Various II:76 Ciphe...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Various II:76 Cipher solutions...

Page 11 / 21

lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5341
 
Posted by: @therealrtc

@lashtal - Perhaps, though your interpretation goes nowhere.  Conversely mine goes straight to the heart of ol' Fakey's Master of the Universe plan... Take your pick.

Please don’t presume to know where my interpretation ‘goes.’

And the ‘RSVP’ scan? Where does that ‘go’?

 

 

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ccx liked
ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@lashtal - I presume nothing.  As noted, your interpretation suggests only that two pairs of digits need not be separated by a space - Which is self-evident from the text!  If you believe this somehow assists in solving the riddle, then, please, divulge.  The "RSVP scan" goes directly to the same place as this riddle.  Oh, roll-on 01 April... 🤣   

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3639
 

Paul's suggestion that AC used standard proofreaders' marks on the ms. is rather more plausible than your strained "plot 24 degrees from a zero point in front of the Egyptian Museum with a zero line aligned where it has to be to get the result i want, then 'rotate' 89 more degrees" version- "precisely " indeed.

https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/help-tools/proofreading-marks.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proofreader%27s_marks#Symbols

Looks like another "rookie error", like not realizing GPS coordinates were 80 years in the future when "Ol' Fakey" did his "Big Fake-Out", and thus "finding" them in your "analysis".

Strenuously and repeatedly denying that the GPS coordinates of a point in the north end of the central hall of the Egyptian Museum are in fact GPS coordinates is looking increasingly silly.

Anyone who cares to type the coordinates you posted into any GPS-based mapping system can easily verify that they are so GPS coordinates, no matter how many times you deny it. Saying a thing don't make it so. I think i will start counting your denials instead of days til your "solution"- we must be in the dozens already.


ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@ignant666 - In which case, I recommend that you purchase a copy of the solution based on the 'faustian/lashtal/covert cabal of cipher-crackers' method of prater-human proof-reading (if this is ever released), in preference to my own - Which is mostly strained wishful thinking. 😖 

 


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4191
 
Posted by: @therealrtc

in preference to my own - Which is mostly strained wishful thinking.

Couldn't have put it better myself, apart from the word "mostly".


RTC liked
ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3639
 

Also, even if we accept your "rotation" claim, the line weights of the marks on the ms. seem to suggest rotation to the right, i.e. clockwise, rather than to the left, as you want us to rotate.

I would guess this is because English is written from left to right, and so that's the natural tendency of a person making these proofreaders' marks on a ms., but your "precise" rotation interpretation must surely tell us why we "rotate" widdershins, rather than the surely more solar-phallic "sunwise"?


ReplyQuote
APOSTATES
(@nassah)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 38
 

If I take in consideration that Aiwass forbid to change (or ad) even a single letter in dictation then what you think: is the title of text a part of dictation?

But anyway, for many years Liber L vel Legis was named so ( as L foneticaly is el) and even after the 'discovery' of the key (AL) was not changed much, only from 666 to 667. Richard could joke about disobedience but a see Crowley as disobedient man and I like it as it is.


RTC liked
ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@nassah - "Aiwass forbid to change (or ad) even a single letter in dictation " - Yes, except the editorial marks Crowley added (just to remind him not to put a space between 24 and 89).  That sort of changing is allowed, I bet. 😣 Or, did Aiwass mentally communicate a requirement for the marks during the dictation?  Oh, it's all so puzzling...

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3639
 

Cat got your tongue on my "Why 'rotate' widdershins?" question, @therealrtc ?

Again with the dodging, as usual.


RTC liked
ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6156
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

a site I believe is not supposed to be a qabalistic forum.

Where did you get that belief? LAShTAL is not an "occult" or "teaching" site, but QBL is found at the heart of many threads.

Posted by: @ignant666

I think i will start counting your denials instead of days til your "solution"- we must be in the dozens already.

Please count both, instead of "instead." The math is becoming very complex, and we need someone to keep score.

 


ReplyQuote
APOSTATES
(@nassah)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 38
 

I thought about adding an A to title, Richard. In my view on "getting right number" with gematria, Crowley had no problem including revelation on revelation on revelation… I see nothing contradictorial in such doing… it's a Magic to some, to me Thelema is philosophy. 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3639
 

@nassah - AL is not then the Book of the Great Beast, but rather of the across-the-street neighbor of the Great Beast?

@therealrtc - Hoping that cat lets go of your poor tongue soon, though as little hope of a straight answer as ever.

@shiva - So much counting! But fine, as long as i don't have to count evasions, coy non-answers, subterfuges, and instances of jiggery-pokery!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5341
 
Posted by: @therealrtc

Yes, except the editorial marks Crowley added (just to remind him not to put a space between 24 and 89)

Huh?! The proof-reading marks indicate there's no space between '2' and '4' or between '8' and '9' - nothing to do with the space between '24' and '89'. This really isn't complicated!

 

Posted by: @therealrtc

The "RSVP scan" goes directly to the same place as this riddle.

So, even as far back as promoting 'Bogus' you had already worked out the so-called 'zero-point' for your newly discovered so-called 'solution'? And, for reasons entirely unconnected with a simple sense of mischief, you helpfully digitally jumbled the letters in the scan to reveal and hide it?

You couldn't make this up. Oh, wait: you are making this up.

 

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
APOSTATES
(@nassah)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 38
 

ignant666, to me Liber AL is very important book from my youth that gave me enough of thinking and doing for many years.

So, for me is of no importance how those words finished on those Piries sheets. I have to gave the credit of genius to man that I respect as one of my teachers (his books , Crowleyana, represent the immense treasure for Humanity).

As for the Liber AL, I am interested in content not in reception. 


ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@lashtal - "The proof-reading marks indicate there's no space between '2' and '4' or between '8' and '9'" - When so eloquently stated it's easy to see why Crowley felt compelled to emphasise a potential error that anyone reading the text was unlikely to make.  Jeepers, had someone erroneously forced a space in where clearly none was indicated, even without the additional safeguard, well... the whole meaning of Liber L could have been mistaken for an audacious fabrication.

"You couldn't make this up. Oh, wait: you are making this up." Are you referring to Crowley, myself, or both?   

 


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4191
 
Posted by: @therealrtc

"You couldn't make this up. Oh, wait: you are making this up." Are you referring to Crowley, myself, or both? 

Just you, I would have thought.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1935
 

93!

Just out of curiosity and for your consideration I have assembled some "K"s written in 1904:

someKs

They all look pretty much as "weird" as the "K" in question in the riddle in my humble opinion.

Love=Law

Lutz


RTC liked
ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@the_real_simon_iff - All of which are conspicuously free of any double-strokery... Hmmm. 🤨  

 


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1935
 

93 again!

And while looking for "K"s I found an interesting quote from the manuscript to "The Greater Ritual of the Pentagram" written in May 1906. Which might be important for Richard and his new dating of Liber L. If I remember correctly he alleged that it was written way later than 1904. Anyway, there is the famous set of proofs for the aborted printing of Liber L in the Collected Works in the Harry Ransom Research Center dated September 1907. This quote however is from May 1906 and it hints at existing proofs by the Ballantyne Press (who did a lot of Crowley stuff between 1898 and 1918 or so). Enjoy.

PrintedGreatInvocationMentioning1906

Love=Law

Lutz


ptoner and RTC liked
ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3639
 

Does the Cat have Your Tongue

 

??? Why do we "rotate" widdershins, and not "sunwise", again?


ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@the_real_simon_iff - Interesting item... So, did Aiwass tell Crowley to wedge The Great Invocation (also included in the HR Appendix) at the back of Legis, in the Ballantyne proofs?  If so, that's one heck of a stretch on 'change not the shape of a single character.' 🤔 

 


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1935
 

@therealrtc

C'mon, the Great Invocation is clearly not a part of Liber L. It was an Appendix to the Appendix (Liber L) and "interesting as showing the way in which modern mystics deduce practical rituals from Egyptian MSS."

Love=Law

Lutz

P.S. I just wanted to help you out in case you might have dated the writing of Liber L to April 1906 or later, because proofs seem to have existed then already. Just to change your proofs...

 

 


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2160
 

A ‘V’ was changed to a “Y”


RTC liked
ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@ptoner - That's four out of four, but I'd trim down further than a mere 'V.' 

 


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2160
 

Ok then, “1” in your opinion making it “31”


RTC liked
ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@ptoner - making it "...OR? I..."

 


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1935
 
Posted by: @therealrtc

@the_real_simon_iff - All of which are conspicuously free of any double-strokery... Hmmm. 🤨  

 

There are quite some more double-strokeries in the book, even in the riddle. Might happen when writing with a fountain pen. I'll look some more and I am sure I'll find you some...

Love=Law

Lutz

 


RTC liked
ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1935
 

Richard 93,

while we're at it: I know I myself mentioned some letters look "fishy" but the biggest "problem" (not really a problem) I had is, that the very obvious small "a" in "aLGMOR" is translated to a capital "ALGMOR" in every printing. Care to elaborate why you chose "eLGMOR" with a small "e" as your title for your book. Because frankly, it takes a lot of ... whatever to think that an "e" was changed to an "a" in this case...

Thanks

 

Love=Law

Lutz


lashtal liked
ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@the_real_simon_iff - C'mon, the Great Invocation is clearly not a part of Liber L – So why did Crowley (in the early phase of his scheme) insist on including it?

"interesting as showing the way in which modern mystics deduce practical rituals from Egyptian MSS." – Let’s not forget that The Great Invocation includes stele paraphrases.  Crowley (in 1906/07) is suggesting that the stele paraphrases were deduced from an Egyptian manuscript (... as obtained from an Egyptian adept – Precisely as per my Greater Heresy) and NOT received from Aiwass.  In fact, the various Reception components do not rate a single word in HR and BP proofs – In both of which (plus the hand-written Title Page) Crowley unequivocally states that he received Liber L from a terrestrial source, NOT a praeter-human entity.

 

Interesting that Crowley is thinking about nailing TGI to Liber L from around March 1906 and actually got around to doing this by September 07, though ultimately scrapped it by 1909.   

 


RuneLogIX liked
ReplyQuote
gravunity
(@gravunity)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 20
 

@the_real_simon_iff Agreed 100% - and just for odd orthography, doesn't the AL II:76 letter 'y' look remarkably like a coptic digamma?

And more generally, was anyone else bemused at finding the highly dubious transcription of Crowley's '+' symbol into typographic ampersands throughout the whole text of Liber AL? Hmm.

Hence:-

How many Qabalists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Any number you like, plus one.

93's et al,

Grav.

 


ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 407
 

@therealrtc wow Richard T. Cole, a legitimate Thelemic heretic still with us, well done! 😍 

 

In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.


RTC liked
ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1935
 

@therealrtc

First: he did not insist on including it always. Just in the beginning.

Also, all you say is totally in line with the current interpretation and has nothing to do with some big heresy. In fact, if we end up here discussing if automatic writing is coming from within or without, it would be quite boring. All I am after is that you once stated that L was written much later than 1904. Much like in years not in weeks.

What about eLGMOR?

Love=Law

Lutz

 


lashtal liked
ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 
Posted by: @nassah

But anyway, for many years Liber L vel Legis was named so ( as L foneticaly is el) and even after the 'discovery' of the key (AL) was not changed much, only from 666 to 667.

Posted by: @ignant666
 
AL is not then the Book of the Great Beast, but rather of the across-the-street neighbor of the Great Beast?

Isn't 667 the number not of the Beast's close neighbor but of his even more closer companion & concubine the Scarlet Woman, for some reason I seem to recall reading somewhere?

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum
 
a site I believe is not supposed to be a qabalistic forum.

B-But it has its own Qabalah section in the "Thelema" board!?

Posted by: @lashtal 
Posted by: @therealrtc

Yes, except the editorial marks Crowley added (just to remind him not to put a space between 24 and 89)

Huh?! The proof-reading marks indicate there's no space between '2' and '4' or between '8' and '9' - nothing to do with the space between '24' and '89'. This really isn't complicated!

Perhaps matters might have been made clearer by the insertion of a comma after "'between '24', and '89'"? (<=like this, editorially)

Proof-readingly yours (whilst adding my three-penny'orth to the sum of total knowledge),

N Joy


RTC liked
ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 407
 

so this might be an unpopular suggestion but I am not entirely 1000% convinced that L = AL like AC thought it was. I also think the controversy of whether it is Liber L or Liber Al remains unresolved despite AC's efforts and beliefs. This might take some centuries of research to ultimately resolve.

In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.


RTC liked
ReplyQuote
APOSTATES
(@nassah)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 38
 

Yes, Jamie, you are right, 667 is greek gematria (or isopho… ?) number for Scarlat Woman.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4191
 
Posted by: @runelogix

This might take some centuries of research to ultimately resolve

Not really. Crowley changed to name to Liber AL vel Legis in 1919. That year, Achad sent him a paper he hed written the previous year, setting out his discovery of AL as the Key to The Book of the Law. Crowley was delighted with the paper and the Key, and changed the name from Liber L vel Legis to Liber AL vel Legis.


RuneLogIX liked
ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 407
 

@michael-staley right I know that part. The open question I have is whether AC was correct to do so or not. I don't consider him a qualified editor of Liber XXXI.

 PS - I know you don't like me but man I sure do appreciate your contribution to this forum and Thelema in general!

In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1935
 
Posted by: @runelogix

I also think the controversy of whether it is Liber L or Liber Al remains unresolved despite AC's efforts and beliefs. This might take some centuries of research to ultimately resolve.

93!

I don't know where you got the idea that it takes "centuries of research" or anything at all to find out how the book was called. AC called it L in the beginning and later AL. There is nothing to argue about it. That is the book's title. If you like L better you are in conflict with the later AC. If you like AL better you are on the author's side.

"Wait, Aiwass, was that an AL sound like in L or an AL sound like in AL?"

We have an answer from the author, haven't we? Though we'll never know...

 

Love=Law

Lutz


ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 407
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff
Posted by: @runelogix

I also think the controversy of whether it is Liber L or Liber Al remains unresolved despite AC's efforts and beliefs. This might take some centuries of research to ultimately resolve.

93!

I don't know where you got the idea that it takes "centuries of research" or anything at all to find out how the book was called. AC called it L in the beginning and later AL. There is nothing to argue about it. That is the book's title. If you like L better you are in conflict with the later AC. If you like AL better you are on the author's side.

"Wait, Aiwass, was that an AL sound like in L or an AL sound like in AL?"

We have an answer from the author, haven't we? Though we'll never know...

 

Love=Law

Lutz

 

Yes I know that is the case however, by example, the christian holy books took centuries of exegesis to be understood and accepted by the faithful, I personally believe we are in a similar rate of discovery as they were in prior millennia.

In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2041
 
Posted by: @runelogix

Yes I know that is the case however, but by example, the christian holy books took centuries of exegesis to be understood and accepted by the faithful, I personally believe we are in a similar rate of discovery as they.

And they had to be canonized by the Authorities. AL is a one-shot.


RuneLogIX liked
ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 407
 
Posted by: @kidneyhawk
Posted by: @runelogix

Yes I know that is the case however, but by example, the christian holy books took centuries of exegesis to be understood and accepted by the faithful, I personally believe we are in a similar rate of discovery as they.

And they had to be canonized by the Authorities. AL is a one-shot.

Our Council of Nicaea has yet to happen!

In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2041
 

Perhaps many participants here will disagree with me but I feel this is the best thread on Lashtal.com in a good long time. 

Myself, I am reading a proof of the promised book. I hope to have a review ready when orders are open.

Looks like there is "division hither homeward; there is a word not known. Spelling is defunct; all is not aught."

It's a fun, funny and exciting trip.

We're all getting launched.

 

 


RTC, ptoner, newneubergOuch2 and 1 people liked
ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2041
 
Posted by: @runelogix

Our Council of Nicaea has yet to happen!

It's happening right here!

Good times!


RTC and RuneLogIX liked
ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4191
 
Posted by: @runelogix

PS - I know you don't like me but man I sure do appreciate your contribution to this forum and Thelema in general!

I have no idea who you are, RuneLogIX, and can't recall us crossing swords in the past, so don't know why you think that I don't like you.


RuneLogIX liked
ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 407
 
Posted by: @michael-staley
Posted by: @runelogix

PS - I know you don't like me but man I sure do appreciate your contribution to this forum and Thelema in general!

I have no idea who you are, RuneLogIX, and can't recall us crossing swords in the past, so don't know why you think that I don't like you.

Ah well just as right mate. If I ever get to the UK post coronavirus I will seek your company.

In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 
Posted by: @michael-staley

I have no idea who you are, RuneLogIX, and can't recall us crossing swords in the past, so don't know why you think that I don't like you.

Deleted speculation as apparently quite possibly no longer relevant by the recent posting...

N Joy


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 287
 
Posted by: @kidneyhawk

Perhaps many participants here will disagree with me but I feel this is the best thread on Lashtal.com in a good long time. 

Myself, I am reading a proof of the promised book. I hope to have a review ready when orders are open.

Looks like there is "division hither homeward; there is a word not known. Spelling is defunct; all is not aught."

It's a fun, funny and exciting trip.

We're all getting launched.

 

 

Well it bought me out of active lashtal retirement -

...since 2016?

 (The ‘where is my Hellfire club books?’ Compelled me to post after a long hiatus and this thread to restart my activity on the forums)

i agree.


RuneLogIX and ptoner liked
ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 478
 
Posted by: @therealrtc

Crowley (in 1906/07) is suggesting that the stele paraphrases were deduced from an Egyptian manuscript (... as obtained from an Egyptian adept – Precisely as per my Greater Heresy) and NOT received from Aiwass. 

The paraphrases are based on the translation of the Stele of Revealing provided to Crowley by the Egyptian Museum; that you are willing to spin the facts is not surprising, but nonetheless specious.

 

 In both of which (plus the hand-written Title Page) Crowley unequivocally states that he received Liber L from a terrestrial source, NOT a praeter-human entity.

    

There is no title page: it's a folder.

 

 


lashtal liked
ReplyQuote
RTC
 RTC
(@therealrtc)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 347
 

@herupakraath - "There is no title page: it's a folder." - Today's prize for extreme pedanticism goes to you!  Call it whatever you want. Crowley wrote:

"This MS. which came into my possession in July 1906 is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing. Though I am in no way responsible for any of these documents except the translations of the Stele inscriptions, I publish them among my works, because I believe that their intelligent study may be interesting & helpful. - A. C."

Would you care to explain this rather curious passage. Please, feel free to be as pedantic as suits your defence of ol' Fakey. 😔

@ignant666 - They aren't GPS coordinates. 

 


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1935
 
Posted by: @therealrtc

"This MS. which came into my possession in July 1906 ...

 

93!

All the more interesting is the May 1906 quote I posted yesterday, don't you think?

It could sound like he is just speaking of the manuscript? Or he really was correct when writing "i.e. I meant I would be its master from that date on."?

Have fun

Love=Law

Lutz


ReplyQuote
Page 11 / 21
Share: