|
Replies:
|
|
Admantus
|
Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
Post #91
|
- Posts:
- 771
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #424
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2012
|
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately.
Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.
And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Edited by Admantus, Aug 13 2012, 02:28 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Godzillasaurus
|
Aug 13 2012, 07:13 AM
Post #92
|
- Posts:
- 1,810
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- Jan 25, 2012
|
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately. Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee. And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot. But again, NOT ALL DINOSAURS WERE FEATHERY! Skin impressions have been found on various species.
|
|
|
| |
|
SpinoInWonderland
|
Aug 13 2012, 07:58 AM
Post #93
|
The madness has come back...
- Posts:
- 6,987
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #373
- Joined:
- Jun 10, 2012
|
- theropod
- Aug 13 2012, 01:39 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
No it isn´t. it´s a scientific possibility just like them being scaly! hair in reptiles is impossible, feathers yes, but not hair...
|
|
|
| |
|
Admantus
|
Aug 13 2012, 08:43 AM
Post #94
|
- Posts:
- 771
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #424
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2012
|
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 07:58 AM
- theropod
- Aug 13 2012, 01:39 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
No it isn´t. it´s a scientific possibility just like them being scaly! hair in reptiles is impossible, feathers yes, but not hair... Then how the fuck did pterosaurs get hair?
|
|
|
| |
|
SpinoInWonderland
|
Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
Post #95
|
The madness has come back...
- Posts:
- 6,987
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #373
- Joined:
- Jun 10, 2012
|
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately. Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee. And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
 Kiwis have feathers, not hair and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
|
|
|
| |
|
SpinoInWonderland
|
Aug 13 2012, 10:53 AM
Post #96
|
The madness has come back...
- Posts:
- 6,987
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #373
- Joined:
- Jun 10, 2012
|
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 08:43 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 07:58 AM
- theropod
- Aug 13 2012, 01:39 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
No it isn´t. it´s a scientific possibility just like them being scaly! hair in reptiles is impossible, feathers yes, but not hair...
Then how the fuck did pterosaurs get hair? not hair, pycnofibres, it just looks like hair but is not hair, at all
|
|
|
| |
|
Admantus
|
Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
Post #97
|
- Posts:
- 771
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #424
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2012
|
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately. Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee. And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Kiwis have feathers, not hair and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all Nope.

You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high?
And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Edited by Admantus, Aug 13 2012, 11:54 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Godzillasaurus
|
Aug 13 2012, 12:04 PM
Post #98
|
- Posts:
- 1,810
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- Jan 25, 2012
|
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately. Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee. And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Kiwis have feathers, not hair and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.  You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high? And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic. Well, broly does have a point. There have been tons of skin impressions found.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admantus
|
Aug 13 2012, 12:07 PM
Post #99
|
- Posts:
- 771
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #424
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2012
|
- Godzillaman
- Aug 13 2012, 12:04 PM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately. Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee. And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Kiwis have feathers, not hair and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.  You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high? And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Well, broly does have a point. There have been tons of skin impressions found. True. But a lot doesn't get fossilized. Like if there were sparse, hairlike structures on a tarbosaurus, they wouldn't be fossilized.
|
|
|
| |
|
Godzillasaurus
|
Aug 13 2012, 12:13 PM
Post #100
|
- Posts:
- 1,810
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- Jan 25, 2012
|
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 12:07 PM
- Godzillaman
- Aug 13 2012, 12:04 PM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately. Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee. And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Kiwis have feathers, not hair and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.  You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high? And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Well, broly does have a point. There have been tons of skin impressions found.
True. But a lot doesn't get fossilized. Like if there were sparse, hairlike structures on a tarbosaurus, they wouldn't be fossilized. Alright this is getting more and more ridiculous images in my head. If big dinosaurs were built like elephants, being mostly skin, but possessing small hairs here and there, that implants horrifying images in my mind. To me, small coeulosaurs are like flightless birds, and huge sauropods are hairless lizards.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admantus
|
Aug 13 2012, 12:16 PM
Post #101
|
- Posts:
- 771
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #424
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2012
|
- Godzillaman
- Aug 13 2012, 12:13 PM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 12:07 PM
- Godzillaman
- Aug 13 2012, 12:04 PM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately. Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee. And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Kiwis have feathers, not hair and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.  You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high? And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Well, broly does have a point. There have been tons of skin impressions found.
True. But a lot doesn't get fossilized. Like if there were sparse, hairlike structures on a tarbosaurus, they wouldn't be fossilized.
Alright this is getting more and more ridiculous images in my head. If big dinosaurs were built like elephants, being mostly skin, but possessing small hairs here and there, that implants horrifying images in my mind. To me, small coeulosaurs are like flightless birds, and huge sauropods are hairless lizards. And that's why tetaneurans had feathers
|
|
|
| |
|
Tyrant
|
Aug 13 2012, 12:54 PM
Post #102
|
- Posts:
- 1,169
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #480
- Joined:
- Jul 30, 2012
|
I really don't see any reason why any multi ton dinosaur would posses more than a couple feathers much less hair. Since their bodies where large, the temperate climate, and them being endothermic a large amount of feathers/fur would have just caused them to overheat.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admantus
|
Aug 13 2012, 10:18 PM
Post #103
|
- Posts:
- 771
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #424
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2012
|
- Tyrant
- Aug 13 2012, 12:54 PM
I really don't see any reason why any multi ton dinosaur would posses more than a couple feathers much less hair. Since their bodies where large, the temperate climate, and them being endothermic a large amount of feathers/fur would have just caused them to overheat. That's why i suggested them having either a short covering of protofeathers, or having none.
|
|
|
| |
|
Godzillasaurus
|
Aug 13 2012, 11:30 PM
Post #104
|
- Posts:
- 1,810
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- Jan 25, 2012
|
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 12:16 PM
- Godzillaman
- Aug 13 2012, 12:13 PM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 12:07 PM
- Godzillaman
- Aug 13 2012, 12:04 PM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
- brolyeuphyfusion
- Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
- Admantus
- Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
- Admantus
-
dinosaurs being hairy.
have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately. Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee. And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Kiwis have feathers, not hair and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.  You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high? And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Well, broly does have a point. There have been tons of skin impressions found.
True. But a lot doesn't get fossilized. Like if there were sparse, hairlike structures on a tarbosaurus, they wouldn't be fossilized.
And that's why tetaneurans had feathers
Not all tetaneurans had feathers. Megalosaurs (ignoring sciurumimus, which might have been a ceoulosaur), spinosaurs, and carnosaurs didn't have feathers. Maybe very primitive feather-like structures, but not feathers.
|
|
|
| |
|
Godzillasaurus
|
Aug 13 2012, 11:31 PM
Post #105
|
- Posts:
- 1,810
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- Jan 25, 2012
|
- Tyrant
- Aug 13 2012, 12:54 PM
I really don't see any reason why any multi ton dinosaur would posses more than a couple feathers much less hair. Since their bodies where large, the temperate climate, and them being endothermic a large amount of feathers/fur would have just caused them to overheat. Some scientists believe that the large dinosaurs like sauropods were cold-blooded actually. But that makes them even more lizard-like.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|