walkitout: (Default)
I attended the PGHOA annual meeting last night via zoom. Apparently, the new WA state law regulating condominiums requires HOAs to make meetings accessible to more owners. Fuck Yeah, WA state legislators! Nice to see someone has decided to stop requiring us to rip all our finger nails out trying to hold onto the past.

At the PGHOA annual meetings, technically, meetings plural, we went over next year’s budget proposed and accepted by the board. Absent 51% of the (had to be a quorum) folks at the meeting voting down the budget or revising it, this is the budget. When I was young, I used to look at these things pretty hard. Now, less so. It’s good to be young.

JJ is at least younger than I am, and she had some Questions, notably about the phone and the cable / internet lines. And to be fair, they were confusing. She tends towards hostility, but I bought into this thing back in the ‘90s and I’m much more interested in things going the way I want them to vs. getting into an argument about it. So I “clarified” her question, and CD, outgoing and just re-elected board member, told a story. The story went roughly like this.

Last summer, we finally redid the elevator, as current equipment was increasingly difficult to get parts for and was increasingly finicky (4 story building, elevator is original equipment dates from 1979). We did get a good lifetime out of that elevator. That elevator had — as elevators all over this country are required to do — a phone in it in case of emergency. Sometime during the year, possibly during the renovation, it was discovered that the phone no longer worked. A little bit of information here: if the phone doesn’t work, the elevator may not be used until the phone does work. A bit more flavor on that: we’d been paying for elevator inspections that the company we were paying to do the inspections were not doing. For years, maybe? If they had been doing the inspections, they presumably would have caught the phone problem. Since they weren’t, we don’t know when this started. A year or two ago, the board complained to the management company, and they gave us a different manager and she started catching a lot of stuff, which in turn led to us fixing a bunch of stuff. All to the good.

Anyway. The board member in question spent several hours over a period of time attempting to reach someone at the telephone service provider and … couldn’t. They were taking the payments and not providing the contracted service. Are we sensing a theme here?

So I start thinking about this. If the inspector aren’t inspecting, they won’t catch the phone. This is unlikely to be us as the first victims of this failure to provide service. (Who is inspecting the inspectors?) (Probably this is a paperwork production operation, so as long as the paperwork says the work was done, nobody catches it until the customers complain.) The reason our budget lines for phone / intercom / internet / cable are so weird this year is because that’s generally a deflationary item (if yours isn’t, your probably should look into that) and because we replaced the old phone service in the elevator (that wasn’t performing) by rolling it into the internet based system (which everyone should be doing everywhere).

I understand that you might be tempted to say something like, but I want a “real” PSTN copper landline! If you even know those words, which if you are saying this and you know those words, I hope you have already stopped driving in unfamiliar places, after dark and during rain and other bad weather and you should really have a discussion with the folks who love you about under what circumstances you will turn over your keys and when you replace your driver’s license it will be with a state ID card instead of a license. You might remember the olden days, when the copper landline would “work” even when the “power” was “out”. That’s because there was a big ole battery somewhere, which there increasingly isn’t and also if you are still feisty about this go several paragraphs back up and remind yourself of how _the elevator phone wasn’t working for an extended period of time because the provider was no longer providing the service but was still collecting the checks and just fucking ask yourself how much you are being scammed elsewhere in your life for the false promise that you can keep living like it’s the Reagan Era_.

The real question here — and may the goddess love and bless you and all those you love, because no one else is rewarding your patience so I hope you’re getting something out of it — is: How Many Other Elevators Is This Happening To?

Six years ago in a Ma Bell group on FB, someone posted:

“As a tech who worked tall buildings.
We used to get called out because the phone in the elevator didn't work.
Turns out some newish account manager look over the lines and canceled lines that had no activity
Yes my brothers that was the elevator phone!”

So back then, the risk was, oh, this line is never sued, let’s get rid of it. Things have happened since then.

https://dbscomm.net/end-of-service-for-landlines/

“As of August 2, 2022, The FCC no longer requires telecom companies to provide/sell landline service to small or local telephone companies.”

I missed that development, and may return to dig into it more. Further from that source:

“FCC Order 19-72 was lobbied for as the cost of maintaining copper wire infrastructure has increased over the years, and telecom companies have grown to see it as a dead technology. So in August of this year, the large phone companies were no longer required to support copper landline service, known as POTS (plain old telephone service).

While larger telecom providers like Verizon and AT&T are moving on from costly copper wire and investing heavily in fiber optic communications, there is still a strong demand for service in elevators and buildings that are only wired for copper service.

However, some telecoms are holding onto their copper landline business for the time being and raising prices, industry insiders say that copper phone service will cease to exist by 2025. Another good reason to move on from POTS.”

Welp. I guess we rode that train right to the end of the line.

Anyway. I dug into this today in part because I was wondering whether there was any news coverage of this particular issue. What I learned is that the elevator guild knows all about this, and requirements on new elevators are really great in terms of accessibility and generally not having this problem, but buildings with a single, aging elevator are very much disconnected from that community if their inspection service provider isn’t providing.

My efforts to find an online database of elevator inspection permits were not successful for Seattle — the state maintains a database but it does not include Seattle and Spokane. Those cities do their own elevator inspection. New York and Texas both have a long history of periodic media coverage of problems with their elevators and inspection regulations (or lack thereof), but I suspect a fair amount of regulatory energy has been expended on trying to get private elevators to stop killing children, vs. ensuring that the existing regulatory framework isn’t rotting from within. I suppose we’ll keep having problems of increasing severity until there’s a movement for reform. Or maybe it’ll all be fine, because everyone will have to upgrade anyway for non-tragic reasons.
walkitout: (Default)
There’s a trope in romance novels, “Big Misunderstanding”, and it drives me and a lot of other readers completely mad, and apparently other people like it. In general, obviously, we would prefer people actually have healthy communication styles, and we grudgingly respect Big Misunderstanding novels where it isn’t exactly a case of lacking healthy communication. Anyway.

What if the problem I have with the Big Misunderstanding is NOT the failure to engage in communication? What if my real issue is that I am horrified that MC1 could really believe that about MC2 and still be attracted to them? What if I am horrified that MC2 knows that MC1 believes that about MC2, and won’t listen to MC2’s explanation (or anyone else’s) … and then MC2 still wants to be with MC1?

What if I’ve never been reacting to the fact of the failure to communicate, but rather the way these people go through the world, and their willingness to contort themselves to fit into the distorted interaction with reality that the other clearly demonstrates? I’m not able to accept a relationship with someone who thinks so badly of me. What if I’m just horrified by other people being willing to accept comparable relationships?

I mean, could be a boundary issue on my part (to be fair, fiction). Could be that I’m trying to convince myself that I was right to reject the relationship that would force me to contort myself to fit their distorted idea of me and if it was right for me, it’s right for others and blah blah blah bad reasons to evangelize. I wonder what would happen if I went back and (re)read a Big Misunderstanding novel right now?
walkitout: (Default)
A while back, when I started posting stuff on FB Marketplace, I knew about Buy Nothing groups, and I guessed by the name that they were inspired by if not directly connected to Buy Nothing Day. Decades ago, I subscribed for years to Adbusters, so I definitely had some relevant background knowledge. A variety of people suggested that I posted stuff in my local Buy Nothing Group, but I was reluctant because I knew the volume of stuff I was moving was unlikely to move quickly enough in a local group. I checked out my local group after joining, and it was … sleepy.

But what really got me was the weird misunderstandings of Buy Nothing groups. A. in California had no idea it involved people giving and receiving. I. in Washington assumed it was barter. I don’t even remember J.’s misunderstanding right now because it won’t stick in my brain it was so unhinged.

In the process of assisting C. and H., I’ve run into a lot of expected examples of bad decision making (nixing Harmony at Hershey because of a negative review Somewhere Online about Homeland. And then a few days later, _selecting_ Homeland, out of a list of three provided by someone else who is even more skeptical of C.’s decision to isolate than I am. Whatever). There was some discussion of a transport wheelchair. I was like, aha! I can help with that! I bought one for my sister. I got all the info, and the PT/OT folks nixed it as unnecessary / unhelpful. Then later, they decide to buy the twice as heavy but more typical transport wheelchair (and by, “they decide to buy”, I mean, they picked it and I paid for it). I thought about pointing out this thing weighs double what the other one does, but I decided not to, purely because I wanted to find out how this turned out.

I also paid for the van transport for C. from rehab to respite. The transport wheelchair was so she could be wheeled from the van to her room at Homeland, or so I was told by H., and stay in that chair until her comfy recliner (yes, I bought that too) was set up for her, if it was not already). However — and here is the misunderstanding — C. had it in her head that she was going to ride _in the wheelchair_ while _in the van_. Obviously not. It’s a lightweight folding chair. How fucking dangerous would that be (answer: extremely fucking dangerous!). Driver was a sweetie and more or less lifted her up into the seat in the van, which is exactly what I would expect and is also one of the reasons that I’ve been spending a lot of time looking at lifts that are more portable / cheaper / broadly deployable, because while C. probably comes in at 90 pounds fully clothed and soaking wet, a lot of people riding in these kinds of vans weight twice that or more (I would be in the “or more” category, for example).

I decided to go take a quick look around to answer the question of: what kinds of wheelchairs can you ride in while in a van? And the answer is, don’t fucking do that! But if you do do that, you’re doing it because you need a positioning wheelchair, which C. very much does not need. The relevant standard is a voluntary one, WC19. And reading it, it’s obviously complied with only very occasionally and it’s a hopelessly inadequate standard anyway.

It’s one thing to latch the wheelchair down in a full size bus. It’s wholly another thing to expect to do that in a van. Don’t do that if you can possibly avoid that!

I spent some time in therapy today trying to understand where all these surreal misunderstandings are coming from, and it’s one thing to say, oh, there was some kind of confusion or miscommunication. And sure, there always is. But I’m also increasingly convinced that people have no fucking clue how things work, but they believe they understand how something works, and that gap is a killer. Literally, sometimes.

Anyway. “Transport wheelchair” means a lightweight wheelchair that you can fold up and put in the car. Or it means a wheelchair that is pushed, instead of powered. But it most definitely does not mean one that is WC19 compliant for sitting in while riding in a moving vehicle.
walkitout: (Default)
A. slept until noon, which was probably for the best. She’s in a much better mood.

I walked with M.

I walked with R.

The Forbo Coral mat arrived and it is everything I had hoped it would be: pleasant with bare feet, feels like it would grab dirt off of shoes, nice color, not stinky. Love it!

I talked and messaged with my sister about her kitchen and I think we got through all of the decisions. Yay! I may or may not go through and work out the measurements in detail, or I might leave that to the C.

I also talked through the walk-through closet with R., and he’s happy with my modifications there.

As a result, I have cleared just about everything off the “secret slides” and moved it to the Room by Room. There is, of course, always more to do, but I feel like things are pretty well set for the moment.

I’m making blondies.

A. and I have been watching TikTok. It is Fun! J. K. who I first met at Spry posts on TikTok, and I’m really enjoying hearing his voice, and seeing his travels.

I’m trying to get through the rest of the book group selection before Monday, and also take care of some other things. I may not be posting for the next little while; I’ll be busy doing things with A. and may or may not have time to post.
walkitout: (Default)
I was watching a Pat Loller — who, let me just say, models a left wing version of patriotism that I absolutely find great delight in — TikTok about vmail and airgraph.

Here’s the Pat Loller TikTok:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8HR8uAj/

And a couple articles about vmail and airgraph:

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/mail-call-v-mail

https://postalmuseum.si.edu/exhibition/victory-mail-introducing-v-mail/microfilm-models-precursors-of-v-mail

I did not know about either of these and was super excited to learn about both, and the airgraph predecessor involving carrier pigeons in the Paris siege of 1870.
walkitout: (Default)
Let’s be clear: I am _not_ here to help with your relationship conversations. Pay a real therapist. I’m not a therapist.

First, a resort to the dictionary!

Conversation for these purposes is the _exchange_ between two or more people of thoughts, information, etc.

_Back and Forth_

Step 1: Bring something. Think of conversation as a potluck — you are supposed to bring a dish that you like (in case you hate everything else there) AND that you have some reason to expect other people to also enjoy. Don’t bring the really offputting cheese. Do bring the funny, heartwarming news story that makes us all feel like humans can be good, loving and supportive of each other in hard times. Or funny pet tricks. Whatever.

Step 2: To the best of your ability, and compatible with your personal integrity, try to be open to trying new things. I’m not asking you to laugh at deadnaming or racism or trivializing the oppression or abuse of others. but even if science wasn’t your favorite topic in school, I hope you’ll still find someone else’s excitement over a major scientific development a way to connect with this area of not-very-interesting-to-you.

Step 3: if you are confused, ask for an explanation / expansion / description in other terms. That is fine!

Step 4: and if you need to bring a timer or stopwatch that’s okay. Try not to talk for more than 3 minutes in a row. Ever. Also, if there are n people in the conversation, try not to take over more than 1/n of the conversation. I suck at this one. So. So. Much.

Step 5: if someone sounds really upset about something, do your best to ignore the content of what they are saying and engage with the feelings they are having. The factual content may well be absolute bullshit. But if you care about them, their feelings may still matter to you. Also, if you ever want them to be receptive to factier facts, you are going to need them to feel like you care about them.

Step 6: When the interaction is over, think hard about whether you ever want to converse with those people again. It’s always a choice. Make it consciously.

See? Interruptions don’t matter! This is what matters.
walkitout: (Default)
I’m really unhappy about absolutely everything I’m reading about conversation and interruptions. Most of it sounds mildly plausible on the face of it, and I’m sure people have found much of the advice helpful at times. Certainly, I have found a lot of this kind of advice helpful at times. But it’s all _terrible_ advice in that it can cause people to do exactly the wrong thing — encourage women to speak even less, amplify systemic racism, etc.

So now I’m looking for an alternative frame for whatever went wrong in conversation that people mean when they say don’t interrupt me / let me finish and/or can I please just get a word in / when is it my turn / if I don’t say it right away I’ll forget it. Clearly, the exchange is unsatisfactory.

ETA:

A relay race where each person just randomly hurls the baton, not even anywhere near the next person in the relay. And where the next person in the relay is off running in the wrong direction without the baton.

ETAYA:

I’ve been dismantling the Colosseum (Lego) again while listening to APA podcasts. The couples therapy one (it’s good, and worth a listen — https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/relationship-advice) uses the metaphor of playing _catch_ vs _tennis_ for relationship interactions. Stop trying to score points; try to be gentle and help the other person catch the ball.

So that’s really interesting. Liane Davey is describing “interruption” in the context of a sizable body of information being conveyed by one person to one or more other people. That “interruption” is interruption to a _presentation_, not in a “conversation”.

The how to interrupt in English politely, and quite a bit of the things I was complaining about in Bustle are how to participate as a audience member to a show.

The Presidential Debate advice revolved around interruptions between two people who are vying for attention from a third party or parties.

Absolutely none of this is relevant to an actual _conversation_.

The stuff about dealing with domineering (male) people in a group interaction, I dunno, I still think that’s a dick measuring competition and if you intend to win it, the best approach remains to just go all in or leave early.

Also, wow.
walkitout: (Default)
https://www.bustle.com/p/how-to-stop-interrupting-people-be-a-better-listener-in-3-days-18760543

Link does not mean endorsement! There’s a _lot_ about this article that is deeply problematic. The embedded assumption of the entire article is that being a better listener = not interrupting / not talking (at all). You might _think_ that’s not what it’s about, but it gets _really_ clear in a couple spots.

“ Another helpful trick is the 80/20 rule of communication. "It’s 80% listening to the people you are speaking with, and 20% speaking," Saranga says. "Once you feel yourself crossing the 20% mark, it’s time to slow down and give others a chance to speak."”

Why should a one-on-one conversation involve 1 person doing 4 times as much talking as the other?

Bustle is a magazine primarily aimed at women. This feels like a problem. The general rule taught to people on the autism spectrum who struggle with dominating the conversation (or not participating at all) is look at the size of the group and then aim to be talking about 1/n of the time. If Saranga is used to conversations that involve 5ish people, then 80/20 makes sense. Otherwise, no it really does not. It _especially_ does not make sense if a woman is in a het relationship, or relating to a man in a work or other context, and the man is telling her she is interrupting too much and she should talk less. This article would make that situation way, way worse.

(Yes, I did read the paragraph after, but it does not give the goal ratio. At all.)

“ Whether it's a friend who has a lot to get off their chest, or a coworker who is sharing their ideas, try to listen first. As Alpert says, you can always ask questions later.”

No, you actually can’t necessarily ask questions later. I have a friend who at one point would just set the phone down and go about her business because her brother would literally talk without interruption for an hour or more. When he was done, he’d say bye and hang up without _any_ possibility of back and forth. That’s worse than anything I’ve ever had to deal with (because I won’t put up with that level of nonsense) and arguably connected to some underlying mental health struggles (it sounds like manic because it is).

“ To stay motivated and keep up the good work, "consider your conversations as experiments to see how they are different and how your relationships may change when you interrupt less often," Cook says. "See if people respond to you differently and if they start to open up more fully when they’re interacting with you."

When you practice listening — instead of accidentally interrupting all the time — you'll likely notice that all your conversations are a heck of a lot more interesting, and that you connect with folks on much a deeper level. And that's well worth the effort.”

This is true! If you listen to people and reflect back what they are saying, people _will_ feel _very_ connected to you on a deep level! I cannot _even_ tell you how much people will open up if you engage in active, reflective listening and literally don’t bring up any of your problems at all. And you might well realize just how much you dislike them as people.

Let’s go find some other advice about interrupting, because this is absolutely shit. There is _nothing_ in it about cultural norms, age or gender dynamics, or racism. All of which would seem to be very relevant in a discussion of whether/when to interrupt, how and how often. Which is kinda what I’m looking for.

https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2020/october/women-interrupted-debate.html

Link does not mean endorsement!

This is in response to a Presidential debate, so not exactly a context of general utility. It _does_ at least in passing remark upon gender issues and barely mentions racial issues.

““If being ignored, talked over or repeatedly interrupted, a person should begin by saying something positive — perhaps by acknowledging the merits of the interrupter’s position,” Wolfe said. “They should then note shared goals that aren’t being met and offer a solution. For instance, the person could say ‘we could be having a better discussion. Let’s take care not to interrupt or share more thoughts until everyone has had a chance to speak.’””

Where to begin.

The person being talked over /interrupted is supposed to fix the problem. Yay. Because, you know, that’s going to work with the other person interrupting and then insisting on being allowed to talk uninterrupted themselves. But sure. Given that the problem occurs with my kids, it probably _is_ my job to “fix” this. Plenty of times I don’t _want_ to be in the conversation. The conversation arrived at me, and I sat and listened and reflected until I was bloody sick of it and just wanted it to be over. My interruptions are largely efforts to redirect to other topics, or to propose alternative perspectives on the situation. Altho, to be fair, usually things wrap up pretty quick when I get exasperated, say, look this is not a good way to think about it, shut up and listen to me for a minute. I explain how it looks from the other person’s perspective, the kid gets a stunned look and say, oh I had not realized. And I’m like, yeah, well, no one explained it to me either, and I’m sorry that the world sucks and human relationships are so difficult. I don’t generally share either my child’s perspective (altho I usually can vividly remember once seeing it that way, too!) OR the other person’s perspective (because JFC it’s so fucking obvious that my child misunderstood your idiomatic language quit using tired metaphors and references that the kids don’t get and think they get and then there is mad chaos).

Where was I?

Oh, right. Look, if you are being repeatedly talked over in a context where there is someone who is supposed to be moderating the convo, get their attention and make them fix it. If there _is not_ someone supposed to be moderating the convo, figure out a way to loom over the person who is dominating (make them sit while you stand, stand on a chair if they won’t sit down) and really get _into_ their face and be vicious about it while avoiding language that could be a criminal threat. In an ideal situation, they’ll get physical, and they won’t be a part of your work or whatever life any more. Second best, they submit. When people are dominating, you leave, or dominate them harder. This whole, you’re right about this part will be viewed as an invitation to re-interrupt you. It’s not like any actual work is getting done when a bunch of guys are engaging in a dick measuring competition anyway.

https://conflictremedy.com/culture-clash-in-conversations-at-work/

I might actually endorse this one, altho I will point out it starts by saying no one like to be interrupted and then goes on to lay out in great detail that she actually feels happiest, most comfortable and most productive when her conversational partner shares her interruption style.

https://englishwithkim.com/interrupting-politely-interjecting/

This is _hilariously_ awesome and awful at the same time. There’s so much going on. First, a lot of what is being described is actually really useful, presumably to the people who are new to the culture BUT ALSO it is really nice to have this laid out in detail for people on the autism spectrum. Love That!

Also, it is _apparently_ _never_ _polite_ to interrupt to tell someone that they cannot be talking like that at least not around you / in this environment. The odds of someone having made it this far and not being able to imagine examples of that are slim, but I will include a few anyway:

Do not use racist language here.
Do not use sexist language here.
Do not use transphobic language here.
Do not use homophobic language here.
Do not engage in Holocaust denial here.
Do not trivialize [insert horrifying thing] here.
Do not engage in religious proselytizing here.
Do not body shame here.
Do not discuss dead bodies here.
Do not discuss medical procedures in detail here.
Do not talk about that-person’s-recent-ex here.
Do not use [offending word] here.
Do not talk about sex in graphic detail here.
Do not repeat Fox News talking points here, not even for purposes of humor.

Some of these, really, you can just tell them rudely as you are escorting them out the door and if they collect some damage on the way, so be it. You don’t need to always be polite. But for some of these — like, f bombs are fun, but not in front of the toddlers they are repeating everything at day care and I cannot afford for them to be kicked out of another one — it would be nice to have some advice on how to convey the conversational limitation clearly, succinctly, politely and without waiting for the other person to give you an opening.

I’m going to have to think about this. My search strings clearly suck.

ETA:

https://www.lianedavey.com/is-interrupting-rude/

This offers an interesting me vs. them metric for deciding whether the interruption is rude. The presumption — and this is fair, because she’s a consultant to c-suite types — is that the context is work, and people are presenting information with like a slide deck or whatever. (Honestly, right here you can see the merits of writing down a proposal and having everyone read it at the beginning of the meeting.) You are not supposed to ask a good question during slide 4 that will be answered on slide 9. But if slide 4 _prompts_ the question, and you don’t know that it will be answered on slide 9. . . And if you _do_ know it will be answered on slide 9, why are you in this presentation? Who is this presentation for, anyway?

The interruptions that _enhance_ communication are little better. Basically, if the person talking is talking too fast for you to absorb, or if you cannot hear them clearly, or you are zoning out and missed something, it _enhances_ communication to ask for a repeat. Which seems reasonable! But then again, what about all the other people in the room who will zone out when the repetition bores them to absolute tears and then they’ll miss the next bit.

This _sounds_ like a clear metric, but it isn’t one at all.
walkitout: (Default)
It’s really hot again today. I did get a walk with M.

A. is feeling a little better, but still not eating as much as usual.

I saw another article at WaPo about a Qster who has been in jail for several months following the terrorist attack on Jan 6, in which they say, I believed a bunch of lies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/08/douglas-jensen-qanon-conspiracy/

Altho, in the same breath, continuing to say bad things about the police, so, you know, only very partially reformed.

This all brought up thoughts of, so, what’s up with the other crazy people who aren’t in jail? Apparently, during the months I have Not Been Paying Attention, Bongino (local crazy radio personality) hyped and then became disillusioned with Parler, and the coupsters have apparently migrated to Telegram. I have all kinds of Thoughts about relying upon encrypted communication systems (mostly, this amounts to, why would I go have a conversation in a place that I Thought Was Safe for Having Illegal Conversations unless I knew a whole lot about the technical details, which I do not, and I don’t want to know either). And that thought led, in turn, here:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/australia/afp-fbi-anom-app-operation-ironside/index.html

Apparently, phones get stolen that you can’t use for the usual purposes (calling) because of deterrence measures, but you _can_ use them on wireless and there is (was?) an app (never heard of it before) that Bad People Who Steal Phones Or Consciously Buy Stolen Phones believe was a secure encrypted form of communication. I should say, “believed”, because, it wasn’t secure and a whole lot of them have learned that the hard way. The same article includes this gem:

“Kershaw added there were other, larger encrypted communication apps which police were working to access.”

More detail here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/06/08/fbi-app-arrests-australia-crime/

We should get the police to WFH more often.

January 2026

S M T W T F S
     1 23
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 3rd, 2026 10:18 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios