[HN Gopher] Thomas Aquinas' works with English and original Lati...
___________________________________________________________________
Thomas Aquinas' works with English and original Latin presented in
parallel
Author : danielam
Score : 188 points
Date : 2021-07-06 12:07 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (aquinas.cc)
(TXT) w3m dump (aquinas.cc)
| silent_cal wrote:
| St Thomas was a man of prayer and a Galaxy Brain!
| cbfrench wrote:
| I'm prepared to go ahead and grant him Universe Brain status.
| ;)
| guerrilla wrote:
| I like Aquinas, especially for his silly attempts to justify
| Aristotle's particular choice of categories, which eventually led
| to Occam proposing his razor... but why is this popular now?
| silent_cal wrote:
| He is much more satisfying to read than modern philosophers.
| silent_cal wrote:
| Because his philosophy is true.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| Doesn't work for me on FF on windows 10.
|
| There is no index on the left, the scrollbar thumb doesn't work,
| and when you scroll down with the arrow keys, it goes only a few
| paragraphs before stopping.
| da_chicken wrote:
| Works for me on FF 89.0.2 64-bit Win10 20H2.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| odd, it works for me now too
| SilasX wrote:
| Wait is the English a translation or did he write them in both
| languages? I'm guessing the former since the English seems too
| modern (and writing both versions would be a lot of work).
| TheFreim wrote:
| It's a translation. It was originally written in Latin.
| DemocracyFTW wrote:
| cf. Ban Nuo Bo Luo Xin Jing which is, in fact, thought to have
| been first composed in Chinese, and later to be translated to
| Sanskrit. Also Aquinas was a 13th c Italian who ended up in
| Paris, so not altogether unreasonable that he did write in
| England, in English, given his conventionalized first name. I
| only say this to safeguard against comments along the lines
| that were _my_ first impulse.
| Finnucane wrote:
| If Aquinas knew any English, it would have been more like
| Chaucer's. It's unlikely he would have had any reason to
| write books in English.
| SilasX wrote:
| Yeah that was one (of many) indicators the English wasn't
| an original from Aquinas. I was just confused because
| normally a translation will be marked as such, with the
| translator's name.
| yummypaint wrote:
| It has been said that the quickest way to get a question answered
| online is to prominently post the wrong answer. I feel like this
| was Aquinas's role in the development of western philosophy.
| [deleted]
| unmole wrote:
| I don't follow. Can you elaborate?
| benpbenp wrote:
| It is a joke based on Aquinas' style of answering questions.
| He begins with a handful of "objections" that take the
| opposite position to the one he eventually lands on. To take
| a random example, "Whether a man is bound to give thanks to
| every benefactor?" (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-
| II.Q106.A3)
| gjm11 wrote:
| My reading of the joke was that it wasn't about Aquinas's
| question/answers/objections/resolution style, but just
| suggesting that Aquinas got a lot of things wrong but got
| them wrong _very clearly_ , making him a useful person to
| argue against in order to develop better answers to his
| questions.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I read it that way. He was so methodical and echaustive
| (as well as orthodox in many ways) that he became the
| perfect starting point to rebel against.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _It is a joke based on Aquinas ' style of answering
| questions._
|
| This wasn't particular to Aquinas, but fairly common among
| Scholastics:
|
| * https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/41999/what-
| is-th...
|
| In some ways you're trying to steel man (as opposed to
| straw man) the opposing arguments. It was a reflection of
| the oral debating style used in universities at the time.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Strange that that answer doesn't include the fact that
| they were heavily influenced by Aristotle (who had just
| been rediscovered by Europeans) who explicitely
| recommended doing this.
| handrous wrote:
| He wrote _a lot_ about a variety of Big Topics in philosophy
| and theology, often getting things quite wrong, sometimes
| subtly, sometimes... less subtly. This has prompted much
| commentary, refutation, and further development toward better
| arguments.
| danielam wrote:
| Please see my comment to trasz.
| handrous wrote:
| Fair enough, I admit my take is an (the indefinite
| article, to be clear) orthodox, but meme-y and not
| especially "deep" one.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Not OP, but from what I understand Aquinas seems to have had
| a fixed lens he allowed himself to view the world through and
| seemingly based the fundamentals of his philosophy on. Not
| even Aristotle could be properly studied without a Christian
| lens.
|
| He's generally viewed as a net positive since Christiandom
| ruled the western world and Aquinas reconciled some
| Aristotelian and Neoplatonic views with the Catholic Church
| ("Nothing comes from nothing", "cause and effect", etc) But
| to Aquinas, those Neoplatonists from whom he derived his
| cosmology and philosophy were nothing better than pagans
| lining up to be burned in the good lord's holy fires--even
| though they figured the same thing about the way things
| appear to work.
| alentist wrote:
| > a fixed lens he allowed himself to view the world through
|
| That's true of any philosopher.
|
| > to Aquinas, those Neoplatonists from whom he derived his
| cosmology and philosophy were nothing better than pagans
|
| Ahistorical nonsense.
|
| https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com//mobile/view/
| 1...
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqsf13g
| danielam wrote:
| Specifically, I'd add that Aquinas had enormous regard
| for Aristotle and the pagan philosophers, to the point
| that he referred to Aristotle with the honorific "the
| Philosopher".
| mdiesel wrote:
| The Name of the Rose is a great read, that to me
| summarises the relationship nicely.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| I'd be wary of misinterpreting endearment as honorific.
|
| Morally, he couldn't exalt a Pagan. He only brought
| himself to say that they essentially "weren't all bad",
| and beautifully illustrated. He was right, of course,
| about them--but ultimately he looked down upon them from
| a moral and ethical standpoint.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| The Medieval church's philosophy was called Neoplatonism,
| after Plato, a 'pagan'. IIRC, they would have loved to
| have Aristotle's works too, and they were finally
| discovered in the time of Aquinas.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Common cosmological and philosophical threads run through
| all religions, but some tenets of Neoplatonism and
| related Hermetic mystical foundations made their way into
| Catholicism through two means: early Christian cults and
| sects before an organized central church ruled on all
| tenets, and later through Augustine and Aquinas saying
| "these guys aren't so bad, they figured out why we know
| there's a god at all and now we can prove it".
|
| Neoplatonism well predates the church. It's beautiful,
| though.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| It's a fundamental tenet of the Catholic belief system.
| If you're not Catholic christian, then you're Pagan, and
| it follows if you're not adhering to Catholic
| Christianity then you are doomed.
|
| Not Christianity in all its forms, sure, but Catholicism
| absolutely.
|
| Just because Aquinas questioned if "pagans" could be
| virtuous in spite of their beliefs, does not mean he
| didn't believe they were destined for exclusion from God.
| He might have written more positively about them than his
| counterparts and colleagues in the church, but he was
| looking down his nose at them.
|
| I don't consider adherents to a dogma reaching out in
| "charity" to be a relationship of equitable footing. It
| reminds me of that old English nonsense of "noble
| savages". Just because they called them "noble"...
|
| _edit:
|
| Happy to remove my personal opinions.
|
| I'm not making up these perspectives; this is dogma
| according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
| https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/paganism. And it's
| literally in the abstract of the first paper linked to.
|
| Aquinas, as a function of his adherence to that dogma,
| presumed all Pagans to be doomed as a function of their
| not adhering to the same dogma. He considered them
| possibly capable of virtue, but morally inferior._
| slumdev wrote:
| > If you're not Catholic christian, then you're Pagan
|
| Pagan is only one category of unbeliever. There are also:
|
| 1. Heretics (bad Catholics and all Protestants)
|
| 2. Schismatics (the Eastern Orthodox and splinter groups)
|
| 3. Infidels (Muslims and anyone else who acknowledges the
| Abrahamic God but denies Christ)
|
| 4. Jews (for having been God's chosen people and having
| denied the Messiah), see #3
|
| 5. Heathens ("spiritual but not religious")
|
| 6. Atheists
|
| > if you're not adhering to Catholic Christianity then
| you are doomed
|
| Strive to enter by the narrow gate.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| I'm just pulling the usage from the Catholic Encylopedia,
| via Catholic Answers so that I can't be accused of
| misconstruing anything:
| https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/paganism
| slumdev wrote:
| That's a reasonable source. My list was what I could
| recall from the Baltimore Catechism. I went to find a
| link, and it looks like I missed a few.
|
| Q 1170: http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson30.htm
| iammisc wrote:
| I think you're hierarchy is fine, but keep in mind the
| Baltimore catechism is not an 'official' church document
| issued by Rome.
|
| As something issued by all bishops in the USA, it did at
| one time have official status in dioceses within the
| United States.
|
| But it's not a place to cite 'official' Catholic
| teaching, because it's not a universal Church document
| the way a church council, a vatican statement, or the
| writings of one of the church doctors would be.
|
| It's best to cite a source that the Baltimore Catechism
| would have used as the authoritative source.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| The source you cited below doesn't mention other
| religions by name, nor does it have a special category
| for one of them.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological
| tangents [1], and certainly not on religious flamewar
| tangents, which this is.
|
| There are plenty of interesting things to discuss about
| Aquinas in his historical context. The last thing we need
| is to replace that with generic (and therefore tedious,
| and eventually nasty) arguments about "dogma" and (god
| help us) "the errors of modern Christianity".
|
| [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=t
| rue&sor...
| iammisc wrote:
| I understand why he comes across that way, but as a
| Catholic myself, he's correct in his assertion that the
| church still holds the doctrine 'extra Ecclesiam nulla
| salus' (Outside the church there is no salvation) and
| that most Catholics of Aquinas's time would have believed
| an even strong version. This is not flame-baiting. It's a
| statement of Catholic doctrine that's been written on
| extensively for many years. IMO, he's just providing a
| factual background for Aquinas' worldview that anyone --
| Catholic or otherwise -- can use to interpret his
| philosophy however they want.
|
| I don't think this is flamebaiting personally, but maybe
| I have thick skin.
|
| The only thing he's 'wrong' about is that not every non-
| Catholic is considered a pagan. Some are schismatics or
| heretics. Again, that's not my opinion or his/her
| opinion. That's just a statement of what the church
| publicly proclaims to believe about non-catholics.
| dang wrote:
| There's no reason why a correct statement can't be
| flamebait. Frequently they are.
|
| The problem here isn't that the GP posted opinion rather
| than fact, or something like that; it's that the comment
| was a dramatic swerve into generic flamewar territory.
| More explanation if it helps: https://hn.algolia.com/?dat
| eRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Thank you. You read me correctly. To be fair to dang, my
| original comment had my personal opinion on dogma laced
| into it. I removed that portion.
|
| I hadn't felt I was launching into any arguments even
| with my opinion laced in, but it may also be that I don't
| tend to be patient with my wording. So what seems only
| matter-of-fact to me may come across more cold-hearted to
| others than I intended.
|
| Either way, I appreciate your insightful additions.
| You'll probably be more helpful on this subject already
| than I've been.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Dang, nothing I said was to instigate a flame war about
| religion. I think my comment history should speak for
| itself, there.
|
| I was defending my statement on Aquinas, and so I had to
| draw out the conclusion. I think that's fair.
|
| I never directed any remark at anyone's beliefs, so I
| think this is all heavy-handed, but just the same I
| removed the offending opinions and tuned my comment to
| suit HN's mode.
| dang wrote:
| I believe you about your intention, but we have to go by
| effects, not intentions [1]. What you posted was
| certainly a swerve into generic religious territory and
| the sort of thing that, based on experience, is likely to
| turn into a religious flamewar.
|
| The more important point here is that it's best to avoid
| generic tangents [2], especially on classic flamewar
| topics.
|
| [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=t
| rue&sor...
|
| [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=t
| rue&sor...
| xamuel wrote:
| >Aquinas reconciled some Aristotelian and Neoplatonic views
| with the Catholic Church
|
| I wonder if you might be mistaking Aquinas for Augustine?
| Augustine introduced huge amounts of Neoplatonism into
| Christianity very early---little more than a century after
| the original Neoplatonist, Plotinus himself. It's also
| worth noting that Plotinus was a disciple of the mysterious
| Ammonius Saccas, one of whose other disciples was none
| other than Origen, a very influential early Christian
| writer (albeit later considered a heretic).
| wolverine876 wrote:
| My understanding, which was never great and is
| imperfectly recalled:
|
| Augustine was the foundation of Neoplatonism in the
| Medieval church, which was it's guiding philosophy (to
| some great extent) for centuries.
|
| The works of Aristotle were lost to them. They knew of
| Aristotle but didn't have his writings. Around the time
| of Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle's works were rediscovered,
| having been preserved in the Muslim world. Aquinas' great
| task was reconciling them with the existing church.
| xamuel wrote:
| Augustine does explicitly reference Aristotle's
| "Categories" in his Confessions, I believe. Not sure what
| other material of Aristotle's was available to Augustine,
| I'm not a scholar on the subject. Of course, even to us
| today, many of Aristotle's works are STILL lost, so...
| trasz wrote:
| To put it bluntly: this...
|
| "So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it
| proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher
| science, namely, the science of God and the blessed"
|
| ... is, technically, BS. And pretty much all of Aquinas
| follows this pattern. Which was very highly regarded back
| then, but now we know better.
| danielam wrote:
| > ... is, technically, BS. And pretty much all of Aquinas
| follows this pattern. Which was very highly regarded back
| then, but now we know better.
|
| You seem confident in that assertion. Care to elaborate,
| preferably with examples/arguments?
|
| N.b., it's not the first time I've heard such a claim so
| boldly stated. Typically, dismissive attitudes toward
| Thomas are rooted in widespread misunderstanding about what
| he actually argued and on what basis. Feser, for example,
| recalls how he had held a caricaturish view of some of the
| most famous arguments Thomas put forth because those
| caricatures are what are often taught to students of
| philosophy nowadays, largely because the caricatures have
| become part of academic received wisdom, not necessarily
| because of some ill intent.
|
| None of this is to say that Thomas is infallible, just that
| he is a great teacher. Arguments that rely on the science
| of his day, for example, may require revision, but his
| philosophical synthesis, for example, is, at the VERY
| least, very defensible.
| slumdev wrote:
| The clarity of St. Thomas is incomprehensible to anyone
| raised in postmodernism and not educated in philosophy.
| huetius wrote:
| I'm not sure that's true. There is a certain strand in
| postmodernist/critical thought that, by consistently
| seeking to unmask power, recovers the perennial,
| "religious" questions. Some examples might include
| Horkheimer's later works, Simone Weil, or Habermas, who
| famously had an encounter with Pope Benedict XVI (then,
| Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) that caused him to reevaluate
| a lot of his views towards religious thought. I think
| Aquinas is also pretty accessible to the dedicated
| novice. Maybe you mean positivist instead of
| postmodernist? In that case, yeah, I'd agree.
| slumdev wrote:
| Postmodernist suppositions regarding power and ideology
| include an implicit assumption that absolute truth
| doesn't exist.
|
| That used to be called relativism.
|
| It's ad hominem at scale -- an attack on the institutions
| that produced centuries of good work rather than an
| honest confrontation of the work itself.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological
| tangents. The more generic they get, the more repetitive
| and tedious they are, and then they inevitably turn
| nasty.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&
| sor...
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&
| sor...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of
| other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us
| something._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Before immediately jumping to BS, it is sometimes
| illuminating to consider whether the words today may have
| changed meaning after centuries :)
| slumdev wrote:
| > Which was very highly regarded back then, but now we know
| better.
|
| Aquinas is still highly regarded. Virtually every
| philosophy department in the Western world still teaches
| him.
| Cybotron5000 wrote:
| Bertrand Russell on Thomas Aquinas: "There is little of
| the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like
| the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the
| argument may lead. He is not engaged in an enquiry, the
| result of which it is impossible to know in advance.
| Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the
| truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can
| find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the
| faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only
| fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a
| conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but
| special pleading." [History of Western Philosophy p. 453]
| cbfrench wrote:
| Of course, Anthony Kenny countered Russell's assertion by
| humorously noting, " It is extraordinary that that
| accusation should be made by Russell, who in the book
| _Principia Mathematica_ takes hundreds of pages to prove
| that two and two make four, which is something he had
| believed all his life" ( _Aquinas on Mind_ , 11).
|
| Russell also misunderstands much of Thomas's project in
| this quotation. To my knowledge, Thomas never claimed to
| be doing philosophy (at least not according to the modern
| understanding of it); most of his work is theology that
| happens to have philosophical implications. But as Thomas
| notes in the opening articles of the _Summa Theologica_ ,
| theology as a _scientia_ takes divine revelation as its
| first principles and makes rational deductions on the
| basis of that deposit of revelation. Importantly,
| however, it pursues its ends using particularly
| theological methods and criteria, some of which overlap
| with philosophical methods and criteria, while others do
| not.
|
| But the starting point of theology is Anselm's "Credo ut
| intelligam," not Descartes's Cogito. To imagine that
| theology is just some poorly-conducted version of
| philosophy is fundamentally a category error.
| Cybotron5000 wrote:
| Fascinating - thank you for the detailed reply. So I take
| it that theology, in your opinion at least/that of Thomas
| Aquinas's, need not make any rational sense whatsoever?
| It is more an affirmation/fiction that represents the
| authors' own intuitions about divine matters or perhaps a
| survey/study of previous hierology/sacred texts? Is an
| experience of personal revelation therefore necessary to
| study theology? Must a man believe in god to know
| anything of him? Augustine defined theologia as: "de
| divinitate rationem sive sermonem."/"reasoning or
| discussion concerning the Deity." - but he got the
| 'rationem' bit wrong? Aristotle must also have been
| misguided when he defined three aspects of theoretical
| philosophy: mathematics, physics and theology - or rather
| he meant metaphysics, as opposed to theology? Aquinas
| defines it as: '...what is taught by God, teaches of God
| and leads to God'? This seems much closer to what you are
| stating? A person must first believe, and then
| understanding (of the god that you already believe in?)
| will inevitably flow from that prior belief? Would you
| agree then with Thomas Paine: "The study of theology, as
| it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing;
| it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it
| proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can
| demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not
| anything can be studied as a science, without our being
| in possession of the principles upon which it is founded;
| and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is
| therefore the study of nothing." ...or Protagoras:
| "Concerning the gods I cannot know either that they exist
| or that they do not exist, or what form they might have,
| for there is much to prevent one's knowing: the obscurity
| of the subject and the shortness of man's life."
| ...understand that might be a bit heavy duty/tough ask
| for a HN comment :) ...but am genuinely interested if you
| can point me to further sources to read/help me
| understand Aquinas'/your ideas better...
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| https://alpheios.net/
|
| Is an open source project for making alignments like this. Great
| for learning and close inspection.
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| This reminds be of the "No Fear" series of classics which really
| helped me get into Shakespeare. What I usually do with stuff like
| this is read the original, read the translated/simplified
| version, and then finally read the original text again. I find
| that this method really helps both reinforce the meaning as well
| as appreciate the beauty of the original language.
| bombcar wrote:
| This is a working system used to produce
| https://aquinasinstitute.org/operaomnia/ - you can sometimes see
| changes made in real-time if you're observant.
| svat wrote:
| What are some other websites/resources like this? That is, ones
| that make a text easier to read, either with parallel translation
| or word lookup etc?
|
| Listing the ones I know (in no particular order, just a list I
| had collected a while ago):
|
| - Physical (print) books: Loeb Classical Library (Greek and
| Latin) https://www.loebclassics.com/, Clay Sanskrit Library
| (Sanskrit)
| http://www.claysanskritlibrary.org/volumes_current.php, Murty
| Classical Library of India (various languages)
| https://murtylibrary.com/volumes.php.
|
| - Perseus Hopper (Greek and Latin),
| https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/
|
| - Chinese Text Project (https://ctext.org/)
|
| - https://nodictionaries.com/ (Latin)
|
| - http://pseudw.herokuapp.com/iliad/books/1?start=500&end=589&...
| = https://github.com/nkallen/pseudw/ (Greek: The Iliad)
|
| - http://alpheios.net/ (Latin, Greek)
|
| - quran.com / legacy.quran.com / corpus.quran.com (The Quran:
| Arabic)
|
| - Dickinson College Commentaries (Latin) e.g.
| https://dcc.dickinson.edu/tacitus-agricola/1
|
| - "e-readers" under http://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/scl/ (Sanskrit)
|
| - Gita Supersite (Sanskrit) e.g.
| https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad?language=dv&fiel...
|
| - https://greenmesg.org/stotras/lakshmi/sri_suktam.php etc
| (Sanskrit)
|
| - No Fear Shakespeare (https://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/)
|
| - https://github.com/tasuki/side-by-side e.g.
| https://enchiridion.tasuki.org https://ttc.tasuki.org/
|
| - This one (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Pr.3)
|
| Of these, http://alpheios.net/ and
| https://github.com/tasuki/side-by-side are ones that allow you to
| build your own webpages / present your own texts. Are there more?
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Excellent. My Latin is crap these days, and if I had to read the
| original it would take an hour to get through a page with a
| dictionary open, but it's great to have the Latin right there if
| something in the English raises an eyebrow.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| This translation looks good from a quick scan. Reasonably
| faithful to the text of Aquinas without being unduly contorted
| to track the Latin structure. A nice effort!
| nerdponx wrote:
| It would be absolutely incredible to have a resource like The
| Latin Library (https://thelatinlibrary.com) with parallel
| translations.
| thwave wrote:
| Perseus Digital Library has a quite a few, in Greek as well.
| http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Pe.
| .. https://scaife.perseus.org/library/
| Finnucane wrote:
| Loebclassics.com, but requires subscription.
| wrycoder wrote:
| 170USD first year then 70 per year.
| tomcam wrote:
| It's time to go into the Latin business
| jcadam wrote:
| veritas
| PTOB wrote:
| Quid est veritas?
| fidesomnes wrote:
| Gratias tibi ago. Falsa doctrina oportet projecticius.
| arkj wrote:
| I found this curation of lectures
| https://aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/ (they are on apple
| podcast as well) very helpful to understand the thought of
| Aquinas. It's not like a typical course but collection of talks
| on aspects of Thomistic philosophy.
| TheFreim wrote:
| This is something I've wanted for so long! Amazing! Most sites
| hosting works such as those of St. Thomas Aquinas are often
| lacking, this looks great!
| hodgesrm wrote:
| Have you run across anything similar for Augustine? He is one
| of my favorite authors.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Wonderful!
| dantondwa wrote:
| I wish this existed for every philosopher. This is marvelous and
| an example of what I love about the Internet!
| agomez314 wrote:
| This is incredible! Great work!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-06 23:01 UTC)