I just watched Buffy:TVS musical in 2.35

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Waterperson77, Aug 1, 2004.

  1. I just finished watching my old videotape of the originial airing of Buffy:The
    Vampire Slayer musical episode recorded from regular analog tv as aired on the
    UPN network and the picture was definitely in 2.35, not 1.85 like other people
    in this newsgroup claimed. and not 16:9

    You could see the black bars on both the top and bottom of course (the
    letterbox bars) and the picture itself was definitely 2.35

    And yes, I know what both 1.85 and 2.35 look like when viewed on an ordinary
    4:3 tv.



    1.85 is the way the dvd's of the Jurrassic Park movies, "What a Girl Wants,
    "Splash" and "Confessions of a Teenage Drama AQueen" look like. The picture on
    the Buffy musical did not match that.

    2.35 is what movies like "Deep Blue Sea", "Rat Race", and "Lost in Space the
    movie" look like. The picture on the Buffy musical matched those.

    And no, my tv was not misadjusted since every 16:9 tv show still looked 16:9 on
    all channels and all movies aired in 1.85 still looked 1.85 and all movies
    aired in 2.35 still looked 2.35.

    Buffy the musical aired in 2.35 on the original upn broadcast, and I have the
    videotape to prove it.

    I'll probably post a picture on my website sometime in order to prove it to all
    of you doubters out there.

    since I know that almost all of you will doubt it.
     
    Waterperson77, Aug 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Waterperson77

    Rich Clark Guest

    "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I just finished watching my old videotape of the originial airing of

    Buffy:The
    > Vampire Slayer musical episode recorded from regular analog tv as aired on

    the
    > UPN network and the picture was definitely in 2.35, not 1.85 like other

    people
    > in this newsgroup claimed. and not 16:9


    Off your meds again, eh?

    RichC
     
    Rich Clark, Aug 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Waterperson77

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I just finished watching my old videotape of the originial airing of

    > Buffy:The
    > > Vampire Slayer musical episode recorded from regular analog tv as

    aired on
    > the
    > > UPN network and the picture was definitely in 2.35, not 1.85 like

    other
    > people
    > > in this newsgroup claimed. and not 16:9

    >
    > Off your meds again, eh?


    That would imply that he ever took them in the first place.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Aug 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Waterperson77

    jayembee Guest

    says...

    > I just finished watching my old videotape of the originial airing of Buffy:The
    > Vampire Slayer musical episode recorded from regular analog tv as aired on the
    > UPN network and the picture was definitely in 2.35, not 1.85 like other people
    > in this newsgroup claimed. and not 16:9


    You are fucking insane. Get a tape measure. The aspect ratio of that episode
    AS ORIGINALLY BROADCAST ON UPN was 16:9. Period. End of argument.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Aug 2, 2004
    #4
  5. >You are fucking insane. Get a tape measure. The aspect ratio of that episode
    >AS ORIGINALLY BROADCAST ON UPN was 16:9. Period. End of argument.


    then why was it a small complete rectangle the same size as "Deep Blue Sea" and
    the "Lost in Space" movie instead of the same size as 16:9 shows like "ER" and
    "West Wing"?

    I didn't realize that 16:9 meant it could be either one of at least two
    completely different sizes.

    Because the Buffy musical I just watched was definitely not the same size as
    "ER" or "West Wing" or other 16:9 shows.

    You are correct that I didn't measure it with a tape measure. I don't have to.
    I can easily tell just by looking.

    However, to satisfy you, I will mesure it with a tape measure, and then print
    whatever the tape measure says the length and height here.

    It might not be 2.35 exactly, but it was very close to 2.35, and definitely not
    16:9
     
    Waterperson77, Aug 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Waterperson77

    Rich Clark Guest

    "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    You once claimed to have seen a 2.25:1 TV in a store. Nobody will believe
    you no matter what you post.

    I think it's time for you to change your handle again.

    RichC
     
    Rich Clark, Aug 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Waterperson77

    jayembee Guest

    says...

    >> You are fucking insane. Get a tape measure. The aspect ratio of that episode
    >> AS ORIGINALLY BROADCAST ON UPN was 16:9. Period. End of argument.

    >
    > then why was it a small complete rectangle the same size as "Deep Blue Sea" and
    > the "Lost in Space" movie instead of the same size as 16:9 shows like "ER" and
    > "West Wing"?
    >
    > I didn't realize that 16:9 meant it could be either one of at least two
    > completely different sizes.
    >
    > Because the Buffy musical I just watched was definitely not the same size as
    > "ER" or "West Wing" or other 16:9 shows.


    Maybe it's because you were watching it on one of your 2.35:1 TV sets.

    I saw, and taped, the Buffy musical episode when it was broadcast. I also saw
    and taped its edited rebroadcast. I also downloaded an SVCD cap of its original
    broadcast. I also bought the Region 2 DVD.

    The aspect ratio was 16:9 on every single one of them.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Aug 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Waterperson77

    Jay G Guest

    Waterperson77 <> wrote:
    >> You are fucking insane. Get a tape measure. The aspect ratio of
    >> that episode AS ORIGINALLY BROADCAST ON UPN was 16:9. Period. End
    >> of argument.

    >
    > then why was it a small complete rectangle the same size as "Deep
    > Blue Sea" and the "Lost in Space" movie instead of the same size as
    > 16:9 shows like "ER" and "West Wing"?


    They are the same ratio as 16:9:
    http://www.cyberpomo.com/screencaps/OMWF/
    http://buffy-charmed.narod.ru/Buffy/Buffy_6x07/

    My guess is you're confused about the "size". It looks
    like OMWF was shown windowboxed when it originally
    aired:
    http://buffy.metropoliglobal.com/capturas/sexta/6x07/

    The small black bars on the sides mean the image was shrunk,
    meaning it doesn't take up as much vertical space as a 16:9
    show that extends out to the sides.

    These sets are some comparison shots I could find
    between the original broadcast image and the DVD image:

    http://buffy.metropoliglobal.com/capturas/sexta/6x07/omwf026.jpeg
    http://buffy-charmed.narod.ru/Buffy/Buffy_6x07/BuffyM_011.jpg

    http://buffy-charmed.narod.ru/Buffy/Buffy_6x07/BuffyM_012.jpg
    http://buffy.metropoliglobal.com/capturas/sexta/6x07/omwf028.jpeg

    http://buffy.metropoliglobal.com/capturas/sexta/6x07/omwf033.jpeg
    http://www.cyberpomo.com/thumb/screencaps/OMWF/s6e07c7_00002458.jpg

    http://buffy.metropoliglobal.com/capturas/sexta/6x07/omwf039.jpeg
    http://buffy-charmed.narod.ru/Buffy/Buffy_6x07/BuffyM_014.jpg

    -Jay
     
    Jay G, Aug 2, 2004
    #8
  9. what the **** is he on ?

    "Joshua Zyber" <> wrote in message
    news:KYePc.22465$...
    > "Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > I just finished watching my old videotape of the originial airing of

    > > Buffy:The
    > > > Vampire Slayer musical episode recorded from regular analog tv as

    > aired on
    > > the
    > > > UPN network and the picture was definitely in 2.35, not 1.85 like

    > other
    > > people
    > > > in this newsgroup claimed. and not 16:9

    > >
    > > Off your meds again, eh?

    >
    > That would imply that he ever took them in the first place.
    >
    >
     
    howie feltersnatch, Aug 2, 2004
    #9
  10. Waterperson77

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "howie feltersnatch" <neil@&&&pha-q.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:cekqcg$v50$...
    > what the **** is he on ?


    He is severely mentally ill, and refuses to take the necessary
    medication to put him back in his happy place and leave us alone.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Aug 2, 2004
    #10
  11. bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaa...sniff

    "Joshua Zyber" <> wrote in message
    news:4XpPc.22984$...
    > "howie feltersnatch" <neil@&&&pha-q.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:cekqcg$v50$...
    > > what the **** is he on ?

    >
    > He is severely mentally ill, and refuses to take the necessary
    > medication to put him back in his happy place and leave us alone.
    >
    >
     
    howie feltersnatch, Aug 2, 2004
    #11
  12. Waterperson77

    Smaug69 Guest

    (Waterperson77) wrote in message news:<>...

    <snip>

    > Buffy the musical aired in 2.35 on the original upn broadcast, and I have the
    > videotape to prove it.


    I have a videotape of the original UPN broadcast as well and it's
    definitely 16:9

    > I'll probably post a picture on my website sometime in order to prove it to all
    > of you doubters out there.


    Do you have a picture of that 2.35:1 TV as well?

    Sorry, dude, but you have no credibility in this newsgroup. You're a
    proven liar. Go **** yourself.

    Smaug69
     
    Smaug69, Aug 2, 2004
    #12
  13. Waterperson77

    Justin Guest

    Waterperson77 wrote on [01 Aug 2004 22:29:29 GMT]:
    > I just finished watching my old videotape of the originial airing of Buffy:The
    > Vampire Slayer musical episode recorded from regular analog tv as aired on the
    > UPN network and the picture was definitely in 2.35, not 1.85 like other people
    > in this newsgroup claimed. and not 16:9
    >
    > You could see the black bars on both the top and bottom of course (the
    > letterbox bars) and the picture itself was definitely 2.35
    >
    > And yes, I know what both 1.85 and 2.35 look like when viewed on an ordinary
    > 4:3 tv.
    >


    My god you are a fucking moron
     
    Justin, Aug 2, 2004
    #13
  14. Waterperson77

    Justin Guest

    Rich Clark wrote on [Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:26:54 -0400]:
    >
    > "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > You once claimed to have seen a 2.25:1 TV in a store. Nobody will believe
    > you no matter what you post.
    >
    > I think it's time for you to change your handle again.
    >


    or just go away. He's recognisable within two posts.
     
    Justin, Aug 2, 2004
    #14
  15. Waterperson77

    jayembee Guest

    says...

    > (Waterperson77) wrote:
    >
    >> I'll probably post a picture on my website sometime in order to
    >> prove it to all of you doubters out there.

    >
    > Do you have a picture of that 2.35:1 TV as well?


    Oh, pleasepleasepleaseplease...let him put it up on his website. I didn't
    even know he *had* a website. That could be lots of fun.

    Perhaps he can also put up a vidcap of the corner bug that covers the
    entire screen.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Aug 2, 2004
    #15
  16. "Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I just finished watching my old videotape of the originial airing of
    > > Buffy:The Vampire Slayer musical episode recorded from regular
    > > analog tv as aired on the UPN network and the picture was definitely
    > > in 2.35, not 1.85 like other people in this newsgroup claimed.
    > > and not 16:9

    >
    > Off your meds again, eh?
    >
    > RichC



    Meds or no meds. It wouldn't make any difference.

    Here's the REAL Waterperson77 story -- in his own words:

    *** *** ***

    Before I was in high school, the guidance counselor at my high school
    was the assistant principal at my junior high school.

    For no good reason, one of the teachers attempted to murder me.

    When I complained about it to the school authorities, which they said I
    had to complain to te assistant principal about it, te assistant
    principal tok the teachers side and defended the attempted murderer and
    wanted me to lie by me saying that that teacher did not attempt to
    murder me.

    Well, I refused to say that since that teacher did attempt to murder me.

    Then the assistant principal tried to bribe me with a candy bar by
    saying he would give me that candy bar if I would say that that teacher
    did not try to murder me.

    Well, I refused the brine since the teacher fdid try to murder me. Since
    this was my life, my very existence that we were talking about, I would
    have been dumb to accept the bribe and let the teacher continue being a
    threat to me.

    However, since I refused the bribe by the assistant principal, he
    suspended mr from school for it. using one of the other school rules as
    cause for suspension such as "disrespectful to teacher".

    That teacher tried to kill me at home.

    Why was I suspended from school?

    because I attempted to truthfully turn that teacher in for what he
    really did, attempting to murder me.

    It was only a LOT later that I found out that the assistant principal at
    the junior high school was in cahoots with that teacher in an attempt to
    murder me at my home without them actually being there by assigning me a
    "homework assignment" that they knew would kill me if I had listened to
    them.

    It would have also, exvcept that my step-dad was able to save me in
    time.

    The "homework assigment" that the teacher gave me was to touch an
    electric stove with a short-circuit in it with wet hands without drying
    my hands after washing them and write down the effects on nottebook
    paper. or that it would be an automatic F for the whole class for me.

    I was stupid enough to listen to the teacher. After all, I didn't want
    to get an F as I needed to pass my junior high school class.

    and when I listened, I got electrocuted, and couldn't move at all. It
    was very very very painful.

    I felt the electricity moving through my entire body. Luckily, I was
    somehow able to scream, which attracted my step-dad and he was able to
    get me away from the stove with a wooden board.

    After that, there was no way I was going to lie and defend an attempted
    murder against me like the assistant principal of my junior high school
    wanted me to do.

    And the attempted murderers got away scott-free with it.

    I wasn't able to take it to court since I was only a minor at the time.

    and then you al wonder why I'm the way I am after those experiences.

    If I hadn't had those experieences, my postings would be more like
    yours.

    But after those experiences, I can't help but have the attitude that I
    now have.

    by the way, NEVER NEVER NEVER ever touch an electric stove with a
    short-circuit in it with wet hands, even if your teachers tell you to or
    even if someone else tells you to.

    You'll end up dead if you do. I was just extremely lucky that my
    step-dad was able to get to me in time and save me in time.

    And besides, it's also VERY VERY VERY PAINFUL.

    and on that matter, NEVER NEVER NEVER ever touch an electric tove with
    wet hands even if it doesn't have a short-circuit in it, either.

    You never know what could happen. You probably could end uop dead by
    doing so.

    and now you all know what happenedto me.


    *** *** ***

    Waterperson77 <>

    Sunday, March 07, 2004

    Re: man sentenced to jail for distributing legal dvd's legally. DVD's
    are ruled illegal.
     
    One-Shot Scot, Aug 3, 2004
    #16
  17. "Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > You once claimed to have seen a 2.25:1 TV in a store. Nobody will
    > believe you no matter what you post.
    >
    > I think it's time for you to change your handle again.
    >
    > RichC



    Now, now. Don't be so hasty in your judgment.

    Waterperson77 probably watched the 2.35 Buffy musical on a 5:4 TV:

    *** *** ***

    >European standard (i.e., non-widescreen) TV sets have been
    >4:3, you are, once again, proven wrong


    that may be so, but from what I read, I was under the impression that
    the 5:4 European tv transmissions lasted into the 80's (maybe 90's).

    and was under the impression that all the UK black and white tv shows
    were made in an aspect ratio of 5:4 while the color ones were in an
    aspect ratio of 4:3

    While that may not be so, it was definitely the impression I got from
    the articles that I read.

    *** *** ***

    Waterperson77 <>

    Saturday, July 03, 2004

    Re: geometric mean of 2.35 and 4/3
     
    One-Shot Scot, Aug 3, 2004
    #17
  18. "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    <<I just finished watching my old videotape of the originial airing of
    Buffy:The Vampire Slayer musical episode recorded from regular analog tv
    as aired on the UPN network and the picture was definitely in 2.35, not
    1.85 like other people in this newsgroup claimed. and not 16:9>>

    <<You could see the black bars on both the top and bottom of course (the
    letterbox bars) and the picture itself was definitely 2.35>>

    <<And yes, I know what both 1.85 and 2.35 look like when viewed on an
    ordinary 4:3 tv.>>

    <<1.85 is the way the dvd's of the Jurrassic Park movies, "What a Girl
    Wants, "Splash" and "Confessions of a Teenage Drama AQueen" look like.
    The picture on the Buffy musical did not match that.>>

    <<2.35 is what movies like "Deep Blue Sea", "Rat Race", and "Lost in
    Space the movie" look like. The picture on the Buffy musical matched
    those.>>

    <<And no, my tv was not misadjusted since every 16:9 tv show still
    looked 16:9 on all channels and all movies aired in 1.85 still looked
    1.85 and all movies aired in 2.35 still looked 2.35.>>

    <<Buffy the musical aired in 2.35 on the original upn broadcast, and I
    have the videotape to prove it.>>

    <<I'll probably post a picture on my website sometime in order to prove
    it to all of you doubters out there.>>

    <<since I know that almost all of you will doubt it.>>


    Oh yes. I almost forgot about that incredible, imaginary website of
    yours. We're all going to feel pretty foolish when you post screen-shots
    of the 2.35 Buffy musical and all of those full-screen logos on this
    forthcoming website of yours.

    You promised that you would "probably definitely" start work on your
    website by the end of February of this year.

    So put on your tinfoil hat and start pounding out that HTML code!

    Do it now, before you forget again! We've been waiting for 6 months!

    Just in case you forgot what you said, here it is again:

    *** *** ***

    >> Why am I not surprised. After all, waterbrain is the one who swears
    >> he sees 2.35:1 TVs and full screen logos.


    I even gave the station and one of the programs with thos full-screen
    logos on it.

    But when I finish with my website, you'll probably see a picture (or
    maybe some pictures) of the shows with full-screen logos on it.

    because I'm pretty sure I still have at least a couple of episodes that
    I recorded from the tv station onto VHS videotape.

    and some of my other tv stations had logos like either half the screen
    or a quarter of the screen.

    The station I mentioned above definitely used full-screen logos on their
    entertainment programming for at least five minutes at a time several
    times during their four-and-a-half-hour tv program.

    Yes, one of their entertainment prrograms lasted four and a half hours
    per episode each weekday, brand-new episode every single weekday.

    >> you think dumber than dumb!


    wait until you see my website!!!!

    which I will hopefully be working on sometime this year.

    It will prove everyone in this newsgroup that called me dumb completely
    wrong.

    what's a joke is Richard C asking me for the domain name of my website
    when I don't have one to give him yet.

    I said I will be working on it.

    But I have to get one first before I can tell you or anyone else here
    what it is.

    But I will be getting one.

    And when it's finished, then I'll tell you the domain name of it.

    > Why not go work on it now? The quicker you get it done the better,
    > right?


    right. you are absolutely correct. I should go and start working on it
    now, because I keep putting it off and never get any of it done. And the
    sooner I get it done, the better.

    Of course, while I'm working on it, I won't have time to post amything
    at all in this newsgroup.

    or at least not much.

    I'll probably start working on it tomorrow.

    Or maybe the day after tomorrow.

    But I'll probably definitely start working on it sometime this week.


    *** *** ***

    Waterperson77 <>

    Sunday, February 22, 2004

    Re: "Video and DVD"
     
    One-Shot Scot, Aug 3, 2004
    #18
  19. Waterperson77

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <>,
    (Waterperson77) wrote:

    > I just finished watching my old videotape of the originial airing of
    > Buffy:The
    > Vampire Slayer musical episode recorded from regular analog tv as aired on
    > the
    > UPN network and the picture was definitely in 2.35, not 1.85 like other
    > people
    > in this newsgroup claimed. and not 16:9


    Shut up troll. You don't even know what the name of the Buffy musical
    is, let alone the aspect ratio of it. Why in the blue hell would Joss
    Whedon ever film any episode of Buffy in 2.35:1 when it's never going to
    be displayed in a movie theatre?

    > 1.85 is the way the dvd's of the Jurrassic Park movies, "What a Girl Wants,
    > "Splash" and "Confessions of a Teenage Drama AQueen" look like. The picture
    > on
    > the Buffy musical did not match that.
    >
    > 2.35 is what movies like "Deep Blue Sea", "Rat Race", and "Lost in Space the
    > movie" look like. The picture on the Buffy musical matched those.


    Is this a list of your favorite movies? Your selections don't surprise
    me.
    --
    BL
     
    Black Locust, Aug 3, 2004
    #19
  20. "howie feltersnatch" <neil@&&&pha-q.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:celcgd$ga6$...
    > bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhaa...sniff
    >
    > "Joshua Zyber" <> wrote in

    message
    > news:4XpPc.22984$...
    > > "howie feltersnatch" <neil@&&&pha-q.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in

    message
    > > news:cekqcg$v50$...
    > > > what the **** is he on ?

    > >
    > > He is severely mentally ill, and refuses to take the necessary
    > > medication to put him back in his happy place and leave us alone.



    Yeah, even the "court" couldn't silence him for long:

    *** *** ***

    >hese were home-made CD's containing Kevin Beebe's own music.


    so they definitely weren't pirate cd's then.

    >The problem arose because the lyrics contained lyrics that could be
    >interpreted as threats to specific, real individuals who were mentioned
    >by name in the songs -


    and what happened to free speech? Anything can be interpreted as a
    threat. including stuff that I originally never thought could be
    interpreted as a threat.

    For instance, one family of people plus the guidance counselot from my
    old high school didn't want me suceeding in any job nor having any job
    at all.

    sdo when I got a real job, they interpreted that as threat to them and
    interpreted as me threatening them.

    The surprising thing is that they won te case in court and the court
    refused to let me into the courtroom to tell my side of te story to
    defend myself while te court allowed them to tell their side.

    and then afterwards, claimed that I didn't show up at the courtroom for
    the trial. (Well, I showed up on time for the trial, and went inside
    the courthouse, but they refused to let me into the court room that was
    the hearing for my own case.

    I even showed up early. And they told me that it was someone else's
    trial and that I wasn't allowed in until after it was over, and that
    they would tell me when it's over as long as I was waiting in the same
    spot. I did and when it was over, they told me that it was my case and
    that it was over.

    The court agreed with them that me just having a job anywhere was me
    threatening them.

    (even though I never made any threats, verbal nor physical, nor any
    other way).

    and that was when they also ruled that I must be on the internet, but
    must not have a computer at the sane time.

    And for some odd reason, when I listened and did so, it really P.O'ed
    them off that I was able to do what they said.

    I guess the judge didn't want me to be able to listen to their orders,
    so that they could frame me some more, and I guess the judge didn't
    expect that there would really be devices to get on the internet that
    weren't computers.

    so tell me, how is just having a jnormal job "threatening people"?

    The court said it was just because those other people didn't want me
    having any job ( even though I wouldn't have been working for them).

    so if I go by what the court said, then if I don't want you have any job
    at all, and you have one, you are guilty of threatening me.

    No, I don't agree with the court on that one.

    but that's what the court told me.

    *** *** ***

    Waterperson77 <>

    Sunday, March 07, 2004

    Re: man sentenced to jail for distributing legal dvd's legally. DVD's
    are ruled illegal.
     
    One-Shot Scot, Aug 3, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. philosphi

    Das ur coole Musical

    philosphi, Jun 5, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    589
    Evan Platt
    Jun 6, 2005
  2. Me, The Bear, up a tree on Hampstead Heath

    Cannibal! The Musical?

    Me, The Bear, up a tree on Hampstead Heath, Jul 6, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    388
  3. Edward Holub
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    459
    Derek Janssen
    Sep 3, 2003
  4. Goro

    Just watched F4

    Goro, Dec 5, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,087
    E Brown
    Dec 7, 2005
  5. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Just watched that new Dell ad...

    Jamie Kahn Genet, Dec 1, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    478
    Dave Taylor
    Dec 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page