home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Dude: Nate Silver

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Dude: Nate Silver

Person who renders all pundits, talking heads, and self-proclaimed experts useless
32
71%
NEEEEEEEEEEERDD!!!!
13
29%
 
Total votes : 45

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby matthew on Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:21 am

Gramsci wrote:
As for Taleb, his schtick is "never discount anything" based on a very long term view of history and he is deeply distrustful of any "predictive science", especially Economics. I've read all his books and listened to a lot of interviews with him. He is a partial elitist dipshit and oddly enough self describes as a conservative (small c) leftist.

The disagreement Taleb has is with the idea of predictive science in general, not individual results.


I've read some of Taleb and I largely agree with his anti-economist economics, though his philosophical foundation leaves room for a lot of questions in that they are ultimately Kantian (but that's neither here nor there. I'm a mere realist who excised myself from Kant.).

Anyway...he has a point about predictability. It's been an ongoing debate within the philosophy of science for decades. I side with him in that debate in that I think that predictability is not a prerequisite for all sciences. That said, I question the legitimacy of probability studies as a science in the first place.
...diesque nostros in tua pace disponas...
User avatar
matthew
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:38 pm
Location: Gens non sancta.

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Gramsci on Wed Nov 16, 2016 2:10 pm

Anthony Flack wrote:Maybe it really was highly unlikely.


The point we see from polls is that they are not nearly as predictive as pollsters would have you think.
clocker bob may 30, 2006 wrote:I think the possibility of interbreeding between an earthly species and an extraterrestrial species is as believable as any other explanation for the existence of George W. Bush.
User avatar
Gramsci
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10682
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:43 am
Location: The People's Republic

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby joelb on Wed Nov 16, 2016 2:45 pm

Gramsci wrote:
Anthony Flack wrote:Maybe it really was highly unlikely.


The point we see from polls is that they are not nearly as predictive as pollsters would have you think.


I still don't get this discussion. Silver gave Trump 28% the night before the election. He was talking regularly up to election day about the lack of recent polling in MI and WI and trying to make sense in a vacuum. He was giving Trump nearly even chances in FL and NC. He predicted Clinton winning the popular which she did. PA seems the most egregious example of being off but the rest not so much.

Saying "The odds are that Clinton will win" is a helluva lot different than saying "Clinton will replicate recent polling data." Silver said the former not the latter. I don't always think people want to hear this.

Bottom line 28 percent is a lot. A lot of things had to break Trump's way and they did.
DrAwkward wrote:If SKID ROW likes them enough to take them on tour, they must have something going on, right?
joelb
tired of birds
tired of birds
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:16 pm
Location: City by the sea

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Anthony Flack on Wed Nov 16, 2016 2:53 pm

I think a lot of people see something like "20% chance to win" and think that means "no chance to win". The reality was it was extremely close and Trump only just squeaked in.

I think Clinton is right, in a way, to say the Comey letters cost her the election at the last minute. Which is outrageous, but the polls showed a huge swing from that. Exit polls said most people claimed to have already made up their mind before the Comey letters, but if you can't trust a poll to tell you what people think right now, I would put even less faith in a poll that tells you what people retrospectively claim they were thinking weeks ago which is different to what they said at the time.

I think it's equally true to say Clinton lost the election herself before it even began, by taking all that speech money. And several other factors, ALL of which combined into a perfect storm that narrowly pushed Trump over the top.
Anthony Flack
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9595
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:27 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby jbrobertson on Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:26 pm

Anthony Flack wrote:I think a lot of people see something like "20% chance to win" and think that means "no chance to win". The reality was it was extremely close and Trump only just squeaked in.

I think Clinton is right, in a way, to say the Comey letters cost her the election at the last minute. Which is outrageous, but the polls showed a huge swing from that. Exit polls said most people claimed to have already made up their mind before the Comey letters, but if you can't trust a poll to tell you what people think right now, I would put even less faith in a poll that tells you what people retrospectively claim they were thinking weeks ago which is different to what they said at the time.

I think it's equally true to say Clinton lost the election herself before it even began, by taking all that speech money. And several other factors, ALL of which combined into a perfect storm that narrowly pushed Trump over the top.


Exactly. Quite a few people, including many journalists who should know better, seem to misunderstand how statistical forecasting works. Forecasters look at hundreds or thousands of possible futures and make their predictions based on that. When Nate Silver says that Trump has a 28% chance to win, he means that in 1,000 possible futures, Trump wins in 280 of them. Seems pretty high to me.

Who hasn't gotten wet on a day the forecast gave a 30% chance of rain?

The freak storm that hit the UK a while back did not cause any UK meteorologists to change their forecasting methods. Their methods were sound and based on the available data, they made the right call. As you say, people make the mistake of thinking "unlikely" means "impossible." Also, "accurate" does not mean "perfect" or "infallible." Silver makes mathematical, not psychic, predictions. Further, as he says in the On the Media interview, the polling data he had to work with was not as good this year.

What we saw may indeed have been the Perfect Shitstorm.

If Silver can be blamed for anything, it may be that he should have done a better job educating the public about the true nature of statistical prediction and making clear that the polling data was not as good this year.

Finally, as I wrote above, it seems likely that the poll numbers and forecasts could have convinced at least some people that they didn't need to vote, which could have flipped the election by itself. Hard to account for these kinds of attitudes in a forecast.
jbrobertson
envoy
envoy
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Gramsci on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:07 am

joelb wrote:
Gramsci wrote:
Anthony Flack wrote:Maybe it really was highly unlikely.


The point we see from polls is that they are not nearly as predictive as pollsters would have you think.


I still don't get this discussion. Silver gave Trump 28% the night before the election. He was talking regularly up to election day about the lack of recent polling in MI and WI and trying to make sense in a vacuum. He was giving Trump nearly even chances in FL and NC. He predicted Clinton winning the popular which she did. PA seems the most egregious example of being off but the rest not so much.

Saying "The odds are that Clinton will win" is a helluva lot different than saying "Clinton will replicate recent polling data." Silver said the former not the latter. I don't always think people want to hear this.

Bottom line 28 percent is a lot. A lot of things had to break Trump's way and they did.


Here's a discussion about Taleb vs Silver:

https://www.quora.com/Whats-Nassim-Tale ... at-he-does

Which gets rather granular here:

https://mishtalk.com/2016/08/07/nassim- ... of-tweets/

At the root Taleb's problem is some making money as a Probability Sage. I listened to all of the 538 podcasts during the cycle. Silver was consistently way off during the Republican primary regarding Trump's chances, as we almost everyone. The actual race between HRC and Trump was almost entirely focused on how much she would win by, even when it was getting 50-50%.

That said Silver and team covered their asses with the occasion mention that Trump could win, but it was highly unlikely. In the end his model was way off compared to his near perfect predictions on 2008. Silver has rarely had the same level of success predicting since that election making it seem that was more a fluke than anything else. Remember that Silver was once lauded as a predictor, not wobbly probably wonk. To his credit since his accuracy decline since 2008 he has rebranded 538 as more about probability than prediction. Maybe it's just the media that haven't caught up.

What good is predictive analytics if they don't actually predict anything?
clocker bob may 30, 2006 wrote:I think the possibility of interbreeding between an earthly species and an extraterrestrial species is as believable as any other explanation for the existence of George W. Bush.
User avatar
Gramsci
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10682
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:43 am
Location: The People's Republic

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Parbuckle on Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:45 pm

Anthony Flack wrote:I have been looking at those numbers all week thinking "30% = extremely fucking possible". Russian roulette with two bullets.

Yep.

joelb wrote:
Gramsci wrote:
Anthony Flack wrote:Maybe it really was highly unlikely.


The point we see from polls is that they are not nearly as predictive as pollsters would have you think.


I still don't get this discussion. Silver gave Trump 28% the night before the election...Bottom line 28 percent is a lot.

Yep.

Anthony Flack wrote:I think a lot of people see something like "20% chance to win" and think that means "no chance to win".

Yep.

jbrobertson wrote:Quite a few people, including many journalists who should know better, seem to misunderstand how statistical forecasting works. Forecasters look at hundreds or thousands of possible futures and make their predictions based on that. When Nate Silver says that Trump has a 28% chance to win, he means that in 1,000 possible futures, Trump wins in 280 of them. Seems pretty high to me.

Who hasn't gotten wet on a day the forecast gave a 30% chance of rain?

The freak storm that hit the UK a while back did not cause any UK meteorologists to change their forecasting methods. Their methods were sound and based on the available data, they made the right call. As you say, people make the mistake of thinking "unlikely" means "impossible." Also, "accurate" does not mean "perfect" or "infallible." Silver makes mathematical, not psychic, predictions. Further, as he says in the On the Media interview, the polling data he had to work with was not as good this year.

What we saw may indeed have been the Perfect Shitstorm.

If Silver can be blamed for anything, it may be that he should have done a better job educating the public about the true nature of statistical prediction and making clear that the polling data was not as good this year.

Finally, as I wrote above, it seems likely that the poll numbers and forecasts could have convinced at least some people that they didn't need to vote, which could have flipped the election by itself. Hard to account for these kinds of attitudes in a forecast.

Exactly.

Gramsci wrote:To [Silver's] credit since his accuracy decline since 2008 he has rebranded 538 as more about probability than prediction.

There's really no difference between "probability" and "prediction". I suppose you could say that "probability" refers to the numbers themselves (usually expressed as percentages) and "prediction" puts the same information into everyday language. For example:

Probability: Clinton 80% Trump 20%

Prediction: Clinton is very likely to win, but a Trump win is not impossible.

The moment you make a statement of what you believe the probabilities are, you are in effect making a prediction.

Whilst I can claim no great insight into the specifics of the recent election (being English/British/European I found the whole thing depressing enough at a distance), I'm inclined to think the "failure" of the pollsters can be attributed at least as much to the public's misunderstanding of them as to the pollsters themselves (as more than one FM that I've quoted above has effectively said).
Paragraph Eleven, Confirm
Parbuckle
pres. laura roslin
pres. laura roslin
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:28 pm
Location: Turn left at Europe

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Big John on Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:36 pm

I saw a lot of polls that seem to be below the bar of what would have been considered in the past as being a big enough sampling group. These polls seemed to use under sampling and then a math model on top of that to correct the results.

The difficulty is that a "under-sampled" poll a traditional poll would have thousands of people usually between 5 and 10K or more giving you a pretty good sample of each state. All states and regions would be covered and you would not have to model above that if you had the phone numbers, population and voting districts worked out right. This was the standard practice after the Truman election where the straw polls had shown Dewey leading and caused a number of polling operations to go out of business. So there were fewer pools with bigger sampling numbers based more accurate US sampling models.

So a polls a lot of which seemed to be below a thousand in some cases a hundred (for who won the debates the next morning). The problem becomes what corrective math you use on top of the under sampling. It is apparent that the polling operations corrective math skewed the underlying data that was too small of a sampling group to self correct. Thus 40% leads for Hillary two weeks before the election.

Silver does not create his own data but compiles others polls so his special math sauce could not correct for the English put on the under sampled polls by the pollsters corrective math.
User avatar
Big John
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
 
Posts: 4395
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby joelb on Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:25 pm

Gramsci wrote:
joelb wrote:
Bottom line 28 percent is a lot. A lot of things had to break Trump's way and they did.


Here's a discussion about Taleb vs Silver:

https://www.quora.com/Whats-Nassim-Tale ... at-he-does

Which gets rather granular here:

https://mishtalk.com/2016/08/07/nassim- ... of-tweets/

At the root Taleb's problem is some making money as a Probability Sage. I listened to all of the 538 podcasts during the cycle. Silver was consistently way off during the Republican primary regarding Trump's chances, as we almost everyone. The actual race between HRC and Trump was almost entirely focused on how much she would win by, even when it was getting 50-50%.

That said Silver and team covered their asses with the occasion mention that Trump could win, but it was highly unlikely. In the end his model was way off compared to his near perfect predictions on 2008. Silver has rarely had the same level of success predicting since that election making it seem that was more a fluke than anything else. Remember that Silver was once lauded as a predictor, not wobbly probably wonk. To his credit since his accuracy decline since 2008 he has rebranded 538 as more about probability than prediction. Maybe it's just the media that haven't caught up.

What good is predictive analytics if they don't actually predict anything?


I forgot about this thread. Thanks for those links, they are really helpful as I did not follow all of Silver's podcasts or the debate among statisticians. As I understand Taleb's point, it is that the outcome of the election is so unpredictable outside of a couple weeks before as to be effectively random. If that's what he's saying, I don't agree. I do agree that there is a chance of an event close to the election that swings turnout or voter choice in a way that can change the result. But I don't know what the odds are of such an event occurring.

Isn't this claim, though, in direct conflict with the black swan concept? If a black swan is by definition not predictable, then a forecast should simply be able to posit that a chance of a random event exists, and that this cannot be incorporated into the probability. If you start saying you expect black swans so the election outcome is not predictable, then the black swan is no longer black.

I am NOT a statistician, obviously.
DrAwkward wrote:If SKID ROW likes them enough to take them on tour, they must have something going on, right?
joelb
tired of birds
tired of birds
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:16 pm
Location: City by the sea

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby matthew on Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:05 am

I think I've got Nate Silver's Trump blunder figured out!

He didn't heed the wisdom of a folksy Catholic bishop who, among other things, alluded to how and why the Literary Digest totally missed the mark on the results of the presidential election of 1936.

This was in the 1950's. How prophetic. Nothing new under the sun, and what a short memory so many people have.
...diesque nostros in tua pace disponas...
User avatar
matthew
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:38 pm
Location: Gens non sancta.

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Mason on Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:17 pm

matthew wrote:I think I've got Nate Silver's Trump blunder figured out!

He didn't heed the wisdom of a folksy Catholic bishop—


I can't stop thinking about how good this is. Incredible idea, expressed perfectly. Diction, timing, holy shit.
Marsupialized wrote:'It's very important for men in bands together to French kiss, every day, even if they don't feel like it'
User avatar
Mason
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
 
Posts: 5074
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:42 pm

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby matthew on Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:48 pm

A_Man_Who_Tries wrote:Answer Boombats, Matthew.


Mason wrote:...Diction...


I'm quite good with dictioning.

Wait for it. Get it? Got it? Good.

Have a happy Lenten season.
...diesque nostros in tua pace disponas...
User avatar
matthew
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:38 pm
Location: Gens non sancta.

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Clyde on Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:29 am

Nate Silver has fully transitioned* from a stats guy to a insufferable centrist pundit guy with Beltway approved "but how will this play in Peoria?" takes. He's barely distinguishable from Chris Cillizza.




*Or was he always this way?
NewDarkAge wrote:Dialectics, mate. No easy answers.
Clyde
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Life

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Andrew. on Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:22 pm

Thought I remembered posting in this poll and randomly clicked page 4 and found it.



I've always thought he was a status-quo centrist creep at heart but some people love them some horse race data analysis. I assume there's crossover fans with traders and numbers guys who loved The West Wing. But these are only biases and impressions of mine. No data to back them up.
User avatar
Andrew.
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 pm

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Clyde on Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:36 am

I'm not a data guy so I can't say whether his methodology is sound. I remember that he got the 2008 and 2012 elections results almost exactly but I also don't know if that was remarkable in itself or if it was in line with other pollsters. Similarly, I don't recall if his predictions were better or worse than other people's in 2016. (Other than the master, Carl Diggler.)
But whatever the issues with his methods are, his whole spiel was that punditry was bad and people should look at the numbers themselves. Which is fine, as far as things go. One could argue that doing things that way stops privileging bullshit narratives and beltway consensus. But now 10 years later compare this

In 2020, Sanders won't benefit from those low expectations. He may not be the frontrunner in the race, but he absolutely -- if polling is to be believed -- starts in the top tier. Sanders has never been a frontrunner sort of guy, so this will all be new to him. He will no longer get credit for leaping over low expectations. In fact, he is much more likely to struggle with high expectations. What happens, for instance, if polling this fall shows Sanders in sixth place in Iowa? Or third place in New Hampshire? How does he and his campaign react to that?... There is zero question that Sanders has already had a profound impact on the Democratic Party -- even if he's not technically been a Democrat all that time. In 2016, Clinton laughed at Sanders' "Medicare for all" proposal. Now it is the default position of the 2020 frontrunners -- with only Biden resistant to endorsing it.
But Sanders won't have the liberal lane to himself in this race like he did in 2016. In fact, the liberal lane is stuffed full of candidates -- all of whom sound a hell of a lot like Sanders on policy. (This is not an accident.) Can Sanders win on a well-yeah-but-I-was-here-first argument? Or does he need something more, something beyond the ideas that energized his 2016 campaign? In interviews setting up this second candidacy, Sanders sounds exactly like he did in 2016: "Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice," he said on Tuesday. Is that enough for voters with a lot more choices this time around?
]

and this

One year-ish ago, I thought Sanders was the frontrunner in a crowded Democratic field, but since then I've grown more pessimistic about his chances. I don't want to overcorrect too much though and think he still has a viable path. IMO the viable path probably involves the field remaining relatively divided. In that scenario, his high and loyal floor of support, his $$$ (powered by small donors), his experience (may be only 2020 candidate to have run before) with delegate rules etc, could be big advantages. What I've grown pessimistic about is his ability to unite the different factions/coalitions of the Democratic Party. He doesn't seem that interested in doing so, and polling shows he's a tough sell for some Ds. That's how nominations are *usually* won, through coalition-building. In some ways, the question is: if Bernie just did what he does 4 years ago, will it work? The optimist's case would be pretty Occam's Razor-y: He was 2nd place last time—and the 1st-place candidate isn't running. And the party is moving to the left. So…why not? But there are a lot of things that are more difficult than 4 years ago, by far the most obvious of which is that there's *much* more competition, including specifically on the left. At 77, his age is a bigger concern. And there are fewer caucuses than in 2016. Bernie's coalition is likely to be a bit different geographically in 2020, with the #NeverHillary vote divided between several different candidates. In particular, #NeverHillary voters helped him in Appalachia, and in the Western caucus states. Those aren't hugely delegate-rich areas. But it does mean that Bernie will have to hit his marks in his other strong areas, e.g. New England and the Upper Midwest. He and Klobuchar, although very different ideologically, are fighting for some of the same geographic territory.


The first one is CNN's political analyst and grade-A dum-dum Chris Cillizza and the second one is numbers guy Nate Silver. Okay, so Silver's writing is not as boneheaded as Cillizza's and he seems more thoughtful overall but what they are saying is essentially the same; they're the same kind of banal observations that anyone could make and which serve no other purpose than to gab on about the "horse race."
NewDarkAge wrote:Dialectics, mate. No easy answers.
Clyde
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Life

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Wood Goblin on Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:01 am

Punditry has never been Silver’s strong suit, and his Sanders piece is pretty banal—stuff to fill column space during a period of little statistics activity. He has a point about caucuses, but that’s about the only item of value in that excerpt.

By and large, people who ignore him fall victim to their own selectivity. As in, I’m not particularly interested in the opinions of people who (a) think Silver is useless but (b) tout recent polls as evidence of their preferred candidate’s popularity.

(I’m not accusing Andrew of this. I don’t think he does this.)
User avatar
Wood Goblin
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6065
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:43 pm
Location: South Loop, Chicago

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Clyde on Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:22 pm

Wood Goblin wrote:Punditry has never been Silver’s strong suit, and his Sanders piece is pretty banal—stuff to fill column space during a period of little statistics activity. He has a point about caucuses, but that’s about the only item of value in that excerpt.


He does it more than occasionally, though. Just one example-he wrote a big long thing about Amy Klobuchar about a week ago. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/am ... n-kickoff/). The phrases "retail approach to politics" is used and he has a whole section on "beer track vs wine track" that was straight-up embarrassing. He threw some stats in there too but the final analysis was no different than the kind of dull op-ed The Washington Post puts out twice a week. He's either cynically or sincerely using his bona fides to draw conclusions that any hack could make, and neither scenario fills me with confidence about his project.
NewDarkAge wrote:Dialectics, mate. No easy answers.
Clyde
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Life

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Andrew. on Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:02 pm

If normative status-quo horse-race data diddling is your hobby, I guess that's fine. But let's be clear that's this guy's gig. And if he's gotta throw some totally unscientific polls up on Twitter and generate some graphs from them along with some snappy self-aware commentary over 1,500 words, that's just daily content at fivethirtyeight dot com. You gotta have regular content after all. Sling that 'tent, as Scott Auckerman says.

Some dudes play video games and some watch UFC and some keep up with Nate Silver. It's just kind of useless shit that dudes do imho.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is ... nderrated/
User avatar
Andrew.
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 pm

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Andrew. on Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:12 am

Zero percent surprised that this shill uses his platform to hate on Bernie.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 4000327680

https://twitter.com/sexyfacts4u/status/ ... 3605550081
User avatar
Andrew.
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 pm

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby andteater on Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:54 am

The way that Bernie twitter reacts to any commentary on him blows me away. The worst Napoleon Complex defensive weirdos crying about everything. If you're all so secure that Bernie is, in fact, the front runner, the most popular candidate, etc. then why the fuck do you care about what Nate Silver says?

pathetic.
User avatar
andteater
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 1:29 pm
Location: pilsen

PreviousNext

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nihil, Redline and 11 guests