn't have a strong case. They had no evidence, only witnesses and their accusations. And the defense attorney did a spectacular job at gunning down every single one of the accusations raised, either through clever cross examination or introducing witnesses that destroyed the accusations of the prosecutions witnesses.
In the end, i guess, MJ did finally cleared his name, but at the same time confirmed a few details:
#1: MJ was stupid and gullible to pay those money to those blood suckers
#2: MJ is still weird
#3: MJ is really black by birth, but will probably die a white man.
#4: MJ is probably bankrupt by now
In the end, i guess, MJ did finally cleared his name, but at the same time confirmed a few details:
#1: MJ was stupid and gullible to pay those money to those blood suckers
#2: MJ is still weird
#3: MJ is really black by birth, but will probably die a white man.
#4: MJ is probably bankrupt by now
Batman ... finally begins ...
Last night ... Batman Begins premiere ...
Finally .... after all the injustice served to the fans (and creator) of the comic book Batman with the circus acts named "Batman forever", "Batman & Robin", this is a proper tribute to the Dark Knight. This is how Batman should always have been.
Batman was supposed to be a detective, with a dark brooding emotional baggage, with great acrobatic (and kungfu?) skills, and also, a great businessman.
For the Tim Burton and Joel Shumacher's outings, he became a "star", no longer mysterious, and worst of all "showy" ... Batman became sorta like a fantasy superhero version of James Bond, with big names like Val Kilmer and George Clooney all vying to be the "sexy lips with the black cape". But Batman was never supposed to be about the lips.
Batman Begins is a return to form, back to basics. Most importantly ... this movie had a solid storyline to back it up. Yes, there were holes, but not too glaring, and at least it treated the character seriously, never allowing him to become ridiculous. Bruce Wayne was a man that felt real.
The Marvel comic Heroes have been kicking the DC comics' butt, because they took their characters seriously. We're talking the success of Spiderman and X-men, making the fans and the critics rave about them. While the DC comic heroes were making a fool of themselves (Superman 3 & 4, Batman & Robin and Batman Forever), the Marvel ones were making cash. So what is Warner, with a load of DC franchises in hand gonna do? Give the respect back to the characters .... here's we've seen how they did it with Batman ... next change ... Superman Returns. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Finally .... after all the injustice served to the fans (and creator) of the comic book Batman with the circus acts named "Batman forever", "Batman & Robin", this is a proper tribute to the Dark Knight. This is how Batman should always have been.
Batman was supposed to be a detective, with a dark brooding emotional baggage, with great acrobatic (and kungfu?) skills, and also, a great businessman.
For the Tim Burton and Joel Shumacher's outings, he became a "star", no longer mysterious, and worst of all "showy" ... Batman became sorta like a fantasy superhero version of James Bond, with big names like Val Kilmer and George Clooney all vying to be the "sexy lips with the black cape". But Batman was never supposed to be about the lips.
Batman Begins is a return to form, back to basics. Most importantly ... this movie had a solid storyline to back it up. Yes, there were holes, but not too glaring, and at least it treated the character seriously, never allowing him to become ridiculous. Bruce Wayne was a man that felt real.
The Marvel comic Heroes have been kicking the DC comics' butt, because they took their characters seriously. We're talking the success of Spiderman and X-men, making the fans and the critics rave about them. While the DC comic heroes were making a fool of themselves (Superman 3 & 4, Batman & Robin and Batman Forever), the Marvel ones were making cash. So what is Warner, with a load of DC franchises in hand gonna do? Give the respect back to the characters .... here's we've seen how they did it with Batman ... next change ... Superman Returns. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Good laws .. bad laws ... episode 1
Just as there are good people and bad ones .... there are good laws and bad laws ....
This was something that was said by Gandhi and how very true. When there is a government that straddles on extremism, you get laws that tries to cover every corner possible to give them any excuse to allow them to do anything they wish. In other words, unreasonable laws.
We have quite a number here in Singapore. Here's one:
Please note the definition of "film" in the "Film Act":
"film" means —
(a) any cinematograph film;
(b) any video recording, including a video recording that is designed for use wholly or principally as a game;
(c) any other material record or thing on which is recorded or stored for immediate or future retrieval any information that, by the use of any computer or electronic device, is capable of being reproduced or displayed as wholly or partly visual moving pictures,
and includes any part of a film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film;
Licence for carrying on business of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films
6. —(1) No person —
(a) shall carry on any business, whether or not the business is carried on for profit, of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films unless he is in possession of a valid licence; or
(b) being the owner or occupier of any place shall allow the place to be used by, or let the place or otherwise make the place available to, any person who is not the holder of a valid licence for the purpose of carrying on the business of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $10,000 but not more than $40,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
Here's another:
Films made in Singapore to be deposited in approved warehouse
12. —(1) The owner of any film made in Singapore shall, within 7 days after the making of the film, deposit the film in a warehouse approved for this purpose by the Board.
(2) Any person who fails to deposit the film in accordance with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
Penalty for possession, exhibition or distribution of uncensored films
21. —(1) Any person who —
(a) has in his possession;
(b) exhibits or distributes; or
(c) reproduces,
any film without a valid certificate, approving the exhibition of the film, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction —
(i) in respect of an offence under paragraph (a), to a fine of not less than $100 for each such film that he had in his possession (but not to exceed in the aggregate $20,000); and
(ii) in respect of an offence under paragraph (b) or (c), to a fine of not less than $500 for each such film he had exhibited, distributed or reproduced, as the case may be (but not to exceed in the aggregate $40,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
[10/98]
(2) Any Censor and any Deputy or Assistant Censor and any Inspector of Films may at all reasonable times enter any place in which any film is kept or is being or is about to be exhibited and may examine the film, and if on such examination he has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under this section has been or is about to be committed in respect of the film he may seize the film and any equipment used in the commission of the offence.
(3) Any film and equipment seized under subsection (2) in respect of which any person has been convicted under this section shall be forfeited and shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the Minister may direct.
(4) For the purposes of this section if any film is altered in any way after it has been approved for exhibition under this Act, the film shall be deemed not to have been so approved.
So these are just some abstract from the "Film Act" of Singapore. Boys and girls. If you're reading this and you possess any Digital camcorder, and had made any home videos, travel videos, wedding videos or any kind of videos of any sort, you'd better send it into the censorship board to be inspected, and get ready some cash to pay for the licenses. If not, get ready to hide them real well, or may the government have mercy on your soul.
Amen. Amitaba ....
This was something that was said by Gandhi and how very true. When there is a government that straddles on extremism, you get laws that tries to cover every corner possible to give them any excuse to allow them to do anything they wish. In other words, unreasonable laws.
We have quite a number here in Singapore. Here's one:
Please note the definition of "film" in the "Film Act":
"film" means —
(a) any cinematograph film;
(b) any video recording, including a video recording that is designed for use wholly or principally as a game;
(c) any other material record or thing on which is recorded or stored for immediate or future retrieval any information that, by the use of any computer or electronic device, is capable of being reproduced or displayed as wholly or partly visual moving pictures,
and includes any part of a film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film;
Licence for carrying on business of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films
6. —(1) No person —
(a) shall carry on any business, whether or not the business is carried on for profit, of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films unless he is in possession of a valid licence; or
(b) being the owner or occupier of any place shall allow the place to be used by, or let the place or otherwise make the place available to, any person who is not the holder of a valid licence for the purpose of carrying on the business of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $10,000 but not more than $40,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
Here's another:
Films made in Singapore to be deposited in approved warehouse
12. —(1) The owner of any film made in Singapore shall, within 7 days after the making of the film, deposit the film in a warehouse approved for this purpose by the Board.
(2) Any person who fails to deposit the film in accordance with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
Penalty for possession, exhibition or distribution of uncensored films
21. —(1) Any person who —
(a) has in his possession;
(b) exhibits or distributes; or
(c) reproduces,
any film without a valid certificate, approving the exhibition of the film, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction —
(i) in respect of an offence under paragraph (a), to a fine of not less than $100 for each such film that he had in his possession (but not to exceed in the aggregate $20,000); and
(ii) in respect of an offence under paragraph (b) or (c), to a fine of not less than $500 for each such film he had exhibited, distributed or reproduced, as the case may be (but not to exceed in the aggregate $40,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
[10/98]
(2) Any Censor and any Deputy or Assistant Censor and any Inspector of Films may at all reasonable times enter any place in which any film is kept or is being or is about to be exhibited and may examine the film, and if on such examination he has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under this section has been or is about to be committed in respect of the film he may seize the film and any equipment used in the commission of the offence.
(3) Any film and equipment seized under subsection (2) in respect of which any person has been convicted under this section shall be forfeited and shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the Minister may direct.
(4) For the purposes of this section if any film is altered in any way after it has been approved for exhibition under this Act, the film shall be deemed not to have been so approved.
So these are just some abstract from the "Film Act" of Singapore. Boys and girls. If you're reading this and you possess any Digital camcorder, and had made any home videos, travel videos, wedding videos or any kind of videos of any sort, you'd better send it into the censorship board to be inspected, and get ready some cash to pay for the licenses. If not, get ready to hide them real well, or may the government have mercy on your soul.
Amen. Amitaba ....
In light of all the violence ...
It saddens me to see how the wheel spinners at the White house still tries to claim "we're making good progress in Iraq".
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
-- Mohandas K. Gandhi
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
-- Mohandas K. Gandhi
When u got nothing to write ....
When u got nothing to write .. point your readers in the direction where there's something to read ...
And read this u must dear readers .. before it gets pulled or sued .... :)
http://www.yeocheowtong.com
And read this u must dear readers .. before it gets pulled or sued .... :)
http://www.yeocheowtong.com
Monday, June 06, 2005
Death
My friend of 16 years passed last week.
Fell from his apartment on the 8th Storey.
Accident.
Grief.
Funeral.
Tears.
Memories.
16 years.
Fell from his apartment on the 8th Storey.
Accident.
Grief.
Funeral.
Tears.
Memories.
16 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)