“[F]ollowed 724 men since they were teenagers in 1938. (Approximately 60 men, now in their 90s, are still left.) The group consisted of men from various economic and social backgrounds, from Boston’s poorest neighborhoods to Harvard undergrads. (President John F. Kennedy was even part of the original group.) Over the years, the researchers have collected all kinds of health information, and every two years they ask members questions about their lives and their mental and emotional wellness. They even interview family members.”
“Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes. That finding proved true across the board among both the Harvard men and the inner-city participants.”
“When we gathered together everything we knew about them about at age 50, it wasn’t their middle-age cholesterol levels that predicted how they were going to grow old,” said Waldinger in a popular TED Talk. “It was how satisfied they were in their relationships. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80.”
> Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline
I call bs, selection bias. If something bad happens, the "close relationship" ends faster than you can say "divorce".
If you manage to maintain close relationship way into retirement, yiu are very lucky. Of course you will be in great shape.
I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that they were healthier in absolute terms, can also be that as the group aged they developed health issue at the same rate but having someone around more often helped by having them recognizing and testing for ailments timely
> better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes.
They went to Harvard (The non Harvard were added over 30 years later), I would expect 130 IQ compared to 140 IQ wouldn't matter as much as close relationships.
Compare 90 IQ to 110 IQ and I'd be surprised.
I'd also think it's absolutely harder to have close relationships with lower IQ's.
But it's totally correct, relationships matter, people who go to church live longer.
Atheists might be right, but until they work out ways for ongoing communal meetings that last throughout life they are also wrong.
I think this is why lots of people are unhappy nowadays. Think about life in a small community. It’s easy to be the guy who is special because he’s the best at baking, or juggling, or playing an instrument, or telling stories. Whatever it is. Wanting to be especially good at something and recognised for it seems like a pretty basic human need to me. How is anyone going to feel special now when everyone’s seen a hundred YouTube videos of people doing your special thing infinitely better than you ever will? No wonder people get addicted to ‘fake specialness’ at work. Relationships can also make people feel special. But the nagging feeling that you’re not REALLY special may remain...
It's almost like the problem is wanting to be special? Stoicism and tangential philosophies are more critically important than ever, in my opinion. I've also found a great deal of benefit from not participating in social media.
EDIT: There's a related and quite important concept in the contemporary well-being discourse often referred to as 'the dispassionate pursuit of passion [or success]'. I think many of the people who show up on HN would benefit from understanding it. Choosing to not desire being special is not the same thing as being inert. There is a balancing point. Here's a resource (albeit maybe a bit too self-helpy) that talks about this: https://www.happinessacademy.eu/blog-en/the-6th-happiness-si....
> Wanting to be especially good at something and recognised for it seems like a pretty basic human need to me
You would be surprised. I for one I know I don't want to be "especially good at anything", I've started calling this recently "the George Costanza-way of looking at life", when I was younger I was calling it after a very great novel I had read as a teenager, Musil's "The Man Without Qualities" [1]
My guess is that wider and more open communities only make it easier for everyone to become "special" at their own little thing, with their own little (but still quite large given the scale we're looking at!) following of admirers. But most people are failing to recognize this, because they expect the kind of dynamic that would apply in a tiny community - where you can be "the best" at something as broadly defined as 'telling stories', and be respected for that.
It is always a bit paradoxical to discuss articles like this over a message board where we compete for votes and the top comment haha.
I often think that happiness is a shallow goal, and you leave a lot on the table if you are unwilling to suffer. Success and achievements are answers to that old question 'why?', they justify our existence.
Contrary to that, to paraphrase Gene Wolfe from Book of the Long Sun: "When something is good it needs no justification."
another relevant quote (just because!) from East of Eden:
"On one side you have warmth and companionship and sweet understanding, and on the other - cold, lonely greatness. There you make your choice. I'm glad I chose mediocrity, but how am I to say what reward might have come with the other? None of my children will be great either, except perhaps Tom. He's suffering over the choosing right now. It's a painful thing to watch."
happiness is a shallow goal, and you leave a lot on the table if you are unwilling to suffer
I don’t think these experiences are mutually exclusive. Look at the face of a marathon runner for those last few miles. Agony? Yes. Determination? Definitely. Unhappiness? I’m not so sure about that.
Plenty of runners will tell you they’re in their happy place when they’re out on the road, putting one foot in front of the other, for miles and miles and miles.
Similar things could be said about the people who love spicy food, I suppose.
I disagree, I don’t see happiness as a shallow goal. But for me happiness does not mean that I won’t suffer. Kids make me happy, but they also bring great suffering.
In so many aspects of life, I see people chasing after an analog for the thing that they actually want, either because they become confused along the way, or could never decide/admit/discover what it is they really wanted.
If I'm famous people will love or accept me (if you're famous, you will never again know for sure who really loves or accepts you). If I have money I will finally feel safe. If I am the most intimidating person in the room, I'll never feel intimidated again, and nobody will ever know how helpless and small that makes me feel. If I have tons of kids, someone will still remember me fondly when I'm old.
This is the best comment in the thread. We often compensate in ways to patch over the thing that is difficult or harming us. It's so much easier to just go for gold than it is to criticize and deconstruct your own motivations.
Based on this article I would certainly be a member of the group called a success addict. I can only speak for myself here but in my opinion "happiness" is not only the wrong goal, it's an active distraction from determining and pursing the right goal. I have MY version of what the right goal is, but have no illusions on it's generality.
Therein the conflict lies: The average person in my estimation defaults to "happiness" as the generalizable optimization vector.
To wit - the article demonstrates this with the language of addiction and a reinforcement of the ONE TRUE GOAL: "relationships and love." Deviation from happiness (epicurean or hedonistic) as the ultimate goal is exactly that - deviant!
The topic of spending "too much time at work" is something I think about a lot. (Wrote 2 previous comments about this.[0])
In the 2nd thread, one reply ask, "Have you tried finding fulfillment in having a family?" -- I didn't reply to that but I want to do so here.
It depends on the personality as a parent but it can be very dangerous to rely on your family to be the source of happiness and hoping that it overrides an unsatisfactory job. I'm heavily influenced by growing up with my unhappy mother because she had artistic ambitions that were disrupted by having children (me). She had to work at a "boring" 9-to-5 job to put food on the table and a roof over our heads. Because of her awful (but good paying) job, all of our misbehavior and problems were magnified and she lost a lot of patience with us. For our specific circumstances, we might have been all better off if she (over)worked 60+ hours at something she liked (for possibly even less pay) so we as children weren't such a glaring irritation to her. Lots of frustrations with us with exasperations such as, "Do you know how hard I have to work to put food on the table?!"
Based on that, I think one of the greatest gifts you can give to your future spouse, and future children ... is to find work that's palatable. Don't bring your misery home. Don't ask your family to be the _source_ of happiness. That's too much pressure on them. Instead, see them as _enhancing_ your existing happiness.
I'm not giving universal advice here. I'm emphasizing that you really need to examine yourself and understand who you really are before thinking your family and relationships will be your salvation. It wasn't for my mother and it's not for me.
Maybe we're psychologically defective. I don't know. For me, I already tried the author's advice with a 40-hour job and "work/life balance". That doesn't make me happy. What works for me is to pursue an unbalanced life.
Yes, there's "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", and "nobody lies on their deathbed wishing they spent more time at the office", and "hustle porn", etc. I'm aware of all the derogatory memes that try to invalidate how I feel but I can't help it.
"Don't ask your family to be the _source_ of happiness."
I think investing in a family means seeing their happiness and successes and flourishing as one of the sources of your happiness.
And working a job to make money to give them an environment where they can grow and thrive and flourish can be part of that happiness, even if the job itself is kind of "meh".
(And if that's not something that motivates you, then, yeah, probably best not to start a family.)
Not everyone lives to seek happiness. There's no reason to view seeking "success" or any other mode of living as illness just because it's not going to achieve happiness.
I don't think most want to be simply happy anyway. A lot of people want to have kids. Is this because they want to be happy? Is buying a house about seeking happiness? Is the author writing this article to be happy? Is reading Hacker News going to make you happy?
It's usually a mixture of motivations. There's far easier ways to be happy than most choose, but happiness is not the only reason to live.
Agreed. Some people are motivated by wanting to have a significant positive impact on the world, and they're fine if that makes me a little less happy overall. I think that's great - especially when it's someone who has a lot of privilege/power. We should be encouraging that over pursuit of happiness/pleasure.
I disagree, I think every decision we make is ultimately pleasure seeking (or equivalently, suffering-minimizing). That doesn’t mean we are right about what actions we should perform to optimize our wellbeing, just that how we act necessarily reflects our beliefs in what will make us happy.
Buying a house for example:
We think it will provide us safety and comfort, a place to raise children, etc.
Creating children is desired in itself through evolutionary impulses, and we see that manifested by desire, seeking purpose, leaving a legacy, etc.
Curious if corona quarantines have changed folks' perspectives on this. I consider myself pretty high on the "success addict spectrum", but after sitting at home in my sweatpants (or underwear) for the past 4 months, I just feel like some of those "success desires" have lost their luster.
So much of desiring success is really about desiring recognition from others, and for some reason I just feel like I care less after being socially distant for this long.
I actually feel like covid lockdown has had the opposite effect on me. Many of the things I enjoyed doing have been made impossible or much more difficult, so it feels like all I am left with is striving for work accomplishments.
Put another way: many people choose to pursue a meaningful life over a happy life.
The English word "happy" covers a wide range of states and I'm not sure the original article has even settled on one definition. They reference terms like 'life satisfaction', 'orginary delights', 'relationships and love', 'hedonic treadmill', etc.
The article seems to be coming from a good place, but I think the deeper message got lost in the noise: "Work for a sense of personal meaning, not outward achievement" (paraphrased).
Happiness and success don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Incredibly interesting article, I don't think it's just America that suffers from "success culture", from Europe to Asia to Africa you can find swathes of people who want to "be the best".
And it's worrying, because at some point you will do the best work you can. You will hit that goal. If you don't have any other things you want to achieve out of doing a good job at work, I could see it easy to fall down the slippery slope of depression.
I seek success and money explicitly so I don't have to give two f*cks about what people think about me. So I can do exactly what I want, specifically things many other people can't do because they've encumbered themselves with "meaningful" relationships and kids.
"Being special" is a bad take in my book. Everyone has a unique idea of what success is. Success can skirt the lines of being widely known, rich or surrounded by a family they built.
Just live your life, it's an optimization problem without any real end - so get on with it and stop worrying you're going to make the "wrong" call.
I think competitive personalities and globalization just don’t mix. When humans lived in much smaller groups it was possible to carve out a niche if you wanted to. Aside from the monarch you probably didn’t know of many other people outside your community who were really good at X/Y/Z. Now there are 8b of us and it’s not hard to find out how many of those people are really good at something. Survival in wealthier countries is also so easy that all the competition is really for prestige/glory/status (having a moderately bigger house, nicer vacation, sending your kids to a better school) anyway.
The other thing is that our financial system is so well-defined it can gamify “success” as just increasing a simple, well-understood metric: money
This reminds me of something Alex Honnold said in the fantastic documentary Free Solo:
“She [his girlfriend] sees things in a different way. For Sanni, the point of life is happiness. To be with people that make you feel fulfilled and have a good time.
For me it’s all about performance. The thing is anybody can be happy and cozy. Nothing good happens in the world by being happy and cozy. Nobody achieves anything great because they’re happy and cozy.”
I found his perspective so fascinating and revealing about people who are among the best in the world at something.
“There are only three requirements for success. First, decide exactly what it is you want in life. Second, determine the price that you are going to have to pay to get the things you want. And third, and this is most important, resolve to pay that price."
There's a great parable relating to this: The Other Side of the Hedge[0] by E. M. Forster. It's not too long, and I can confidently say it's worth your while if this article struck a chord with you.
Wallace Carothers, the DuPont chemist that created nylon and contributed to the creation of neoprene, felt that he did not achieve much and committed suicide.
To most people, those are outstanding life achievements.
I agree that happiness on a diet of achievements sets you up for failure. I also think that a lot of people know this intuitively but don't acknowledge it consciously or to others.
However, the author should have elaborated on "meaningful relationships". Dominant networking sites have imposed the unproved notion that "who you know" is more important than "who you are" and "what you know". Constant social comparisons encouraged by social media are also contributing to depression. As the author of a University of Houston 2015 study [0] stated: "This research and previous research indicates the act of socially comparing oneself to others is related to long-term destructive emotions".
I recall once having a conversation with the gifted kids about how being in the "99.5th percentile" meant that there were 8 million people in the world smarter than you. That number is just bigger now, and ignores fields of specialization entirely.
This is such an American perspective. Happiness doesn't have to be your #1 goal, or even in your top 5-10. The article seems to undervalue the idea of making a positive impact in the world or lasting change. It seems to conflate achieving goals with the idea that you'll move the goal post, and that's necessarily bad (e.g. the Sisyphean concept). Personally speaking, I much rather have a long-term positive impact on humanity than to be happy but a blip on history's radar. I should be so lucky. Many choose to value their own family's success over their own, or their community. Others dedicate themselves to noble causes with high potential fatality risk.
[+] [-] adamhowell|5 years ago|reply
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-8...
“[F]ollowed 724 men since they were teenagers in 1938. (Approximately 60 men, now in their 90s, are still left.) The group consisted of men from various economic and social backgrounds, from Boston’s poorest neighborhoods to Harvard undergrads. (President John F. Kennedy was even part of the original group.) Over the years, the researchers have collected all kinds of health information, and every two years they ask members questions about their lives and their mental and emotional wellness. They even interview family members.”
“Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes. That finding proved true across the board among both the Harvard men and the inner-city participants.”
“When we gathered together everything we knew about them about at age 50, it wasn’t their middle-age cholesterol levels that predicted how they were going to grow old,” said Waldinger in a popular TED Talk. “It was how satisfied they were in their relationships. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80.”
[+] [-] throw48e7|5 years ago|reply
I call bs, selection bias. If something bad happens, the "close relationship" ends faster than you can say "divorce".
If you manage to maintain close relationship way into retirement, yiu are very lucky. Of course you will be in great shape.
[+] [-] LoSboccacc|5 years ago|reply
I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that they were healthier in absolute terms, can also be that as the group aged they developed health issue at the same rate but having someone around more often helped by having them recognizing and testing for ailments timely
[+] [-] econcon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron695|5 years ago|reply
They went to Harvard (The non Harvard were added over 30 years later), I would expect 130 IQ compared to 140 IQ wouldn't matter as much as close relationships.
Compare 90 IQ to 110 IQ and I'd be surprised.
I'd also think it's absolutely harder to have close relationships with lower IQ's.
But it's totally correct, relationships matter, people who go to church live longer.
Atheists might be right, but until they work out ways for ongoing communal meetings that last throughout life they are also wrong.
[+] [-] silveroriole|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] realtalk_sp|5 years ago|reply
EDIT: There's a related and quite important concept in the contemporary well-being discourse often referred to as 'the dispassionate pursuit of passion [or success]'. I think many of the people who show up on HN would benefit from understanding it. Choosing to not desire being special is not the same thing as being inert. There is a balancing point. Here's a resource (albeit maybe a bit too self-helpy) that talks about this: https://www.happinessacademy.eu/blog-en/the-6th-happiness-si....
[+] [-] paganel|5 years ago|reply
You would be surprised. I for one I know I don't want to be "especially good at anything", I've started calling this recently "the George Costanza-way of looking at life", when I was younger I was calling it after a very great novel I had read as a teenager, Musil's "The Man Without Qualities" [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Without_Qualities
[+] [-] zozbot234|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericmcer|5 years ago|reply
I often think that happiness is a shallow goal, and you leave a lot on the table if you are unwilling to suffer. Success and achievements are answers to that old question 'why?', they justify our existence.
Contrary to that, to paraphrase Gene Wolfe from Book of the Long Sun: "When something is good it needs no justification."
another relevant quote (just because!) from East of Eden:
"On one side you have warmth and companionship and sweet understanding, and on the other - cold, lonely greatness. There you make your choice. I'm glad I chose mediocrity, but how am I to say what reward might have come with the other? None of my children will be great either, except perhaps Tom. He's suffering over the choosing right now. It's a painful thing to watch."
[+] [-] swsieber|5 years ago|reply
1) ephemeral pleasure (candy)
2) longer lasting joy / satisfaction (legacy/friendships/service)
[+] [-] arctangent|5 years ago|reply
I don't think this is the reason most people post here.
[+] [-] chongli|5 years ago|reply
I don’t think these experiences are mutually exclusive. Look at the face of a marathon runner for those last few miles. Agony? Yes. Determination? Definitely. Unhappiness? I’m not so sure about that.
Plenty of runners will tell you they’re in their happy place when they’re out on the road, putting one foot in front of the other, for miles and miles and miles.
Similar things could be said about the people who love spicy food, I suppose.
[+] [-] maCDzP|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjrobz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hinkley|5 years ago|reply
If I'm famous people will love or accept me (if you're famous, you will never again know for sure who really loves or accepts you). If I have money I will finally feel safe. If I am the most intimidating person in the room, I'll never feel intimidated again, and nobody will ever know how helpless and small that makes me feel. If I have tons of kids, someone will still remember me fondly when I'm old.
These all end up fixing the wrong problem.
[+] [-] earthscienceman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|5 years ago|reply
That is exactly it.
Based on this article I would certainly be a member of the group called a success addict. I can only speak for myself here but in my opinion "happiness" is not only the wrong goal, it's an active distraction from determining and pursing the right goal. I have MY version of what the right goal is, but have no illusions on it's generality.
Therein the conflict lies: The average person in my estimation defaults to "happiness" as the generalizable optimization vector.
To wit - the article demonstrates this with the language of addiction and a reinforcement of the ONE TRUE GOAL: "relationships and love." Deviation from happiness (epicurean or hedonistic) as the ultimate goal is exactly that - deviant!
[+] [-] lionhearted|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasode|5 years ago|reply
In the 2nd thread, one reply ask, "Have you tried finding fulfillment in having a family?" -- I didn't reply to that but I want to do so here.
It depends on the personality as a parent but it can be very dangerous to rely on your family to be the source of happiness and hoping that it overrides an unsatisfactory job. I'm heavily influenced by growing up with my unhappy mother because she had artistic ambitions that were disrupted by having children (me). She had to work at a "boring" 9-to-5 job to put food on the table and a roof over our heads. Because of her awful (but good paying) job, all of our misbehavior and problems were magnified and she lost a lot of patience with us. For our specific circumstances, we might have been all better off if she (over)worked 60+ hours at something she liked (for possibly even less pay) so we as children weren't such a glaring irritation to her. Lots of frustrations with us with exasperations such as, "Do you know how hard I have to work to put food on the table?!"
Based on that, I think one of the greatest gifts you can give to your future spouse, and future children ... is to find work that's palatable. Don't bring your misery home. Don't ask your family to be the _source_ of happiness. That's too much pressure on them. Instead, see them as _enhancing_ your existing happiness.
I'm not giving universal advice here. I'm emphasizing that you really need to examine yourself and understand who you really are before thinking your family and relationships will be your salvation. It wasn't for my mother and it's not for me. Maybe we're psychologically defective. I don't know. For me, I already tried the author's advice with a 40-hour job and "work/life balance". That doesn't make me happy. What works for me is to pursue an unbalanced life.
Yes, there's "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", and "nobody lies on their deathbed wishing they spent more time at the office", and "hustle porn", etc. I'm aware of all the derogatory memes that try to invalidate how I feel but I can't help it.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9426760
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23924830
[+] [-] jimbokun|5 years ago|reply
I think investing in a family means seeing their happiness and successes and flourishing as one of the sources of your happiness.
And working a job to make money to give them an environment where they can grow and thrive and flourish can be part of that happiness, even if the job itself is kind of "meh".
(And if that's not something that motivates you, then, yeah, probably best not to start a family.)
[+] [-] icelancer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jameslk|5 years ago|reply
I don't think most want to be simply happy anyway. A lot of people want to have kids. Is this because they want to be happy? Is buying a house about seeking happiness? Is the author writing this article to be happy? Is reading Hacker News going to make you happy?
It's usually a mixture of motivations. There's far easier ways to be happy than most choose, but happiness is not the only reason to live.
[+] [-] rewq4321|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sinsterizme|5 years ago|reply
Buying a house for example: We think it will provide us safety and comfort, a place to raise children, etc.
Creating children is desired in itself through evolutionary impulses, and we see that manifested by desire, seeking purpose, leaving a legacy, etc.
[+] [-] KaoruAoiShiho|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|5 years ago|reply
So much of desiring success is really about desiring recognition from others, and for some reason I just feel like I care less after being socially distant for this long.
[+] [-] s0uthPaw88|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wrshpFAANG|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] es7|5 years ago|reply
The English word "happy" covers a wide range of states and I'm not sure the original article has even settled on one definition. They reference terms like 'life satisfaction', 'orginary delights', 'relationships and love', 'hedonic treadmill', etc.
The article seems to be coming from a good place, but I think the deeper message got lost in the noise: "Work for a sense of personal meaning, not outward achievement" (paraphrased).
Happiness and success don't have to be mutually exclusive.
[+] [-] Natfan|5 years ago|reply
And it's worrying, because at some point you will do the best work you can. You will hit that goal. If you don't have any other things you want to achieve out of doing a good job at work, I could see it easy to fall down the slippery slope of depression.
Thought provoking stuff!
[+] [-] d33lio|5 years ago|reply
"Being special" is a bad take in my book. Everyone has a unique idea of what success is. Success can skirt the lines of being widely known, rich or surrounded by a family they built.
Just live your life, it's an optimization problem without any real end - so get on with it and stop worrying you're going to make the "wrong" call.
[+] [-] juniper_strong|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opportune|5 years ago|reply
The other thing is that our financial system is so well-defined it can gamify “success” as just increasing a simple, well-understood metric: money
[+] [-] Wump|5 years ago|reply
“She [his girlfriend] sees things in a different way. For Sanni, the point of life is happiness. To be with people that make you feel fulfilled and have a good time.
For me it’s all about performance. The thing is anybody can be happy and cozy. Nothing good happens in the world by being happy and cozy. Nobody achieves anything great because they’re happy and cozy.”
I found his perspective so fascinating and revealing about people who are among the best in the world at something.
[+] [-] kgin|5 years ago|reply
Addicts don’t choose their addiction over happiness, they lose the ability for other things to bring them happiness through desensitization.
[+] [-] baxtr|5 years ago|reply
H.L. HUNT
[+] [-] MaxBarraclough|5 years ago|reply
Of course, 'success', however defined, is presumably different from happiness.
[+] [-] jackfrodo|5 years ago|reply
[0] http://www.101bananas.com/library2/otherside.html
[+] [-] 29athrowaway|5 years ago|reply
To most people, those are outstanding life achievements.
[+] [-] booleandilemma|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrkn1|5 years ago|reply
However, the author should have elaborated on "meaningful relationships". Dominant networking sites have imposed the unproved notion that "who you know" is more important than "who you are" and "what you know". Constant social comparisons encouraged by social media are also contributing to depression. As the author of a University of Houston 2015 study [0] stated: "This research and previous research indicates the act of socially comparing oneself to others is related to long-term destructive emotions".
[0] - https://uh.edu/news-events/stories/2015/April/040415FaceookS...
[+] [-] jimbokun|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbouck|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hinkley|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azinman2|5 years ago|reply