Bitcoin Forum
October 14, 2019, 04:54:25 AM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 [255] 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 ... 323 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion  (Read 615317 times)
s29
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 02:41:04 PM
 #5081

The temporary high is in !

high 2916.06 today
not so fast...  Wink

The Reversals tell us the direction and maps out the market into areas of key support and resistance.

  In the report Martin said we are still consolidating and that we may retest support but to simply play it by the reversals.
It appears we may retest support since Armstrong has said he doesn't see the market breaking out at this time but that will only be confirmed if we begin to elect daily and weekly bearish reversals on the Dow which are quite high now, we have a daily bearish at 26370.81(major) with a gap to the next daily bearish at 26122.30(major)  it seems we may form a temporary high today with tomorrow being a directional change unless we elect a major daily bullish at 26529.36 with the next major at the 26700 area.

Armstrong gave great trading advice on his private blog not so long ago which applies here.

"So NEVER NEVER NEVER Anticipate. Be dispassionate about the market for remember it is always going to be your own EMOTIONS that get the best of your judgement. ONLY trade on Reversals!!!!! Always let the market PROVE its direction. It is always the master of deception."


Thanks.
1571028865
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571028865

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571028865
Reply with quote  #2

1571028865
Report to moderator
1571028865
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571028865

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571028865
Reply with quote  #2

1571028865
Report to moderator
1571028865
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571028865

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571028865
Reply with quote  #2

1571028865
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 03:19:22 PM
 #5082

The level of sophistication of this model is beyond any human capabilities so you are simply engaging in child's play and I have seen your trades you are a scalper/swing trader you don't have any confidence in your position.
both you are MA_talk continue to bash Armstrong but you should really be at his feet in the trades he has given us over the years and you should of made of fortune by now but that clearly is not the case, you need to go back and read every single private blog post and you soon realize how infallible Armstrong has been over the years. I wonder how long you can continue to delude yourself.

You see I actually traded just about every private blog post where a reversal was mentioned and then elected and I made money every single time. I know for a fact that total random price movement does not exist.


 MA_talk is so uninformed about Armstrong and way too emotional to be taken seriously its sad just because he lost a fortune and now need's someone to blame, he goes on perpetuating lies and he has misunderstood so much such as how the ECM even works the numbers have been in place for decades and cannot be changed he is only demonstrating his own stupidity, also he has doesn't understand what 2015.75 was all about  2015.75 = the PEAK IN GOVERNMENT. It marked the change in trend where people will start to disbelieve government on a grand scale.



Now, someone is resorting to personal attacks on me.  Read the following links, directly from Armstrong's website.

Armstrong CLAIMED in the first link that ECM picked "the very day".  In the second link, Armstrong indicated that ECM was September 30/October 1st, 2015.

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20170513235427/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/war/did-the-ecm-pick-the-target-to-the-day-being-syria/

which links to

2. https://web.archive.org/web/20170514003826/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/todays-turning-point-on-ecm/


However, Armstrong has LONG claimed that ECM date (before going into jail) WAS October 7th, 2015.  This SAME exact article was available at MANY other public websites.  I'm giving you the PAGE directly from Armstrong's site:
3. https://web.archive.org/web/20190210014758/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/



I studied Armstrong for decades.  He has been claiming that his ECM is "down to the day" several times.  Now, tell me how is October 1st, the same as October 7th, and HOW in the world can that be the "very day".  So if in just one cycle of 3140 days or about 8.6 years, there CAN be 6 days difference, which is 0.2% difference, remember how Armstrong kept saying that his ECM model goes all the way back to ancient time, including 26 million years for extinction cycle??  In just 2 ECM cycles, you could potentially have 12 days difference.  Or in 10 ECM cycles, that will be 60 day difference.  Tell me HOW IN THE WORLD can his ECM cycle be accurate down to the "very day" as Armstrong has claimed.



As bikefront said, you either takes the whole thing from him, or you don't take anything.  The student can't become the teacher.  I would have been actually totally fine, if Armstrong has said that his ECM has 0.2% uncertainty, like any real scientists would have done.  But NO.  Instead, he keeps repeating his ECM myth of down to the "very day".

The moment that you start adding your own personal filter on what will work from him, and what will not work from him, you are introducing subjectiveness in your analysis.  As I said, human memory always registered the most memorable events.  You will only remember whatever he said that works, but not all the other "little things" that would have wreck your portfolio over the years.

And the problem is that if I say a million crazy things, the probability of me being actually right on one of those crazy projections is actually very high, simply due to the number of forecast attempts.
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 03:37:26 PM
 #5083

....

You see I actually traded just about every private blog post where a reversal was mentioned and then elected and I made money every single time. I know for a fact that total random price movement does not exist.
....


You said:
"I [you] made money every single time".

I dare you to SHOW your trades on this forum, with realtime trades.  Post your initial buy/sell, and explain HOW you will exit your trade using the Armstrong's reversal systems.  You MUST also post the trade size or percentage of your portfolio along with the trade.

The reason that you MUST explain your exit strategy is to prevent you "virtually betting" on very high volatile stock, which given sufficient amount of time, the stock price almost always will go to a profitable point, at which you can "post a virtual profit".

And the reason that you MUST post the trade size is that using the oldest trick in the book, you can exponentially increase your bet size, and all you need is a single random profitable (last) trade to recover ALL of the prior losses, and make your claim of a "profit" at the end, when that is simply impractical/impossible for ANY trading firm.  (For anyone who doesn't understand, you can bet $1, and then $2, and then 2X more every subsequent trade.  Assuming that trading odds is exactly 50% for every trade, and rewards is exactly double (almost like casino betting on black/red on roulette except there is also a green color, eventually, you can earn back $1 profit.  Then you start over again.)



"every single time", you claimed!!!  Unheard of on this planet Earth!!!!


Please SHOW me for 15 consecutive profitable (>5% gain) trades.  Words are empty.  Only profits are real.

MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 03:46:11 PM
 #5084

....

You see I actually traded just about every private blog post where a reversal was mentioned and then elected and I made money every single time. I know for a fact that total random price movement does not exist.
....


You said:
"I [you] made money every single time".

I dare you to SHOW your trades on this forum, with realtime trades.  Post your initial buy/sell, and explain HOW you will exit your trade using the Armstrong's reversal systems.  You MUST also post the trade size or percentage of your portfolio along with the trade.

The reason that you MUST explain your exit strategy is to prevent you "virtually betting" on very high volatile stock, which given sufficient amount of time, the stock price almost always will go to a profitable point, at which you can "post a virtual profit".

And the reason that you MUST post the trade size is that using the oldest trick in the book, you can exponentially increase your bet size, and all you need is a single random profitable (last) trade to recover ALL of the prior losses, and make your claim of a "profit" at the end, when that is simply impractical/impossible for ANY trading firm.  (For anyone who doesn't understand, you can bet $1, and then $2, and then 2X more every subsequent trade.  Assuming that trading odds is exactly 50% for every trade, and rewards is exactly double (almost like casino betting on black/red on roulette except there is also a green color, eventually, you can earn back $1 profit.  Then you start over again.)



"every single time", you claimed!!!  Unheard of on this planet Earth!!!!


Please SHOW me for 15 consecutive profitable (>5% gain) trades.  Words are empty.  Only profits are real.



If you can't SHOW it for whatever reasons, then most likely you CANNOT do it.  Honestly, only an Armstrong-like person would ever say anything like "made money every single time".  For Martin Armstrong, he is ALWAYS right, and nothing is random, and his ECM/AI computer can NEVER be wrong, and ECM is always down to the "very day", even when October 1st is NOT equal to October 7th.

That only happens when a liar told so many lies, that he cannot even remember his own previous lies.

MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 03:51:00 PM
 #5085

My personal opinion on Armstrong's reversal system is that it's more like support/resistance from charting.  I (or anybody) can easily do that myself from the charts, and I will not subscribe just for that, ESPECIALLY when Armstrong does NOT give you any actual buy/sell signals.

MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 04:04:18 PM
Last edit: April 16, 2019, 04:46:17 PM by MA_talk
 #5086

By the way, notice how "convenient" it is for Armstrong to state things like his ECM was "peak of government" when government bonds did NOT peak on the ECM date, and ALSO his ECM picked the start of the date of "World War 3"?

You know, it's really whatever that fits.  And did you know that Earth is big, and everyday there are so many things happening, significant or not?  And did you know that if you use the same logic, you could probably ALSO link the insignificant "starting" events too?

And wow, if I or anybody does that, could he or she become a great "forecaster" when in fact, he or she is just a smart "trend observer"?

So was it peak of government??  I think Armstrong just threw in WW3, just in case.

But the FACT is TLT (or treasury bonds) nor the European bonds made a peak on ECM date.  The bond prices would have been scientifically the best measurement for government "confidence".  Since Armstrong couldn't use that, he resorted using something that he did NOT define explicitly, and he thinks that he does science??

So I'm going to say that my posts on this forum has made a peak attention for the next ECM 8.6 years.  Even though I could potentially measure and define "attention" by page views, I would just leave at that, since if I define the metric exactly, somebody could easily prove what I said was false.  And believe it or not, my statement is TRUE, because I just stated in the Armstrong's fashion.
Strike Eagle 26
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 2


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 04:50:19 PM
 #5087

You have made a basic error that’s the ECM model in 2.15 year intervals so of course the dates are different, can't you read the title?

the 8.6yr wave breaks down into 3 individual alternating  waves with a time duration of 2.15 and 1.075 year
periods for 1 leg. We refer to these as "long" and "short" legs(https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/models/7219-2/)
So for the start of that wave we have 2011.45 + 2.15 = 2013.60 + 1.075 = 2014.675 + 1.075 = 2015.75 (half cycle 4.3 years) hope you can see your mistake now.

The ECM date has always been 2015.75 which is October 1st. 2015.75 = 365 x .75 = 273.75 days into the year which is October 1st 2015.
Strike Eagle 26
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 2


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 04:56:38 PM
 #5088

Every single date on their is not based on the 8.6 year structure how could you have possibly missed this.

2011.45… 06/18/11 is wrong the actual date is June 13/14th

2013.6… 08/12/13 is wrong the actual date is August 7th

2015.75… 10/07/15 is wrong the actual date is October 1st

2017.9… 12/01/17 is wrong the actual date is November 24/25th

etc etc etc




MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 05:05:47 PM
 #5089

You have made a basic error that’s the ECM model in 2.15 year intervals so of course the dates are different, can't you read the title?

the 8.6yr wave breaks down into 3 individual alternating  waves with a time duration of 2.15 and 1.075 year
periods for 1 leg. We refer to these as "long" and "short" legs(https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/models/7219-2/)
So for the start of that wave we have 2011.45 + 2.15 = 2013.60 + 1.075 = 2014.675 + 1.075 = 2015.75 (half cycle 4.3 years) hope you can see your mistake now.

The ECM date has always been 2015.75 which is October 1st. 2015.75 = 365 x .75 = 273.75 days into the year which is October 1st 2015.

Apparently, you did NOT read the third link, directly from Armstrong.  Armstrong SAID that it IS October 7th 2015.

And in my older posts, I also made an argument that Armstrong's ECM numbers & model can NOT be correct at all by the simplest logic.

Based on Armstrong's math, ECM dates are every 8.6 year, and you can sprinkle around even more dates by using 2.15, and 1.075 years.  And given ANY starting/periodic date of ECM, take 2015.75 for example, you will find out that the decimal parts of the year will repeat rather quickly.  For example, after 10 ECM cycles, it's original date plus 86 years.  Since every year is always 365 or 366 days, ALL of ECM dates whether it's at half-cycle or quarter cycle or not, they will ALWAYS fall on 2 potential dates (355 or 366 days per year), plus any cyclic repeats of the decimal parts in between.

So believing in Armstrong's ECM model and his 8.6 year is essentially saying that ALL historical/future important economic dates are ALWAYS occurring on October 1st, and variants of it.  I'm not going to show you the simple math of adding 0.6 to 2015.75, and give you all of the other 4 variants.  But you get the idea.

Okay, let me repeat that again.  ALL historical and future important economic dates are ALWAYS going to occur on 5 dates (or potentially 10 if multiplying to 366 gives you another date).

That is falsehood staring right back in your eyes.

But you know what, Armstrong won't even blink when he states that.



MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 05:07:15 PM
Last edit: April 16, 2019, 05:28:00 PM by MA_talk
 #5090

Every single date on their is not based on the 8.6 year structure how could you have possibly missed this.

2011.45… 06/18/11 is wrong the actual date is June 13/14th

2013.6… 08/12/13 is wrong the actual date is August 7th

2015.75… 10/07/15 is wrong the actual date is October 1st

2017.9… 12/01/17 is wrong the actual date is November 24/25th

etc etc etc






Those dates are NOT "their".  Those dates are directly from Armstrong.  No one made that up.  He SAID those dates himself.

I posted links from web archive, because there is no way for Armstrong to delete them and alter the truth.  You can remove the web archive part, and see it directly from Armstrong's website.

MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 05:14:56 PM
Last edit: April 16, 2019, 05:35:47 PM by MA_talk
 #5091

It is in fact this direct date conflict of October 1st versus October 7th, plus his repeated claim of down to the "very day", that made me realized that the whole ECM can be BS.  The moment that Armstrong posted his date "methodology", I realized the math problem with the rational numbers with single digit of 8.6.

Back then, he had a different methodology, if you study those posted dates carefully.

In any case, October 1 is not 7.  And human economic history wasn't digitalized to just several some 30 days in the 365 day calendar for sure.

So if the core of ECM is wrong, can the blog content related to Socrates be wrong?

For God's sake, ECM is what Martin Armstrong is known for.  And he even claimed that his "computer" interacted with his daughter and "passed the Turing test" because his daughter was upset that he took apart of "his computer", possibly back in the 1970 or 1980s, when NO computers with the size of a room, on EARTH had the sufficient amount of computational power to do speech recognition, or any sort of AI.  In the 70s, the processor ran at some kHz, when in 2000, processor ran at 3GHz.  You need a million of processors to do such job back then.

Think about that, huh?

https://www.computerhope.com/history/processor.htm

1971, first processor ran at 60kHz.
Strike Eagle 26
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 2


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 05:31:01 PM
 #5092

The problem is you have already made up your mind so there is no point in discussing further but your mistake is starring you in the face those dates are the ECM in 2.15 year intervals so of course the dates are different and they only go to .2 decimal places. You don't even understand the basic wave structure of the 8.6 year economic confidence model which consists of 2.15 and 1.075 years and that is never going to change and those numbers have been in place and public for decades.
  your mistake is so bad that you cant even see it. it will soon be painfully aware that you have just been exposed as someone who actually knows nothing about MA or his model.
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 05:38:47 PM
 #5093

The problem is you have already made up your mind so there is no point in discussing further but your mistake is starring you in the face those dates are the ECM in 2.15 year intervals so of course the dates are different and they only go to .2 decimal places. You don't even understand the basic wave structure of the 8.6 year economic confidence model which consists of 2.15 and 1.075 years and that is never going to change and those numbers have been in place and public for decades.
  your mistake is so bad that you cant even see it. it will soon be painfully aware that you have just been exposed as someone who actually knows nothing about MA or his model.


You're exactly right that those dates according to Armstrong are never going to change.

But how about you explain it to everyone here, how is October 7th, 2015 the same as October 1st, 2015, when both dates & sources are from Armstrong directly?

I gave you the links.  And links are DIRECTLY from Armstrong's website.

So?Huh
Strike Eagle 26
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 2


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 05:49:48 PM
 #5094

those dates are the ECM calculated in quarter-cycle intervals of 2.15 years.

 MA explains everything in detail in this PDF. I don't think you would go through 72 pages though or even get passed the first page since you have already concluded Armstrong is a fraud.
 https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/its-just-time-martin-armstrong.pdf

MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 05:56:33 PM
 #5095

Can we please get some comments from other people on this October 1st vs October 7th 2015 dates?



By the way, just FYI, I have read every single public articles by Armstrong from 2000 to about 2015, and I read through every word and sentence, and that is how I catch all of his typos.

I have definitely read that 72 pages from your link.
Strike Eagle 26
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 2


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 06:51:25 PM
Last edit: April 16, 2019, 08:02:45 PM by Strike Eagle 26
 #5096

just because you have read them doesn't mean you have understood anything, you clearly are very confused and I can assure you no charlatan is going to made such a obvious mistake and based on what you are saying he has made it 100 times, the mistake is clearly with you.
 the link you provided with those list of dates by Armstrong which clearly states that this business cycle CAN BE!!!!!!!! calculated on quarter-cycle intervals of 2.15 years into the final peak for this major wave formation of December 24th, 2032.

and based on those list of dates provided from the link every single date Armstrong has given on his blog regarding the ECM over the years is wrong EVERY SINGLE ONE not just the 1st of August 2015 as shown below.
So what happened to the last 4 years then ? you basically have 4 years of blog posts to read before we can continue this discussion and of course you have not been reading the private blog posts since it came out either.

2.15 intervals
 
2011.45… 06/18/11
2013.6… 08/12/13
2015.75… 10/07/15
2017.9… 12/01/17
2020.05… 01/26/20

ECM intervals (2.15 + 1.075 alternating waves)

2011.45... June 13/14th
2013.60... August 7th
2014.675... September 3rd/4th
2015.75... October 1st
2016.825... October 28th
2017.90... November 24/25th
2020.05... January 18/19th

MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 08:28:57 PM
 #5097

Did you even read the entire article in the third link?

The entire article including ALL of those WRONG dates (according to you) was written by Martin Armstrong.

Of course, if you are wrong on 1 date, you are probably wrong on ALL dates.  Math is math, and math doesn't lie.

THE Charlatan (Martin Armstrong) DID made this mistake.

That article is only a couple of pages.  How about you read it first?
Strike Eagle 26
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 2


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 08:53:38 PM
Last edit: April 16, 2019, 09:15:15 PM by Strike Eagle 26
 #5098

all of those dates are not wrong at all that is simply another way of calculating the business cycle in 2.15 year quarter-cycle intervals I really can't make it much simpler than that and he says exactly that so I can't understand the confusion. it is you who needs to read it again. I am really trying to help you here I have absolutely no reason to lie to you. Regarding how significant the 2.15 quarterly cycle interval is I do not know but there is also the 8.6 month cycle and 8.6 week cycle within the 8.6 year cycle but that doesn't seem to confuse you? and there are even deeper levels with the 8.6 day cycle, hours, minutes and even seconds.


You may find this interesting the ECM high of 1998.554298, add Pi in terms of months and years 3.141 that produces the date 2001.695. take 365 days and multiply .695 yields 253.675 days into the year 2001.
That amounts to September 11th 2001. The 8.6 year cycle is equal to Pi x 1000 it is not something he pulled out of thin air.

MA_Talk  I have read every single public blog post ever released including all previous writings going back to 1995. I have read every single private blog post since the launch of Ask-Socrates and I have traded on the reversals given on the private blog countless times can you say you have done the same? You haven't been following Armstrong since 2015 you have absolutely no idea what you are even talking about, since 2015 you have been blissfully unaware of Armstrong's calls that he has made.
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 09:22:24 PM
 #5099

all of those dates are not wrong at all that is simply another way of calculating the business cycle in 2.15 year quarter-cycle intervals I really can't make it much simpler than that and he says exactly that so I can't understand the confusion. it is you who needs to read it again. I am really trying to help you here I have absolutely no reason to lie to you. Regarding how significant the 2.15 quarterly cycle interval is I do not know but there is also the 8.6 month cycle and 8.6 week cycle within the 8.6 year cycle but that doesn't seem to confuse you? and there are even deeper levels with the 8.6 day cycle, hours, minutes and even seconds.


You may find this interesting the ECM high of 1998.554298, add Pi in terms of months and years 3.141 that produces the date 2001.695. take 365 days and multiply .695 yields 253.675 days into the year 2001.
That amounts to September 11th 2001. The 8.6 year cycle is equal to Pi x 1000 it is not something he pulled out of thin air.

MA_Talk  I have read every single public blog post ever released including all previous writings going back to 1995. I have read every single private blog post since the launch of Ask-Socrates and I have traded on the reversals given on the private blog countless times can you say you have done the same? You haven't been following Armstrong since 2015 you have absolutely no idea what you are even talking about, since 2015 you have been blissfully unaware of Armstrong's calls that he has made.


"another way" of calculating?Huh  So both October 1st and October 7th are ECM dates, and Armstrong was also accurate down to the "very day" as he claimed?Huh  Down to which day of his choosing?Huh

You cannot have it both way.

If you say that you can trade using his model profitably, please SHOW it and convince me wrong.

MOST people on this forum will not agree with you.

Profits never lie.  And I'm very practical.  As long as profits can be made, I don't care whether it's October 1st or 7th.  The only problem that I have is that Armstrong has made ECM and 8.6 years as the CENTRAL theme, and that it's simply not correct to say 1st and 7th are the same day, and that his model predicts down to the "very day".

MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 16, 2019, 09:26:15 PM
 #5100

Again, if you have 6 days difference in just 1 ECM cycle, in just 10 ECM cycles, you will have 60 days difference.

That is TWO months difference.  That is like eternity in the high-speed trading world.  I supposed that Armstrong can call every single day in that 60 days window, and if he gets a hit, he is the hero, and he is right?Huh



Pages: « 1 ... 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 [255] 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 ... 323 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!