|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #8615 on CommentsLevel 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
OfflineSend mail to tinywerewolf Block tinywerewolf Invite tinywerewolf to be your friend flag avatar
latest user's comments
|#19 - I'm sorry [+] (143 new replies)||08/04/2014 on Glorious Nippon Steel||+82|
#149 - owemiegawd (08/05/2014) [-]
katana is slicing sword not chopping sword. also, fixing a swod to a pedestal put most of the force of the impact on the pedestal. to properly test which is better you need two swords men of equal skill in the respective blades to swing at one another in a way that the swords connect
#125 - shinote (08/05/2014) [-]
*********To all you noobs fighting over this shit*****
Also, quick sidenote on the whole katana vs longsword BS.
Katana's were meant to be used against soldiers who were AT BEST armored in LEATHER & maybe a few bits of IRON mixed in. It was meant for cutting & slashing of flesh, and some light armors.
The longsword was meant to be used against STEEL PLATED KNIGHTS. It's job was primarily to be heavy, sturdy, and to cause BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA, not to actually cut.
Comparing the two, is like comparing a gun to a knife. They are two completely different swords, meant to fulfill entirely different combat rolls, and they were made it completely different eras.
#187 - angelusprimus (08/05/2014) [-]
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Please, if you have no idea of the topic, keep your mouth shut.
First, japanese weren't idiots, they were well armored.
Do armor was a chest plate, made of leather OR iron and they had it as far as fifth century. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/KofunCuirass.jpg
Kusazuri and sode, were metal or leather plates on shoudlers and covering the upper legs. thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mWeBpTz1OyKxlDuD5RGRCWw.jpg not to mention that japanese were fully familiar in making chainmail, which they called kusari.
Japanese samurai were very well armored, katana was used to cut at unarmored parts, and it was very good at it. www.pynprice.com/files/oferte/54/7/antique-edo-period-1800s-samurai-123140.jpg
And thing you wrote about the european swords is just so ignorant its hard to even know where to begin.
Swords were light cutting weapons. European longsword weighted between 2.5 and 3.5 lbs. They were cutting but more then that they were THRUSTING weapons. The goal of the knight combat was to drop the opponent on their back, and then thrust the sword through lighter armored parts putting your weight behind it.
Even the large one and half hand swords rarely weighted over 4.5 lbs.
Swords were NEVER made to be blunt force trauma weapons. Ever.
tl;dr shut up noob, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about and literally everything you said was wrong.
#200 - angelusprimus (08/05/2014) [-]
I posted a link on a lecture made by world's leading expert on medieval weapons technology.
I've spent last 12 years as a member of ARMA reading everything from Oakeshott to actual preserved texts.
I can get sources to everything I said. (which I actually have) I can actually back up everything I say.
So unless you have a legitimate way to prove I am wrong, you shut the fuck up you ignorant idiot.
#208 - angelusprimus (08/05/2014) [-]
So guy calls people noobs, posts a post that is literally wrong about every single thing.
I post a reply, with sources and proof of what I'm saying, but I'm arrogant and therefore I should be downvoted, and a guy who wrote things that are completely wrong in every possible way should be upvoted?
Wow, FJ logic...
#111 - kaisermike (08/05/2014) [-]
To everyone trying to defend the Katana, the katana is a sword designed to be used against similar weapons, it had never encountered nothing but other katanas, whereas any european sword had to deal with a larger variety of weapons, henceforth becoming more balanced, since the katana can only do two things right, stab and cut, while an european sword can do both quite well, and parry, and block slashes.
#68 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
Bigger sword = stronger sword
Hell, an old, iron, viking sword (one of their first "swords" which were pretty much bars of iron used as clubs) would probably break a katana. Katanas were used against wooden/bamboo armor, and even then it was best to hit between armor pieces. Samurai duels were either fast, insta kills or hours of dueling. European swords could have been anything from giant, two handed behemoths or small dueling foils. The bigger swords? They went against steel armor. Layers and layers of metal and leather. Knights had three or more layers of armor at a time, Plate, Chain Mail, and Leather. Katanas were shit, and were used against shit armor. A Samurai wouldn't last 10 second against a knight.
#188 - angelusprimus (08/05/2014) [-]
Not completely correct.
Good hardened steel of renaissance era would break or heavily damage a norman broadsword. Because of quality of metals. Even though broadsword would be thicker and bigger.
Not to mention advantages in balance and force distribution blacksmiths made in 300 years.
#118 - quiescat (08/05/2014) [-]
the part that always kills me about all this. katanas are originally made from what most of Europe would call pig iron which is total shit for weapons as i understand it bronze works out better but it a bit heavy, what the katana making process did was turn shit metal into a functional metal. now you take that same broad sword and forge it out of pig iron and you have a giant lump of brittle crap. Europe had better steel just in general and imports from the middle east improved metal working in the area.
when you take both syles of sword and forge them both out of modern steel its hardly a shock the bigger chunk of metal preforms better under stress tests. i bet a crowbar would fuck up both of them( not that it matters gun powder master race )
as to the samurai vs knight debate i think your assuming a duel or some shit, samurai used spears and bows more then any thing; the mongols proved time and time again they could wreak face heavy armor or not using just that.
but that is a long drawn out debate that would require setting time periods because the armor a knight used circa 1100s of say the Norman invasion of england vs say the 1400s of something like the hundred years war leaves a large gap in what a "knight" might be wearing. the same is true for the samurai which did end up with plate armor to attempt to counter act guns later on and failed just like knights.
#139 - norkas (08/05/2014) [-]
Well, they wouldn't be, for the record. European plate was quite lighter than one might expect still heavy and the weight was spread out and jointed to allow the wearer easy movement. One could do cartwheels in European plate. The armour Samurai wore was about twice as heavy because of how ornamental it was.
#236 - tkfourtwoone (08/05/2014) [-]
So you're telling me that momentum isn't a bigger issue in European plate armors than the bamboo armor of the Samurais?...
I was also talking about the speed of the Samurais strikes, you know damn well they trained themselves to perfection to deliver lightning-fast slashes.
#255 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
Right. Lighting fast strikes, leaving small, completely superficial scratches on the knights armor. Then the knight cuts the samurai in half while he's looking at his freshly shattered "Glorious Nippon Steel". There's a reason a lot of japanese soldiers switched to pole arms and firearms.
#174 - anonymous (08/05/2014) [-]
This won't even put a dent on modern tanks.
The Anti-"Tank" bit is a little confusing. While it won't do anything to a tank, the round will go through an IFV for example.
#183 - anonymous (08/05/2014) [-]
You shoot it at the tracks and other weaker parts of the tanks like periscopes or eye slits.
Imagine some retard trying to use a .50 to punch directly through a tank's armor, that shit's laughable.
#195 - bestfoxgirl (08/05/2014) [-]
It cut through light tanks like butter at the very beginning of WWII (Invasion of Poland- they were the first to have and use this weapon).
Ofc later it became just a weap for weak spots as tanks 'grew' at least 4 times in size when it comes to armor, but at the very beginning (where tanks weren't that sturdy) it was a deadly weapon.
#95 - cdlight (08/05/2014) [-]
shut up dummy its not some regular forged sword. its bent so many times that all the layers structrurally re-inforce the edge, and a REALLY good one has its magnetic center right at the edge. and that technique was perfected hundreds of years ago, so don't be a noob. a cast sword does not hold up to par to a REAL katana. youre like the God-bashing bandwagoners, you just talk shit without even knowing wtf you speak of.
#142 - norkas (08/05/2014) [-]
European swords were made from superior metal and were built with more efficient, simpler techniques. Japanese iron was essentially sand and swordsmiths had to fold the metal to get rid of excess carbon, making a sword which... was weaker that a sword made anywhere on the mainland.
ur a faget
#90 - anonymous (08/05/2014) [-]
#49 - thechosentroll (08/05/2014) [-]
This is what I love about medieval european engineering. If the japanese had problems with a weapon, they came up with complex forging techniques used to make higher-quality swords. Meanwhile, we were just "Make it bigger". When the sword wasn't enough, they made the bastard sword. When that wans't enough they made the longsword. When that wasn't enough, they made the greatsword. When that wasn't enough, they made the claymore. Have you fucking seen a claymore? That shit wasn't even used to kill humans, they just swung it and chopped charging horses' legs off.
#121 - phantomeins (08/05/2014) [-]
Swords got bigger and smaller at the same time. Viking swords were wider than late period longswords, but they were also shorter. The renaissance came and firearms started being used, rapiers and sideswords started being made; but we also got zweihanders and flammenschwerts to deal with pikes
Swords and armor Someone's coming at you in full plate? You have a sword out? Don't go through it, go around it. Half sword and stab into places like the inside of a gauntlet, back of the knee, armpit, visor, neck. But swords weren't a primary weapon, and percussion weapons were the more common weapons used to fight armor
Smashing weapons and armor Not using a sword? Bash his head in. Maces, poleaxes/polehammers, warhammers - they could incapacitate an armoured opponent if they got a good hit in. Even the pommel of a sword could work, some longsword guards and pommels were hardened, and there are examples of the crossguard and pommel being spiked slightly to emulate a flanged mace.
Grappling and armor Or if you were feeling brave, you could try and disarm him and lead into a grapple. A treatise I read a while back describes a judicial duel between two people. Both were given full plate, a poleaxe, longsword, and a dagger. One duelist didn't swing his weapon. He threw his poleaxe at his opponent, closed a bit and threw the longsword, then drew the dagger, tackled the opponent while he was recovering, and stabbed him through the visor.
I really shouldn't type this much out, I doubt anybody on here really cares
#242 - phantomeins (08/05/2014) [-]
Looked it over closer, you're right about vikings not being around, but there was still pattern welded iron around 700 BC, which was around 2000 years before japan
My main point was that the japanese weren't the first to use pattern welding, and they weren't the only ones to do it. I've seen a lot of people say that they created it and were the only ones to ever do it.
Damascus steel was wootz steel, a very high carbon ingot of steel that had to be forged at a very low temperature. It's different from pattern welding in that the components melted completely, rather then getting to a very high heat then being forge welded together like other steels of the time.
#272 - icedcarbon (08/05/2014) [-]
It's annoying to hear that as much as hearing those people saying the japanese were the 1st to put iron sights on the guns when in fact Portugal already had them when they presented their arms. Several arquebuses made in all over europe before 1540s already had iron sights.
#247 - phantomeins (08/05/2014) [-]
scholagladiatoria and skallagrim know a lot about medieval weapons.
Lindybeige knows quite a bit, but he's more experienced with bronze age weapons than with steel, a lot of his points come from him holding a weapon and how they feel to him
There's a few sparring videos I like, but don't really follow the full channel
#129 - anonymous (08/05/2014) [-]
Vikings, Celts, and other dark age civilizations were forge welding swords with the same technique around 2000 years before them.
gg no re, and he could have been referring to dem scandinavians.
#130 - Kairyuka (08/05/2014) [-]
Whomever he's referencing, the vikings did not exist BC. And folding has been used many places before it came to Japan, nobody claimed they invented it. Damascus steel, as I remember, used this technique as well as unique metals. I believe Japan got the technique from China who probably got it from further inland.
#237 - Kairyuka (08/05/2014) [-]
"Vikings (from Old Norse víkingr) were Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Scandinavian homelands across wide areas of northern and central Europe, as well as European Russia, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries"
For Asugar and Bigmanblue.
Literally the first thing it says about vikings. You guys are retarded
#98 - cdlight (08/05/2014) [-]
a real katana's edge IS the magnetic center of the blade, and the edge is held by hundreds of folds in the metal, and the technique was perfected hundreds of years ago. a cheap katana you buy today doesn't even compare to a REAL katana, let alone the lame cast iron bullshit. all you uneducated fools need to wake up. seriously
#70 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
Samurai: Wooden/bamboo armor, leather padding, wooden flip flops.
Small, thin, steel sword.
Knight: Inch thick steel armor, heavy steel chain mail, thick leather armor, silk undershirt.
Giant metal and wood tower shield, thick, heavy longsword.
Samurai would be faster, yes, but he couldn't do anything but nick the Knights armor a little. He wouldn't run because of honor and shit, so the knight would hack him in half in a couple seconds. If the Samurai had shit luck, he'd be facing a knight that had a mace or something, so he'd just be beaten into what resembles chili con carne.
Hell, the Samurai got their asses handed to them by farmers with repurposed farming equipment.
#151 - owemiegawd (08/05/2014) [-]
samurai: 40+ year of extensive master in respective sword
fast agile movement with stamina through the roof
reflexes that could catch a fly with chopsticks
knight: plate Armour god against smashing and slashing (not stabbing)
opening in Armour at neck face backs of knees, inside face of elbows, groin.
Armour is heavy, hot, loud, face cover causes low visability. cant get up if knocked down
given the knight is still a strong warrior i think in a one on one battle between the two. the samuri would exploit the openings in his armour and his speed
#253 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
And the only openings are slits in the faceplate. Given the difference in size and stature, the Samurai would have to hold the sword practically above his head at a horizontal angle to get at those. And at about the same time he did that, the knight would promptly remove the Samurai's arms.
#252 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
Samurai weren't that good. They could pull a sword out of its sheath faster than a lot of people can see, and that's usually all they needed. Katana's are slashing instruments. Meaning they won't do shit against plate armor. And couldn't stab worth a damn.
You're putting a man with wooden armor and an oversized straight razor against a medieval tank. All the knight had to do was connect once, and he'd have all day since they're trained to fight quite literally from sunrise to sunset in thick, heavy, steel armor that is thicker and stronger than japanese weapons, followed by even more armor.
#112 - phantomeins (08/05/2014) [-]
Armor wasn't an inch thick, longswords aren't any heavier than katanas and in some cases are thinner. Full plate pretty much makes a shield pointless in melee environments, you wouldn't wear leather armor under plate and mail. Mail and plate, in a bundle, would be incredibly heavy. But once you have it on correctly it's not that bad.
A knight's full equipment isn't that heavy, in most cases they're carrying less weight than a firefighter or someone in the military and it's distributed across the entire body - you can do cartwheels, sit ups, push ups and so on in full plate.
#251 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
Knights would have a hard time moving if they were off their horse. I was exaggerating on the thickness of the plate, but it was still pretty fucking thick. And metal is far heavier than kevlar, and chain mail alone is heavier than a firefighters suit, not counting the extra equipment which is probably heavy as fuck. And modern soldiers have to carry lots of extra shit from extra ammo to their first aid kit. All knights had to carry was the armor on their back and the weapons in their hands.
Armor was strong back then, but it wasn't that strong. Metal deflected blows, but a direct blow from a broadsword could shear at least the first layer but would most likely be stopped by the chain mail. Meaning it's likely bones would break. This is why they'd use shields. They'd also be used to knock spears away and could be used to stop arrows, but european archers would fire in volleys, so there would most likely be too many arrows to block all of them.
#254 - phantomeins (08/05/2014) [-]
You can't cut through hardened steel. It's not possible at all, even modern bandsaws won't do anything to it. Cutting steel is hard, you anneal the metal before doing anything with it or else you'll end up with a dull sawblade and a few scratches on the metal your cutting.
There was no way to cut through plate armor at that time, that's why halfswording was used to get around the plate and thrust into less protected areas like the inside of a gauntlet, back of the knee, armpit, visor, neck. But swords weren't a primary weapon, and percussion weapons were the more common weapons used to fight armor. You don't try to break bones with a sword, that's a stupid idea. A sword is balanced near the hilt to let you maneuver it around.
This is how you fought armor when you had a sword
If you think you can't halfsword without cutting your hands
If you try and fight a guy halfswording and you're trying to brute force your way through and cut through his armor you'll just get killed
#262 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
I'm seeing some pretty bad technique from the ones not half-swording. They're throwing their whole body into them unnecessarily, instead of taking advantage of their superior reach. And yeah, it's a good technique in some cases, but an easy way to lose an elbow.
Plus, all he did was vertical, overhead attacks. Because of how you have to hold it when half-swording, it would be shit against a horizontal attack. And of course you can hold it by the blade, swords aren't supposed to be razor sharp.
#67 - icedcarbon (08/05/2014) [-]
Katana might be a good sword, but it won't beat european swords.
Portuguese soldiers had a few duels with japs, 9 of which the portuguese won, the 10th a portuguese soldier was drunk and offended a jap, the jap challenged him for a fight, the jap wins, the next day his commanding officer learns of what happened and challenges the jap. the officer wins. that's 10-1 to Portugal.
I could not find who were the portuguese in the duels but I can only guess that most were from the navy (logically), portuguese sailors had a Crab Sword or Black Carrack Sword. Marines, merchants and nobles onboard would have more of the standard army stuff, the usual 16th/17th century arming swords or anything they had. These were all mixture of light ( something like jack of plates) to no armoured fighters with a sword and dagger/buckler/leather shield (adarga)... or a simple armoured soldier with the famous look of a 16th cen. breastplate a fauld, morion etc. and others maybe more diverse. We can't say for 100% sure what they used against the katanas, but it was clear the japanese warriors were not ready for Western warriors both skill wise and material wise.
I just hate when those weaboos or samurai syndrome sufferers just say the Katana is the best sword ever and a simple skillful warrior would wreck any other warrior on earth, and you can't say otherwise or even undermine the katana for a bit, or they'll open WW3 on you...
#59 - kerfufflemachtwo (08/05/2014) [-]
That test seemed to have just been done to prove that a katana won't stand up well to a direct hit from whichever type of sword they used there.
They weren't showing the proper technique of using a katana because that had no relevance to what they were testing.
#100 - cdlight (08/05/2014) [-]
THAT WASNT A REAL KATANA IT WAS PROBOBLY CAST OR NOT EVEN FOLDED THATS dumb. how are you such a n00b that you don't know. a real katana would never bend. it would only snap. theyre so energetically sensitive, enough mindfulness and you'll cut through almost anything. how do you not know this? I guess you people aren't really nerds, just memefreaks? wtf iono. don't be a n00b
#105 - kerfufflemachtwo (08/05/2014) [-]
I don't know because I don't research swords much. Mostly because I currently only have a mild interest in them. That could always change.
Still, if that wasn't a "real" katana, then the other was also likely not "real". Because they're not gonna get just one "real" sword.
And, I still don't think a "real" katana could break that other sword. Mostly because of the size difference. Not saying katanas are bad swords. If they were, then they wouldn't have been used for so long. It's just that the areas that used katanas only had sword similar to katanas. So katanas were built with those swords in mind.
#51 - anonymous (08/05/2014) [-]
nigger thats a broadsword
#283 - anonymous (08/06/2014) [-]
fuck im retarded. i replied to the wrong one.
#30 - imoriginalposter (08/04/2014) [-]
Why do weebs jerk off so much over katanas anyway? They're cool but they aren't the end all be all of swords, they were a product of the times they were used in, metal forged armor was usually segmented, the Katana was a slicing weapon, not a chopping or hacking one, european broadswords were designed with bashing in mind.
#238 - Kairyuka (08/05/2014) [-]
For me, it's because of the long history and insane dedication the entire culture gave to these swords. If you owned a daisho (as samurais had to) you were pretty much the top shit back then. They valued their farmers and soldiers highly and didn't give much credit to merchants or people working with dead things (leatherworking, butchering etc), which is basically the opposite of today. Also they're quite handsome those blades. Elegant and epitomes of blacksmithing experience.
#41 - bigmanblue (08/05/2014) [-]
broadswords/longsowrds were not deisigned for "bashing"
thats a common and kinda irritating misconception
they were used for cutting just like any other swords or thrusting/stabing
there were many techniques used for fighting men in armour and none of them involved bashing instead they often relied on a style called half swording where you held the sword half way up the blade and guided the tip into gaps in the armour
the longsword/broadsword/hand-and-a-half sword is considerably lighter and more agile then many people whov never held one give them credit and often weighed only a small amount more then the katana which was a thiner and weaker blade designed purely for cutting very lightly and unarmour oponants and often was actualy the secondary weapon not the primary
bashing plate armour is actualy incredibly inefective as the metal armour and the padding underneath will absorb the vast majority of the force
AND on the off chance they did want to bash (which was almost fucking never) they used maces
#72 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
Broadswords/longswords/bastardswords/claymores/zweihanders/whateverthefuckeurope answords were strong enough to be used for hacking, slashing, stabbing, thrusting, dismembering, bashing or whatever the fuck you needed it for.
And Knights would wear (in this order) Plate Armor, Chain Mail, Leather Armor, Silk undershirt. And a mace would very easily knock someone on their ass. A blow to the side of the helmet was almost guaranteed a kill.
#191 - bigmanblue (08/05/2014) [-]
serioriously if you think one strike from a mace could kill a guy wearing full plate you dont know what full plate is like
it absorbes a hell of a lot of impact
a strike to the helmet would stun them but certainly not kill
and swords were NEVER used for bashing
not only was that a sure fire way to just break the sword but it would accomplish nothing usefull
against heavily armoured oponants they always went mopre for a wrestle them till you can stab a weak point sort of tactic
as for bastardswords/claymores/zwiehanders they were a very different much larger thing, they were much larger and heavier and basicaly useless in smaller fights or 1 on 1 combat anmd were used much more as a shock attack in an initian strike or in the case of later use as a sort of semi spear for use against cavelry
#257 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
Zweihanders and other massive swords were of course used in the massive, open conflicts. One on one fights were rare, but yeah, knights didn't use their sword for bashing whenever possible. And bashing would be used (with the dull part close to the hilt that was used for catching other swords) to knock away spears and knock down shields.
#263 - bigmanblue (08/05/2014) [-]
do you not see the fucking edges?
they were bloody sharp they were kept sharp
they were not used for bashing except using the pommel
no sword in HISTORY has been used for bashing
fucking bars of iron with handles
id like to see you peirce chain mail with a bar of iron somthing which can be done with a viking sword
#265 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
And vikings were 6-7 foot tall, musclebound, monsters. The berserkers (which consumed poisonous plants that induced insane rage, and were not very popular, even among other vikings) were the ones that bashed peoples skulls in with anything they could get their hands on, even if it was the unlucky victims hands, regardless of wether or not they had a helmet.
But outside of battle they were surprisingly civilized, unless they found someone breaking their laws. Then they ripped their ribcage open from behind and pulled their lungs out.
#264 - heartlessrobot (08/05/2014) [-]
VIKINGS LONGSWORDS WERE THE BARS OF IRON. YES THEY HAD EDGES BUT THEY WERE NOWHERE NEAR AS SHARP AS ACTUAL SWORDS!
Vikings obviously used weapons other than axes dude. They weren't barbarians, despite their lack of weapon finesse. Hell, as biased as Deadliest Warrior was, at least their weaponry was fairly close to history. Early vikings had shitty, iron swords with edges that were sharp but not as sharp as say, a knights longsword. Later vikings had much more refined weaponry, but still lacked decent armor. Mostly because they didn't need it. Raiding towns didn't require a lot of protection.
#266 - bigmanblue (08/05/2014) [-]
im talking abouyt fucking viking swords m8
they were not used for bashing
even against unarmourd enemies a sharp blade is infinetly better then a blunt one and they knew that
fucking look up pre medieval weaponry if you have to they were not fucking blunt
even bronze age swords were sharp as hell
yes the material was weaker so they broke faster and required sharpening more often but i reitterate
has been used for bashing with ANYTHING except the pommel
if you think viking swords were blunt you are a fucking moron who has no clue whatsoever about weaponry
#28 - trollmobile (08/04/2014) [-]
#31 - anonymous (08/04/2014) [-]
It's durability test of metals katna are know for weak dura till is doll user who makes sword what it's hence focus of diffrent fighting styles of it and bring mainly cerimonial weapon spears clubs and bow were more common weapons a most Japan fighters fact is japanes steel is shit quality ( was) compared rest of world hence whet stone in sheath was keep blade from dulling due it nicking very easily
|#18 - Comment deleted||08/04/2014 on Glorious Nippon Steel||0|
|#6 - I think someone explained that it was anamatromics or somethin… [+] (1 new reply)||07/30/2014 on Not exactly my fetish||0|
|#2 - I doubt they're .22, look more like .40 or .45 to me, maybe ev…||07/29/2014 on Look, deathflowers||0|
|#34 - here fishy fishy fishy please forgive me, I'm bored||07/12/2014 on Want||+2|
|#15 - easy, you dont [+] (4 new replies)||07/11/2014 on Want||+74|
|#6 - the guy down in the corner is trying so hard not to stare||07/11/2014 on well||0|
|#6 - Comment deleted||07/10/2014 on Just pointing out the obvious||0|
|#7 - That cats name is sparky [+] (1 new reply)||07/08/2014 on Akira's plot||+5|
|#33 - Clean Sweepin Suzie||07/05/2014 on Bomber names||+1|