551:
of the order. By your nature you are subversive to the true ideals of free thought, education of the masses, and intolerant of other faiths or other opinons. Instead of debating you would rather paste and copy, and if there is not an annotated referance you are dismissive, and brand others as extremeists instead of researching it yourself. Instead you simply say "I do not agree with it, so I am getting rid of it". That is neither the characteristic of a scholar, or a gentleman. Instead it shows a keen ability not to be able to think outside the box. A lawyer would have a field day with you.
353:"Boy I am glad I live in the States, Rome has no power here. Do I believe in the Divity of Christ? you betcha! But I do not believe that one must pay homage to a human being in order to have a personal relationship with the savior. I do not believe that one must be "Educated" in order to recieve the eucharist. Jesus offered his followers bread and fish without cleansing them (the followers), and without reservation. He offered salvation to a prostitute, and murderer, and a thief on the cross without going through some arcane and grandiose ritual."
626:
himself should have thought it up, (2) if there is at least two heavy weight scholar then there are significant representatives" of a specific POV, thus it is not fringe or extreme POV; significant representative is a specific NPOV rule, (3) it is even good for the information of people who could have heard of those attacks that they get to know how to answer them. This is perhaps one of the most important reasons. Of course, this entails research and work but it is worth it, as we have shown in the
147:
friends with many of the people who were there so his information is generally pretty accurate (although it is also true that he doesn't like the military orders very much). Who is the
Damascene chronicler, by the way? al-Qalanisi? If so, he wasn't actually in Ascalon at the time, and he only mentions it very briefly. Maybe it was ibn Munqidh, who actually was in Ascalon, but I can't remember if he mentions it specifically.
761:
630:
article. Anyway, the majority POV will always have greater space to explain itself. In a sense it is an opportunity for scholarly "apologetics". (4) it is good that
Catholics not give the impression that we are "suppressing" a theory which have reasons (1) and (2), if they do really have these bases,
550:
DonaNobisPacem will never be a knight, he can play all he wants by putting on a cape but there will only and always be only one Order and it will not add to your "recognition" because everyone already knows it. He will never see the inside of a Lodge room, he will never partake in the true traditions
380:
I do not wish to carry out a debate on the merits of
Catholic belief on the Templar page. I welcome your input; I am again simply asking that you identify particular points (ie, quote them) from the article you have issue with and argue your POV on the talk page, quoting your sources. If none of my
279:
Hi there, DNP- I appreciate your focus on the facts on the
Knights Templar page. I still think that the references to the assorted Neo-Templar groups should be deleted, or put on another article, but I can't fight that battle right now. Once the holidays are over I won't have much time to come here
1043:
DNP... As you may know, JASpencer and I are having a minor argument over how to present quotations that support statements made in the various
Freemasonry related articles. JAS preffers to include them in the citations, as footnotes, while I feel they should be included in the main text. Would you
1012:
Don't worry, I've been under the same standards - we are not allowed to use encyclopedias as sources, either. What they were warning against was using
Knowledge (XXG) as a source for sources - as often the sources listed are not at all good, or are biased/fringe views (take a look at the history of
783:
Yeah, it's frustrating, and suggests that the message somehow didn't get across. I may have been a little high-handed, but deleting comments explaining to you how rude it's considered to delete people's comments here is... somehow less than promising. There are several admins keeping an eye out by
607:
Hi DNP, just saw your comments. Thanks for informing me about this. Was out of town for several days. I just took a peak at the long discussion and wow! Looks like a wonderful battlefront. I will need sometime to digest it though since I have to catch up with work I left behind. I will be very very
310:
Hi BlueTemplar13 - while I look forward to your input and discussion on the
Templar page, I would suggest refraining from personal attacks on religious denominations. To ask if a Roman Catholic can be unbiased towards the Templars is perhaps justified, but many of the comments made fly directly in
246:
I took out one set of brackets for the sake of space, if that's ok - yeah, I was just reading the babel page and figured out I could have done that after my 100th edit - but I wasn't sure if I could insert my own creation using the standard babel box. Speaking of which, any idea how to shrink down
729:
If you go to "e-mail this user" from your user page, you'll see that it's disabled. If you've decided that you don't want people to be able to e-mail you through
Knowledge (XXG) any more, fine. If not, then you should go to your watchlist, see the notice at the top, and follow instructions. You'll
1001:
I noticed some of your commentary regarding professors saying not to use wikipedia because it changes so much etc. While i was in university, the use of an encyclopedia as a source for information was forbidden. One could use an encyclopedia article to get an overview, and then use ITS sources,
508:
The statement combines several quotes: "prime target" appears in his interview with
Messori on Opus Dei. "stigmatize" comes from his article which he translated into English as Labelling...(see one of the footnotes) "return to religion" is from his article on Opus Dei and the Anti-cult movement.
882:
I need a break. I've had somes stresses in real life recently, and, now is not the best time to enter the fray of an editorial dispute on a very contentious issue. I'm not going to leave
Knowledge (XXG), just the Abortion page, at least until things cool down a little. I even filed a request for
860:
I've been having a hard time trying to remove the last paragraph from the "Religious views concerning condoms" section or whatever the exact title may be. I believe it is inappropriate, because it does not really concerned with condoms, but instead talking about the controversy concering "Sexual
625:
Based on my analysis and my own experience at the Opus Dei article, my recommendation is to allow the minority POV in. My reasons are the following: (1) I believe it is not original research, the guy Giovanni quotes scholars for this theory, for something to fall under original research Giovanni
157:
Oh, okay, al-Athir too, that's interesting...I don't think I've read anything by Barber about the Templars. I know the name, but the military orders are somewhat beyond my interests :) I'll have to look it up though - there are some specific episodes I am interested in, like the Templars vs. the
812:
Good to have you back, but you may want to take it easy as it is rather frustrating at the moment. Sadly the Masonic editors are really going to have to deal with their little problem on their own, and they don't yet (with one exception) seem to realise how ridiculous he makes them appear (see
797:
You are doing good work. Good proposal for the main definition. Some people want to focus on the pregnancy being aborted and forget that its actually the development of the conceptus that is aborted - by killing it in an induced abortion. I have decided to pretty much keep to the talk pages. I
146:
Hi, yeah, I figured that might be what you were trying to say...but that's not true either. In 1153 he was in France, yes, but he hadn't started writing his chronicle yet. He didn't start that until the 1160s when King Amalric commissioned it. It's true that he wasn't at the battle, but he was
381:
edits have been arguable to you, then there is no need to discuss bias - and if there is, it is done by discussing the point in question, not by vague accusations of bias that are unsubstantiated against a user. I hope our debate on the Templars can continue in a more civil tone. Thanks.
1028:
You're pretty spot-on. I mean, I find errors in tone, usage, and fact in pages I check that I know anything about, I see extremely dubious information being passed as fact on pages I know less about, and so I don't find it hard to believe that there are plenty more errors I'm not seeing.
290:
Because you list yourself as Catholic I thought I would inform you of a particularly offensive image on the Penis page, or the subject in question. It shouldn't belong here, and the diagram is enough for me. If you feel the same please remove it, or help fight the case on the talk page.
883:
protection . I'm going to be optimistic and assume that the RfC will work out and that, ultimately, it will be better in the long run to let things run their course than try to force things through now. I'll probably hang around History of Abortion instead. Thanks for the support. -
1052:
article. I would be interested in your oppinion (as well as those of all the editors of these articles) as to which style you prefer. Feel free to pass this on to any one you feel would give an honest oppinion. (sent to all regular editors of the Freemasonry related pages)
651:
The IP 64.12.116.198 has reverted my contributions to the "Safe Sex" article, most of which were an attempt to make it more neutral and get it away from the whole "Use a condom" stance. If you could look it over, and revert it if necessary it would be most appreciated.
114:
I'm curious for a Mason's POV - I know Mackey asserted that Freemasonry WAS a religion in his History - is this claim taken seriously? I know his book seems highly regarded by many Masons/in Masonic literature, but other Masons seem to detract from his work.
690:
Since it is all about neutrality and affiliation to Opus Dei, it might be best if somebody who has not been so connected with the article on Opus Dei answers the persons involved. Thank for whatever contribution you can give, no matter how late you see this.
126:
I do regard Mackey's work highly (never having read the whole thing, admittedly), but in this case, he is very much mistaken. I had my own firmly developed belief in God before joining Freemasonry, and nothing I have heard in Lodge has changed it. See the
720:
Hi, DonaNobis. Sorry to see your goodbye message, but good to know that you'll still be checking in from time to time. We'll miss you. Thanks, anyway, for all you've contributed, and maybe you'll make an occasional edit at weekends or during holidays.
592:
was very gracious. Not something you always see on Knowledge (XXG). Hope you didn't take my comment to be too bossy. Sometimes, straw polls and Rfc can be brutal on WP, with rude comments piled high! Hated for you to suffer through that for nothing.
1017:
pages, for instance). In the case of mathematics profs, I'm not talking about research - they were warning against the use of Knowledge (XXG) as a source for formulas/extra info (basically, they told us to go find a text on the subject instead).
730:
then get an e-mail from Knowledge (XXG), giving you a link to open. Once you click on that link, your e-mail will be enabled. The instructions at the top of your watchlist page will be removed in the next week, I think, so if you come back
1002:
but, in general, they weren't sources themselves. Similarly, wikipedia shouldn't be considered a source for a college/university level research project, but a source of sources, which is why the standards for verifiability exist.--
472:
article keeping a link mislabeled as a shock site up, but have run out. I also started a discussion which no one takes in account...I hope you'll look it over and re-add the link if you feel it's the right thing to do.
724:
By the way, just in case you're not aware of this, some security changes were brought in recently, making it impossible for you to receive e-mails from other users through the e-mail this user link on your user page
905:
DonaNobisPacem, thank you for telling me about the outrageous edits. By the time I got there someone had removed it. I looked through the article history and found them. Amorrows sock puppet is annoying, for sure.
845:
Thanks for the info on Freemasonry. I've just fixed it. Was not able to do much about the Knights, for I hardly know anything about it. But will pray that it gets resolved. And I will check it once in a while.
374:
Again, a comment meant to insult a person Catholics hold a great deal of respect for. Both of these comments, as well as the general tone of the posts (particularly the first) can easily be considered to be
1111:
1139:
Hi! do you know thecatholicguide.com? it's a sort of catholic english wikipedia. Please feel free to look at www.kathpedia.com (german) and www.enciclopediacattolica.it (italian) too.
784:
now, so he'll either realize that when in Rome... or he'll piss off the wrong Roman before too long. I do think we should be vigilant about restoring any comments he removes from
947:
and thought you would be interested (seeing your merge proposal on the anti-abortion movement ariticle). It isn't an active article, and it may be a good candidate for prod-ing.--
336:"I am sorry, I do not need a red candle to tell me Jesus is with me" - a slur against the Catholic belief in the "True Presence" (ie, physical presence) of Christ in the Eucharist
831:
Pro-lick keeps removing my comments from his talk page. My comments are not personal attacks and violate no policy. One is a warning about misbehavior, and the other is advice.
256:
I've never worked with LaTeX, so no idea there. Is there an external app which can take your LaTeX and output to PNG? (re: if that's ok - hey, it's your talk page! :-) ) --
683:
I saw your userpage warning and so I ended the title of this section with a question mark. It's up to you if you have time to look into this issue at the
637:
Well, this is my frank assessment. I hope it ended up as good news. Of course, the whole assessment depends on the solidity of the premises (1) and (2).
1107:
270:
Yeah, I know I shouldn't have said anything either, but I was in a sufficiently bad mood on Knowledge (XXG) last night that I couldn't restrain myself.
85:
1116:
to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
69:
622:
Hi DNP, my opinion might initially be a disappointment for you, but I hope after you read and think about it, it will be good news in fact.
45:
to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
89:
817:) for the tone that he uses with them. I have a feeling that they may be rather junior in the setup while their little problem isn't.
634:
Although yes I would prefer that a scholarly reply to this minority POV be prepared before giving it full permission for insertion.
876:
468:
Hey I'm not sure where you are - I've been absent a bit, but I wanted to let you know that I've expended 3 of my reverts on the
54:
42:
88:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
367:"You mean to tell me the throne of PETER, the infallable seat of Rome "bowed to pressure" at the whims of a worldly king?"
360:
This is simply an opinion on Catholic belief, and not a very informed one at that, intended to belittle Catholic teaching.
21:
1045:
74:
1049:
451:
767:
747:
329:
guidelines, under examples it lists (as a more serious infraction) religious slurs. In your commentary, you wrote:
512:
It does not come from the Encyclopedia itself. The articles and interview do not have covers and so no image...
49:
81:
861:
Education". I would hope you'd be willing to view it, and remove it if you too feel it to be inappropriate.
206:. Anti-conservative Catholic and anti-Catholic POV keeps being introduced (by a Catholic, no less). Thanks
1088:
article, with the hopes of making it a featured article. Any help you could give would be great. Thanks!
1067:
199:
764:
744:
306:
My comments, being deleted from BlueTemplar's page, have been moved here for the sake of record keeping.
64:
1123:
1030:
667:
638:
609:
520:
495:
400:
already on WP. Can you think of anything else to say about it that isn't copyvioing their website?--
1089:
1085:
1019:
559:
382:
316:
248:
231:
207:
184:
116:
1103:
315:
guidelines. I hope we can discuss and better the article without letting personal bias interfere!
1144:
930:
914:
533:
It doesn't look like the penis pic is going to be removed, but I do thank you for trying anyway.
401:
257:
221:
203:
174:
132:
798:
realize I will get nowhere editing the actual article. I would appreciate your comments here
428:
Dear DonaNobisPacem, I don't know whether you want to get involved but I am having trouble on
99:
I saw your edits and contributions and I liked them. Keep up the good work, Dona Nobis Pacem!
96:
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
922:
I know that the SP are him. He makes and someone blocks them on an ongoing basis it seems. --
1071:
988:
962:
944:
892:
832:
802:
415:
271:
159:
148:
1117:
1014:
752:
574:
961:
See abortion talk page. I hope you will adopt with the exception of the word "nonviable".
818:
789:
455:
1140:
1054:
968:
Trying for a cabal? As far as I'm concerned, the four of you get one vote together.
948:
923:
907:
862:
785:
653:
594:
534:
474:
397:
319:
292:
59:
984:
128:
969:
570:
437:
1003:
888:
1148:
1129:
1092:
1074:
1057:
1033:
1022:
1006:
991:
972:
951:
932:
916:
895:
865:
850:
847:
835:
821:
792:
772:
707:
704:
695:
692:
670:
656:
641:
612:
597:
577:
562:
537:
523:
498:
477:
469:
458:
440:
418:
404:
385:
295:
274:
260:
251:
234:
224:
210:
187:
177:
162:
151:
135:
119:
103:
100:
734:
that, and want to receive messages, you'll probably be able to do it through
173:
Just curious, are you a Knight, or are you just interested in the subject?--
588:
The rant above is really strange?! Stopped by to say that your comment on
627:
429:
326:
312:
487:
Hi Donanobispacem. Can you be so kind as to give some feedback on this:
875:
515:
Can we transfer our comments to the talk page so it can be on record?
247:
the LaTeX formula? I suppose I could find an image to use instead....
519:
Thanks a lot for the immediate feedback! BTW, ok to your suggestion!
760:
589:
284:
799:
684:
516:
488:
432:, as others constantly are removing valid information, e.g. in
20:
666:
Thanks for the feedback, DonaNobisPacem. Great to hear that!
874:
703:
No need to act, DonaNobisPacem. The matter has been solved.
685:
Opus Dei talk page on Introvigne's affiliation to Opus Dei
680:
Hi DonaNobisPacem, it's been sometime since I wrote you.
554:
Well I have had enough, I am done, goodday, and goodbye.
396:
As a long time choir member, I was surprised not to find
814:
433:
131:
for a much more eloquent explanation than I can give.--
26:
827:
pro-lick abusing his talk page - removing fair comment
1102:
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,
483:Feedback on a photo and quote I placed at Opus Dei
243:{Babel-7|en|de-1|fr-1|rc|piano-4|trumpet-2|ubx-5}
220:Yeah, you finally got the instruments added! :-)--
1044:be so kind as to check out my sample section at
28:Please click here to add a new comment section.
1108:Knowledge (XXG):Images and media for deletion
727:unless you actively enable your e-mail again.
8:
1048:and compare it to the same section at the
788:. I'm less worried about his talk page. -
558:Not quite sure where this came from......
80:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
436:. Could you please have a look. Cheers,
569:LOL You have to love how the mind of a
346:It also refers to rudeness. You wrote:
90:Knowledge (XXG):Where to ask a question
1084:I've asked for a peer review for the
7:
1039:quotations, footnotes and references
301:Discussion from BlueTemplar13's page
1046:Catholicism and Freemasonry/example
446:Knights of Columbus and Freemasonry
92:, ask me on my talk page, or place
50:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
183:I'm a 3rd degree Knight myself....
14:
987:on this abortion wikipedia poll.
1098:File:Add.PNG listed for deletion
1013:some of the sources used on the
759:
19:
1149:12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
311:the face of Knowledge (XXG)'s
1:
1130:05:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
708:02:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
696:05:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
386:07:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
320:16:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
280:any more. TAB 66.156.107.108
275:16:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
261:16:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
252:16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
235:15:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
225:15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
211:17:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
188:06:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
178:22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
104:08:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
671:14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
657:00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
642:09:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
613:00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
598:22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
578:22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
563:20:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
538:02:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
524:07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
499:05:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
478:01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
459:23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
441:22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
419:17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
163:17:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
152:08:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
136:22:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
120:20:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
70:How to write a great article
1050:Catholicism and Freemasonry
939:Another article to consider
405:18:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
296:05:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
41:Hello, DonaNobisPacem, and
1164:
1075:12:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
1058:18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
1034:01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
1023:18:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
1007:16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
992:08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
896:09:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
866:00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
851:08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
836:15:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
822:22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
793:06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
773:20:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
758:Glad you're still around!
494:Thanks a lot and regards.
489:Introvigne photo and quote
454:. Please take a look. --
973:07:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
952:02:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
933:05:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
917:01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
753:17:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
715:
603:Hi just saw your comments
1093:13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
815:this little edit summary
740:at the top of the page.
985:weigh in with your view
1135:Knowledge (XXG) limits
1068:Partial-birth abortion
879:
200:Catholic League (U.S.)
1106:, has been listed at
957:abortion opening poll
878:
158:Hashshashin. Thanks!
300:
230:Thanks for that :-/
198:Please help me with
1086:Knights of Columbus
1080:Knights of Columbus
662:Great to hear that!
571:conspiracy theorist
129:BC Grand Lodge site
109:Mackey and religion
880:
450:I have a proposal
325:In regards to the
204:William A. Donohue
55:How to edit a page
1110:. Please see the
871:Re: Abortion page
808:The Masonry Pages
34:
33:
1155:
1126:
1120:
945:Anti-abortionist
928:
912:
886:
856:Request for help
763:
584:Gracious comment
95:
23:
16:
15:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1137:
1124:
1118:
1100:
1082:
1072:____G_o_o_d____
1065:
1041:
1031:Casey J. Morris
1015:Knights Templar
999:
997:Disillusionment
989:____G_o_o_d____
981:
963:____G_o_o_d____
959:
941:
924:
908:
903:
884:
873:
858:
843:
829:
810:
781:
718:
678:
668:Thomas S. Major
664:
649:
639:Thomas S. Major
620:
610:Thomas S. Major
605:
586:
548:
531:
521:Thomas S. Major
506:
504:Source of quote
496:Thomas S. Major
485:
466:
448:
426:
412:
394:
303:
288:
268:
218:
196:
171:
144:
142:William of Tyre
111:
93:
75:Manual of Style
12:
11:
5:
1161:
1159:
1136:
1133:
1099:
1096:
1081:
1078:
1064:
1061:
1040:
1037:
1026:
1025:
1020:DonaNobisPacem
998:
995:
980:
977:
976:
975:
958:
955:
940:
937:
936:
935:
902:
899:
872:
869:
857:
854:
842:
839:
828:
825:
809:
806:
780:
777:
776:
775:
737:my preferences
717:
716:We'll miss you
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
677:
674:
663:
660:
648:
645:
619:
618:My own opinion
616:
608:glad to help.
604:
601:
585:
582:
581:
580:
566:
565:
560:DonaNobisPacem
547:
544:
542:
530:
527:
505:
502:
484:
481:
465:
462:
447:
444:
425:
422:
411:
408:
393:
390:
389:
388:
383:DonaNobisPacem
377:
376:
371:
370:
369:
368:
362:
361:
357:
356:
355:
354:
348:
347:
342:
340:
339:
338:
337:
331:
330:
317:DonaNobisPacem
308:
307:
302:
299:
287:
282:
267:
264:
249:DonaNobisPacem
238:
237:
232:DonaNobisPacem
217:
214:
195:
192:
191:
190:
185:DonaNobisPacem
170:
167:
166:
165:
143:
140:
139:
138:
117:DonaNobisPacem
110:
107:
86:sign your name
78:
77:
72:
67:
62:
57:
52:
32:
31:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1160:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1134:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1121:
1115:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1097:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1079:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1038:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1024:
1021:
1016:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1005:
996:
994:
993:
990:
986:
979:Abortion poll
978:
974:
971:
967:
966:
965:
964:
956:
954:
953:
950:
946:
943:I found this
938:
934:
931:
929:
927:
921:
920:
919:
918:
915:
913:
911:
900:
898:
897:
894:
890:
877:
870:
868:
867:
864:
855:
853:
852:
849:
840:
838:
837:
834:
826:
824:
823:
820:
816:
807:
805:
804:
800:
795:
794:
791:
787:
786:Talk:Abortion
778:
774:
771:
770:
766:
762:
757:
756:
755:
754:
751:
750:
746:
743:Best wishes.
741:
739:
738:
733:
728:
722:
709:
706:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
694:
688:
686:
681:
676:Can you help?
675:
673:
672:
669:
661:
659:
658:
655:
646:
644:
643:
640:
635:
632:
629:
623:
617:
615:
614:
611:
602:
600:
599:
596:
591:
583:
579:
576:
572:
568:
567:
564:
561:
557:
556:
555:
552:
545:
543:
540:
539:
536:
528:
526:
525:
522:
518:
517:Talk Opus Dei
513:
510:
503:
501:
500:
497:
492:
490:
482:
480:
479:
476:
471:
463:
461:
460:
457:
453:
445:
443:
442:
439:
435:
431:
423:
421:
420:
417:
409:
407:
406:
403:
402:SarekOfVulcan
399:
398:Weston Priory
392:Weston Priory
391:
387:
384:
379:
378:
373:
372:
366:
365:
364:
363:
359:
358:
352:
351:
350:
349:
345:
344:
343:
335:
334:
333:
332:
328:
324:
323:
322:
321:
318:
314:
305:
304:
298:
297:
294:
286:
283:
281:
277:
276:
273:
265:
263:
262:
259:
258:SarekOfVulcan
254:
253:
250:
244:
241:
236:
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
223:
222:SarekOfVulcan
215:
213:
212:
209:
205:
201:
193:
189:
186:
182:
181:
180:
179:
176:
175:SarekOfVulcan
168:
164:
161:
156:
155:
154:
153:
150:
141:
137:
134:
133:SarekOfVulcan
130:
125:
124:
123:
122:
121:
118:
108:
106:
105:
102:
97:
91:
87:
83:
76:
73:
71:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
56:
53:
51:
48:
47:
46:
44:
39:
38:
30:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1138:
1112:
1104:File:Add.PNG
1101:
1083:
1066:
1063:Please visit
1042:
1027:
1000:
982:
960:
942:
925:
909:
904:
881:
859:
844:
830:
811:
796:
782:
768:
748:
742:
736:
735:
731:
726:
723:
719:
689:
682:
679:
665:
650:
636:
633:
631:of course.
624:
621:
606:
587:
553:
549:
541:
532:
514:
511:
507:
493:
486:
467:
449:
427:
413:
395:
341:
309:
289:
278:
269:
255:
245:
242:
239:
219:
197:
172:
145:
113:
112:
98:
79:
40:
36:
35:
27:
803:Goodandevil
779:Re: Venting
416:Adam Bishop
272:Adam Bishop
240:How about:
160:Adam Bishop
149:Adam Bishop
1119:Skier Dude
1113:discussion
647:"Safe Sex"
575:Loremaster
470:Fetal Pain
216:*applause*
208:JG of Borg
94:{{helpme}}
82:Wikipedian
60:Help pages
819:JASpencer
790:GTBacchus
573:works! --
456:JASpencer
434:this edit
84:! Please
1141:DonPaolo
1090:Briancua
1055:Blueboar
949:Andrew c
926:FloNight
910:FloNight
863:Chooserr
654:Chooserr
628:Opus Dei
595:FloNight
535:Chooserr
475:Chooserr
430:Abortion
424:Abortion
414:Thanks!
410:Barnstar
327:civility
313:civility
293:Chooserr
266:Templars
115:Opinion?
65:Tutorial
37:Welcome!
983:Please
970:Alienus
901:Licking
841:Thanks.
546:Templar
438:Str1977
43:welcome
1004:Vidkun
887:(Kyd)
885:Severa
169:K of C
848:Lafem
732:after
705:Lafem
693:Lafem
590:Penis
529:Penis
464:Hello
375:rude.
285:Penis
101:Lafem
1145:talk
1125:talk
833:Good
765:AnnH
745:AnnH
452:here
202:and
194:Help
893:!!!
1147:)
1128:)
1070:.
891:|
889:??
801:.
687:.
593:--
491:.
1143:(
1122:(
1029:—
769:♫
749:♫
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
