I suspect I'll get downvoted for this, but for some reason, I find this quote chilling,
“Children are a financial drain,” Merrill wrote. “The time investment of raising a child is immense. The responsibility is epic. The impact on future projects would be drastic. In light of these factors, it makes sense to reduce the chances to nearly zero and have a vasectomy performed.”
It seems to completely remove the joy and satisfaction that comes from raising children. Only a few things should be viewed from a financial lens. Wealth is not money, wealth is discretionary time.
I have three kids, one in high school and two in college. They are expensive, but like many other things, you can decide how you want to divide the expense between time and money. Take education for example. You can send them to expensive private school, you can send them to public school, or you can home-school them.
Private school puts a lot of education in other people's hands, but you can choose a school which holds your values and works to inculcate them in your children.
Public school is free, but you have little control over value education, and the overall quality can be pretty crappy. You can improve this by living in a less desirable home in an area that has good schools for the same price as a nicer home in an area with bad schools. (Housing prices tend to following public school quality very closely.) You can also make up for it by spending time with your kids, filling in the gaps in their education and instilling values you consider important, or you can farm this work out part-time through youth organizations and lessons from private providers at some expense, but probably less than a fulltime private school.
Home schooling gives you complete control over education, but requires an immense amount of time and the quality is capped by your own teaching skills unless you farm out some of the education as mentioned for the public school.
My family selected the public model with a heavy emphasis on adding value through our own time, with some investment in private education, mainly for music lessons.
The values we worked to instill were self-reliance, compassion, practicality, and stability. We added to the quality of public education through encouraging reading, asking questions, and keeping a close watch on the educational quality of the schools and teachers and helping out whenever we could.
Instead of signing our kids up for a lot of "enriching" classes and activities based on what we thought they should do, we encouraged them to find their own passions, and supported those passions financially only as needed. For example, we paid for music lessons for our kids interested in music, because neither my wife or I are musically skilled. When my oldest became interested in movie-making in middle school, we provided him a used video camera, blank tapes (this was back in the early 2000s), cheap editing software, and technical advice as needed.
When they wanted to learn something we could teach, like cooking or answers to general questions, we made sure we were available to do those things.
All-in-all, we tried to keep it low pressure and self-guided, aside from some clear boundaries that evolved as they grew older and more responsible, and some expectations that we monitored and corrected when needed, including that they would do their best in school, and that they would behave at all times like civilized human beings who raise the overall happiness of the world by being here instead of reducing it. (For example, not tormenting siblings, acting properly according to the context, such as in a restaurant or public gathering, being polite and treating others with respect, not breaking things, especially things that don't belong to them, etc.)
Some of the results are already in. My oldest spent over three years in a youth gap-year volunteer service organization after high school, first as a participant, then as an intern, then as an employee. Now he is completely self-sufficient in his first year as a full-time student at a community college, with the intent of transferring to a four-year university and getting a credential to teach history to high school students. He sings and plays in a band at a church, and is engaged to a very nice young lady he has known since middle school.
My middle son went straight to the University of Chicago after high school, where he is pursuing an economics major, possibly with a minor in physics. Almost all the expenses (including housing and meals) are being paid through scholarships and grants through the University. We are kicking in a small amount (several thousand a year, mainly for health insurance), and he is paying about $4000 a year + books and incidental expenses through a combination of loans and part time work. He has a 3.8 GPA so far.
My daughter is a sophomore in high school and she is mainly interested in art, so besides the normal high school classes, she is taking an art class at school and participating in the art club, along with drawing at home.
We have been lucky to have healthy, reasonably intelligent kids. Our main expenses for them have been food, routine medical care, the cost of a larger living space, extra gas for taking them places, and occasional fun stuff like going to a theme park or movie (which we enjoyed too!). It was all stuff we could achieve on an average American family income, including some periods of unemployment.
I think when deciding whether to invest time or money, time is better for the kids, more fun for the parents, and definitely builds a better relationship both immediately and in the long term.
I think the question of whether or not to have kids should not be addressed from a financial standpoint. Instead you should ask yourself: "Is being successful in my career more important to me than raising happy children who can contribute to society?" If the answer is yes for both husband and wife (and I think a long-term, legally-committed relationship between the parents is a major factor in raising happy kids), then maybe you shouldn't have kids. No problem. The world needs dedicated people who pour all into their work. If one of the parents is willing to put raising kids above career (I don't mean to not work, just to put the kid's well being above career success), then having kids might be a great idea. In our case, initially I worked a lot and my wife spent a lot of time with the kids, now she is working a lot, and I'm spending a lot of time.
Personally, I think my wife and I made the right decision to have kids. The joy far outweighs the hassles, and more than pays back the expenses. Plus there is the potential added bonus of grandchildren!
A life devoted to family is antiquated. After all, what revenue can be extracted from a man whose primary source of satisfaction are his commitments and devotion to his wife and children?
A man who compulsively watches youtube(tm) videos on his ipad(tm) all night can be show many more ads than one who spends the evening reading to his kids.
Modern life is a constant assault of sophisticated propaganda(advertisements) imploring us to identify as consumers of brands and to be materially dissatisfied.
YMMV. Not everyone wants kids, plenty of people are already having kids, many people who do have kids regret it entirely, and many people correctly recognize that you can't live your dreams and raise your kids right. It's not just a financial lens for many people it's a time lens too.
Having kids whose lives you very probably won't even be allowed to be a part of is a reality for many guys too. Even if you have kids in marriage the reality is you will probably get a divorce, the kids will go to the mother, and you will pay.
Why risk it if you know you can avoid it? Having kids it's a guarantee of joy or satisfaction. Writing books, creating epic things can give just as much joy and satisfaction.
Of course it's chilling. It takes all emotion out of the equation. He allowed others to make him a vegetarian, Republican, even to try homosexual relations. This is so way beyond an experiment that I suspect there's a clinical term for his affliction.
That said, in less developed countries having many children is a form of retirement planning, so I'm not sure he's even right about them being a bad investment.
I thought it was like a 10 yr old talking about how silly it would be to buy a car. After all they cost a lot of money and hey you can get anywhere on a bike.
That kind of discussion doesn't have any understanding or appreciation for the actual situation. Its a view looking from the present into the future versus a view in the present looking to the past.
But you can't miss what you've never experienced. So some decisions look correct when viewed from one direction in time and incorrect when viewed from the other. So far the number of people I know who have never had kids and wish that they had, exceeds the number of people I know who have had kids and wished that they didn't. Its not scientific of course, just another anecdote. Since I get a lot out of having had kids and raised them I feel sorry for people who won't have an opportunity to experience that, but I recognize that their experience could just as easily not be a positive one.
This seems rather shortsighted, children are a drain, but an asset too. I think one should view them as spinoffs, and of course shareholders will have equity in them.
I do not see any issue with that statement. In a pragmatic way, it is completely true. Children are a financial drain, they take lots of resources from parents (time, money, etc).
The fact that for some people it is 100% worth it is a separate issue. I've got friends who are suffering because money is not enough (having to work two jobs living here in Mexico), but they won't change their children for a 'more confortable' life. For some people, children are worth more than all the resources they would spend... a thousand times.
For me, someone who doesn't want to have children, it is not worth it (maybe not now at 31... maybe in the future I'll change my mind, who knows). So I agree with the reasoning that having children will only imply funneling resources to something that won't just give me any satisfaction.
I think it goes with the territory. In a lot of senses, this guy gave up his personhood and became a corporation. The things we take for granted as individuals he puts before the board.
For example, he was able to convince them that he wanted to date the second girl, but that's not something any of us have likely had to deal with. The one exception being if you're still at home and you try to convince your parents you want to date a specific person.
In that context, the statement was a little chilling, but no more so (to me) than all the other decisions. The entire thing was chilling to me.
From his shareholders' point of view, the joy of haing children isn't fungible unless they live in close proximity to their investment. Of course, there's an argument tht being happy will make Merrill more productive, but that presupposes he likes children.
No downvote from me, but it depends on what moves you. Not everyone experiences the joy and satisfaction that comes from having children. Doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means their priorities differ from yours.
The book talks about equity being a logical next step and about the value of being able to diversify and distribute risk. I think there is definitely one possible future where this is very common. It probably starts with athletes and celebrities - as you can see, this guy has gotten a terrible valuation (for several reasons).
For years, I have been talking myself out of starting a company that serves as an exchange for people selling equity in themselves. It is inevitable that someone tries this because the crowd-funding industry is so sexy. It will be an interesting experiment, but I'm not sure the effects on society will be net desirable. At its best, it would give people the ability to sell a fraction of themselves for some up-front cash and give them the ability to take bigger risks in the projects they do. Anyway, if you want to talk more about this, hit me up.
I think the amount of money involved is shockingly small.
To get some idea of what the present-time value of a person's work is, if you make $50,000 a year and work for 20 years, you make $1M in that period of time. He could make the $100,000 by working another 4 hours a week over the next 20 years and not need the $1K.
I mean, my wife and I regularly make small business investments in our activities of up to $500 without ever asking each other. We'd usually ask each other if it's more than that.
This guy is having to talk to a committee just to make a $90 investment that's just nuts. But I guess it's just a matter of time before cargo cult investing gets celebrated in Tired magazine.
"You make $1mm in 20 years", or "You make whatever is left after taxes & expenses"?
The latter, clearly :).
Anyways, the point was well taken; he did undersell his IPO. Newcomers on the block will surely learn from him and offer shares for more inflated prices ;).
In fact, his IPO earned him a pittance <$1k (nine-hundred and something shares sold to 'friends and family').
I don't think this is about money at all. More likely than not it's some kind of sexual fantasy or something similar. No sane person would sell themselves for a couple thousand bucks like this just for the possibility of turning profit in the future.
I don't know. Many people do odd things for no reason other than their own curiosity. For example, there's the guy making soylent in an effort to create something that lets him avoid eating. Many would ask "why?" while they say "why not."
Also, selling only 10,000 shares lets him back out if he where to encounter a problem (such as one person buying all his shares and then demanding he act in ways he's uncomfortable with).
Why does this surprise you? Human behavior isn't rational. This specific example isn't that weird. What it boils down is that it is an elaborate freak show for promotion (both the medium transmitting this and the object that is the "freak").
this is insane - the investors' plans are very unlikely to align with his personal wants and needs (unlike a business where the goal of making money is shared between the business and its shareholders).
some of the examples in the article make this abundantly clear:
* the sleep experiment, where he was obviously suffering by the end
* the gay relationship which, while the article doesn't mention whether Merrill is bisexual, certainly seems to imply that he isn't and went through with the relationship to appease his shareholders
It's quite funny, and a consequent move in a robotic system. We can all live like robots if we want, he is taking it seriously.
At least on average, the more robotic you live your life, the more money you get. 9 to 7 instead of 9 to 5? Working on weekends? He is taking it to the extreme, he will be working 24/7. He is selling responsibility for his life for anyone giving enough money.
There are a number of relationship types in human interactions: family/communality, reciprocity, and dominance.
At a minimum, any attempt to expand one relationship type (in this case, reciprocity) to encompass an entire life can be expected to entail high levels of awkwardness - the feeling a person gets when they realize their understanding of a relationship type with someone else is different from that other person's understanding.
The evidence also indicates that when the norms of reciprocity are imposed on erstwhile communal relations, the reciprocity paradigm consumes the communality paradigm and the relationship changes from communal to reciprocal. In effect, turning your entire life into a market transaction makes communal/familial relations impossible.
For most people, I can't imagine this would be conducive to good mental and emotional health. (Presumably, psychopaths won't have a problem with it.)
I can't help but feel that if this was financially legally binding - for him to have to pay these dividends - it would be a great way to fund your way through college, E.G: I'm too poor to afford college, if you fund me the $40,000, you can have 10% of my life income.
It makes sense, assuming you pick your candidates wisely and aren't scammed (and that's a big if!):
$40,000 down-payment for 10%
10% per year for $3,500 per year [1] over a career of around 30 years:
"Upstart.com, a company founded last year by Google exec David Girouard, offers a bit of capital in exchange for a cut of a college graduate’s future earnings."
Obviously this is a joke. Look at his sleeping excursion, it didn't work so he stopped. It's a fun cute thing to do but little beyond that. Does he have the same legal protections and obligations as a company? No. Would any of this hold up in a court of law?. No. Congratulations to the hacker news reader who got a comment in the paper. I also don't know what to make of the sentence about "fooling around" with that guy. Can some explain what I just read there?
I think it's a great idea. I feel like I commonly give advice to people, but not knowing what else is going on in the person's life. Also, the outcome of my advice usually doesn't have a direct effect on me. At least a bad decision (or multiple bad decisions) have a financial impact on the stock performance and/or the willingness of the company to continue to participate.
[+] [-] Delmania|13 years ago|reply
It seems to completely remove the joy and satisfaction that comes from raising children. Only a few things should be viewed from a financial lens. Wealth is not money, wealth is discretionary time.
[+] [-] davidroberts|13 years ago|reply
Private school puts a lot of education in other people's hands, but you can choose a school which holds your values and works to inculcate them in your children.
Public school is free, but you have little control over value education, and the overall quality can be pretty crappy. You can improve this by living in a less desirable home in an area that has good schools for the same price as a nicer home in an area with bad schools. (Housing prices tend to following public school quality very closely.) You can also make up for it by spending time with your kids, filling in the gaps in their education and instilling values you consider important, or you can farm this work out part-time through youth organizations and lessons from private providers at some expense, but probably less than a fulltime private school.
Home schooling gives you complete control over education, but requires an immense amount of time and the quality is capped by your own teaching skills unless you farm out some of the education as mentioned for the public school.
My family selected the public model with a heavy emphasis on adding value through our own time, with some investment in private education, mainly for music lessons.
The values we worked to instill were self-reliance, compassion, practicality, and stability. We added to the quality of public education through encouraging reading, asking questions, and keeping a close watch on the educational quality of the schools and teachers and helping out whenever we could.
Instead of signing our kids up for a lot of "enriching" classes and activities based on what we thought they should do, we encouraged them to find their own passions, and supported those passions financially only as needed. For example, we paid for music lessons for our kids interested in music, because neither my wife or I are musically skilled. When my oldest became interested in movie-making in middle school, we provided him a used video camera, blank tapes (this was back in the early 2000s), cheap editing software, and technical advice as needed.
When they wanted to learn something we could teach, like cooking or answers to general questions, we made sure we were available to do those things.
All-in-all, we tried to keep it low pressure and self-guided, aside from some clear boundaries that evolved as they grew older and more responsible, and some expectations that we monitored and corrected when needed, including that they would do their best in school, and that they would behave at all times like civilized human beings who raise the overall happiness of the world by being here instead of reducing it. (For example, not tormenting siblings, acting properly according to the context, such as in a restaurant or public gathering, being polite and treating others with respect, not breaking things, especially things that don't belong to them, etc.)
Some of the results are already in. My oldest spent over three years in a youth gap-year volunteer service organization after high school, first as a participant, then as an intern, then as an employee. Now he is completely self-sufficient in his first year as a full-time student at a community college, with the intent of transferring to a four-year university and getting a credential to teach history to high school students. He sings and plays in a band at a church, and is engaged to a very nice young lady he has known since middle school.
My middle son went straight to the University of Chicago after high school, where he is pursuing an economics major, possibly with a minor in physics. Almost all the expenses (including housing and meals) are being paid through scholarships and grants through the University. We are kicking in a small amount (several thousand a year, mainly for health insurance), and he is paying about $4000 a year + books and incidental expenses through a combination of loans and part time work. He has a 3.8 GPA so far.
My daughter is a sophomore in high school and she is mainly interested in art, so besides the normal high school classes, she is taking an art class at school and participating in the art club, along with drawing at home.
We have been lucky to have healthy, reasonably intelligent kids. Our main expenses for them have been food, routine medical care, the cost of a larger living space, extra gas for taking them places, and occasional fun stuff like going to a theme park or movie (which we enjoyed too!). It was all stuff we could achieve on an average American family income, including some periods of unemployment.
I think when deciding whether to invest time or money, time is better for the kids, more fun for the parents, and definitely builds a better relationship both immediately and in the long term.
I think the question of whether or not to have kids should not be addressed from a financial standpoint. Instead you should ask yourself: "Is being successful in my career more important to me than raising happy children who can contribute to society?" If the answer is yes for both husband and wife (and I think a long-term, legally-committed relationship between the parents is a major factor in raising happy kids), then maybe you shouldn't have kids. No problem. The world needs dedicated people who pour all into their work. If one of the parents is willing to put raising kids above career (I don't mean to not work, just to put the kid's well being above career success), then having kids might be a great idea. In our case, initially I worked a lot and my wife spent a lot of time with the kids, now she is working a lot, and I'm spending a lot of time.
Personally, I think my wife and I made the right decision to have kids. The joy far outweighs the hassles, and more than pays back the expenses. Plus there is the potential added bonus of grandchildren!
[+] [-] dmm|13 years ago|reply
A man who compulsively watches youtube(tm) videos on his ipad(tm) all night can be show many more ads than one who spends the evening reading to his kids.
Modern life is a constant assault of sophisticated propaganda(advertisements) imploring us to identify as consumers of brands and to be materially dissatisfied.
[+] [-] Pkeod|13 years ago|reply
Having kids whose lives you very probably won't even be allowed to be a part of is a reality for many guys too. Even if you have kids in marriage the reality is you will probably get a divorce, the kids will go to the mother, and you will pay.
Why risk it if you know you can avoid it? Having kids it's a guarantee of joy or satisfaction. Writing books, creating epic things can give just as much joy and satisfaction.
10 year at a time male birth control is coming so vasectomies will no longer be necessary. http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home
http://reddit.com/r/childfree
[+] [-] Samuel_Michon|13 years ago|reply
That said, in less developed countries having many children is a form of retirement planning, so I'm not sure he's even right about them being a bad investment.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
That kind of discussion doesn't have any understanding or appreciation for the actual situation. Its a view looking from the present into the future versus a view in the present looking to the past.
But you can't miss what you've never experienced. So some decisions look correct when viewed from one direction in time and incorrect when viewed from the other. So far the number of people I know who have never had kids and wish that they had, exceeds the number of people I know who have had kids and wished that they didn't. Its not scientific of course, just another anecdote. Since I get a lot out of having had kids and raised them I feel sorry for people who won't have an opportunity to experience that, but I recognize that their experience could just as easily not be a positive one.
[+] [-] carlob|13 years ago|reply
What? You can't sell stocks of your children?!
[+] [-] xtracto|13 years ago|reply
The fact that for some people it is 100% worth it is a separate issue. I've got friends who are suffering because money is not enough (having to work two jobs living here in Mexico), but they won't change their children for a 'more confortable' life. For some people, children are worth more than all the resources they would spend... a thousand times.
For me, someone who doesn't want to have children, it is not worth it (maybe not now at 31... maybe in the future I'll change my mind, who knows). So I agree with the reasoning that having children will only imply funneling resources to something that won't just give me any satisfaction.
[+] [-] taylonr|13 years ago|reply
For example, he was able to convince them that he wanted to date the second girl, but that's not something any of us have likely had to deal with. The one exception being if you're still at home and you try to convince your parents you want to date a specific person.
In that context, the statement was a little chilling, but no more so (to me) than all the other decisions. The entire thing was chilling to me.
[+] [-] tripzilch|13 years ago|reply
Corporations don't usually make babies.
So who would be ultimately responsible for these children?
[+] [-] anigbrowl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgeorge|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samstave|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadowrunner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxent|13 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/Future-Wealth-Stan-Davis/dp/1565113942
David Bowie sold bonds backed by his IP in 1997:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_bond
The book talks about equity being a logical next step and about the value of being able to diversify and distribute risk. I think there is definitely one possible future where this is very common. It probably starts with athletes and celebrities - as you can see, this guy has gotten a terrible valuation (for several reasons).
For years, I have been talking myself out of starting a company that serves as an exchange for people selling equity in themselves. It is inevitable that someone tries this because the crowd-funding industry is so sexy. It will be an interesting experiment, but I'm not sure the effects on society will be net desirable. At its best, it would give people the ability to sell a fraction of themselves for some up-front cash and give them the ability to take bigger risks in the projects they do. Anyway, if you want to talk more about this, hit me up.
[+] [-] PaulHoule|13 years ago|reply
To get some idea of what the present-time value of a person's work is, if you make $50,000 a year and work for 20 years, you make $1M in that period of time. He could make the $100,000 by working another 4 hours a week over the next 20 years and not need the $1K.
I mean, my wife and I regularly make small business investments in our activities of up to $500 without ever asking each other. We'd usually ask each other if it's more than that.
This guy is having to talk to a committee just to make a $90 investment that's just nuts. But I guess it's just a matter of time before cargo cult investing gets celebrated in Tired magazine.
[+] [-] redblacktree|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pwnguinz|13 years ago|reply
The latter, clearly :).
Anyways, the point was well taken; he did undersell his IPO. Newcomers on the block will surely learn from him and offer shares for more inflated prices ;).
In fact, his IPO earned him a pittance <$1k (nine-hundred and something shares sold to 'friends and family').
[+] [-] VexXtreme|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtrimpe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Samuel_Michon|13 years ago|reply
You might be on to something...
[+] [-] lelandbatey|13 years ago|reply
Also, selling only 10,000 shares lets him back out if he where to encounter a problem (such as one person buying all his shares and then demanding he act in ways he's uncomfortable with).
[+] [-] zavulon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theDoug|13 years ago|reply
I'm Doug Stewart[2] (mentioned in the interactive "Who Owns Mike Merrill?" graph). If anyone has questions, I'll try my best.
[1]: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/putting-... [2]: http://www.kmikeym.com/users/137
[+] [-] Ygg2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kaiserama|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mpeg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexjeffrey|13 years ago|reply
some of the examples in the article make this abundantly clear:
* the sleep experiment, where he was obviously suffering by the end
* the gay relationship which, while the article doesn't mention whether Merrill is bisexual, certainly seems to imply that he isn't and went through with the relationship to appease his shareholders
[+] [-] heiska|13 years ago|reply
He changed his sleeping routine and had a homosexual relationship, found out they didn't work out for him, gave up on them. Nothing insane about that.
[+] [-] svag|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chiph|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unincorporated_Man
[+] [-] jcr|13 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=723408
[+] [-] antihero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frabcus|13 years ago|reply
His share price might then collapse, and he has a substantial financial stake in himself.
It's the same as any company - all the staff could refuse to cooperate and walk out, and it would be worth nothing overnight.
[+] [-] thasmin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blablabla123|13 years ago|reply
At least on average, the more robotic you live your life, the more money you get. 9 to 7 instead of 9 to 5? Working on weekends? He is taking it to the extreme, he will be working 24/7. He is selling responsibility for his life for anyone giving enough money.
[+] [-] RyanMcGreal|13 years ago|reply
At a minimum, any attempt to expand one relationship type (in this case, reciprocity) to encompass an entire life can be expected to entail high levels of awkwardness - the feeling a person gets when they realize their understanding of a relationship type with someone else is different from that other person's understanding.
The evidence also indicates that when the norms of reciprocity are imposed on erstwhile communal relations, the reciprocity paradigm consumes the communality paradigm and the relationship changes from communal to reciprocal. In effect, turning your entire life into a market transaction makes communal/familial relations impossible.
For most people, I can't imagine this would be conducive to good mental and emotional health. (Presumably, psychopaths won't have a problem with it.)
[+] [-] shanelja|13 years ago|reply
It makes sense, assuming you pick your candidates wisely and aren't scammed (and that's a big if!):
$40,000 down-payment for 10%
10% per year for $3,500 per year [1] over a career of around 30 years:
30 * 3,500 = $105,000
Average profit: $65,000
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...
[+] [-] mootothemax|13 years ago|reply
"Upstart.com, a company founded last year by Google exec David Girouard, offers a bit of capital in exchange for a cut of a college graduate’s future earnings."
[+] [-] marquis|13 years ago|reply
Isn't this called a 'student loan'?
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iopuy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troyastorino|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daSn0wie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] brianbreslin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yohann305|13 years ago|reply