top of page


Public·11 members
Vsevolod Chernov
Vsevolod Chernov

Teenporn Only

only u can bang on til u break her pussy like crazy how many times can u make her throbbing pussy vag squirting creamy cum like crazy wow golovense ilovense plushcam toys sticking out listening to your commands how do u shake dat then leaked o

teenporn only

only u can work her pussy clit Google play now asap step teen hot babysitter spreading asshole big ass anal fun make her orgasm then lick her fingers she dripping so much cum thanks to you wow lets hit it babe live cam sex chick porn

exposedlatinas - Carla Cruz latina teen fucks in a sex shop. We thought the only reason people went there was to buy porn, no according to Carla Cruz this is the new way people should be fucking. Carla Cruz

After only one hour of debate and no allowance for amendments, S.J. Res 34 passed through the House of Representatives with a majority vote of 215-205 along party lines. President Trump has signaled that he supports S.J.Res 34 and will sign it.

Robert, developing a technology is one thing, deploying it is another thing. You know well that there are a number of potentially useful technologies that have never reached the marketplace and never improved the lives of people.Suppose tomorrow someone in a lab develops a prototype magic bullet. Like all prototypes, it would work in some cases and not work or even harm recipients in other cases. This would be a good step in the right direction but this step would be only the beginning of a long road. A lot of money and effort would have to be spent to convert the prototype demonstrator into operational technology. This would require acceptance by politicians, probably public funding, acceptance by regulatory authorities, and (especially) by the people in the street. Achieving all that takes time and work. These are all slow processes where you must give the system time to relax to equilibrium before moving on to the next step.So though I am frustrated myself by the "slow EU approach", I can see its merits in terms of gradually building consensus. Of course I would like to see things happening a bit faster.

Ideally this is how the EU should work. Local systems adapt to local and short-term changes, while Brussels deals with overall strategy. But the problem is that the slow-moving systems not only slow changes, but also that they tie the faster layers to their own timescale. If industries or research projects are forced into lockstep with central planning, they lose flexibility or have to spend resources circumventing the slower systems.

Note that the nice soft and slow European approach works both ways:There is as you say a requirement for consensus, but no nation is really willing to make too many concessions. So the only way out is to water down any proposed agreements until reaching something so soft that every nation is willing to agree.This means that on the one hand I do not expect any brave strong push toward transhumanism in Europe anytime soon, but on the other hand, I do not expect any fundamentalist backlash AGAINST transhumanism. Since unfortunately this could happen in the US (e.g. Kass & Co.) we may consider the nice soft and slow European approach as a useful safety net for transhumanism.

Within its pages, the reader is invited to discover those wondrous things that only great short fiction can offer: an abbreviated window into disparate lives, intense and intricate moments of distress and disclosure, completely self-contained and executed in twenty-five pages or less (Deagler on Gustine's Collection).

Of course, this would necessitate some kind of "WikiScript", but it would mean that any number could have an article, generated on request. For templates that matched only a small set of numbers, the text could be pre-generated and cached somewhere, while those with wider scope would be calculated when a matching number was requested (and then cached until the next change). A change that effected a very large number of articles would carry a warning - I was originally thinking of requiring verification of such edits, but the existing protection mechanism could be used for that.

With the disastrous relaunch of, whereby users are only allowed to use the site with Internet Explorer 6.0 for Windows, and with their setup not allowing direct linking, I think this project is a lot more important. --Ilya 03:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In wikibooks, someone had the idea of creating a language in a wikibook module. They called it "Neo". While I find the implementation heavily problematic (Wikibooks is not really an appropriate place for such an endeavor; creating an International language in an English-only wiki is silly; "Neo" is a dumb name; The language as started there was really just a jumble of English-heavy Western European; etc.), the core idea I find fascinating. Certainly artificial languages have been created in the past, with mixed success. But utilizing a common wiki, it seems like there would be an opportunity to create a truly international language that bore not too much similarity to any existing language (as Esperanto, et al, do), but utilizes certain characteristics that are common amongst languages and fairly easy for humans to understand. Certain core features of the language (e.g., ideographic vs. phonetic vs. a combination of both) would have to be established fairly early, but from that groundwork, it should be possible to create a usable, consistent, fairly easy-to-learn, and not-especially-biased-towards-speakers-of-one-language collaborative language. Jun-Dai 18:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some comments on the Talk page for w:September 11 2001, Terrorist Attack got me thinking. A number of people rightly say that much of the Sept. 11 material, especially the individual 'memorials', though they are laudable in themselves, really have no place in a true encyclopedia. I basically agree. Then it occurred to me that both Britannica and World Book have for many years issued 'Yearbook' editions with the distributions of their new encyc. sets. These Yearbooks are devoted to the major events, scientific achievements, etc. for each individual year, allowing the editors to expand somewhat on issues that will only end up with a passing reference in the main encyc. I think Wikipedia stands much in need of something like this. No amount of cajoling will keep people from posting detailed stuff that seems important today but will only merit a few blanket sentences in the ongoing encyc. Much of this stuff would be just right for a Yearbook, as would material like the Sept. 11 memorials. What say you to a WikiYearbook side project? JDG Oct. 9, 2002

But how to do that? Engage more people to have a look at long articles which are harder to review with increasing size?Locking more and more articles for editing, so only people with professional competence can do changes? This would bar the concept which made Wikipedia famous and popular, the liberty of each visitor to edit articles. No, this would be a deep break and could lead to forks. The Wikipedia will be forked, too, when it continues the current way - ignoring the problem that there are some very good articles being filled with misleading and wrong information. Of course, there are people who revert those articles back, but what's with people who are dependant on secure information as well? They cannot be sure when they load a page in Wikipedia, because misleading information can be included at any time.

Therefore I propose a new Wiki Project which could ensure more secure information which can be trusted in, WikiFacts. I assume that a collection of well-sorted and well-reviewed facts with full list of references could improve the quality of all Mediawiki projects in all languages, because it is only an addition. References in statements to WikiFacts could show the reader whether a passage can be trusted in or not. Those references may be hidden and be shown with a click onto a new link in articles.

So each article would have one subforum, in which everyone can create a new thread. Other users can answer these threads or create new ones. It should only be possible to edit your own posts but not the ones from others.

There is a huge need in the modern world for a news source which is unbiased. Here in the UK, the media is largely anti-Zionist, with the BBC broadcasting news reports in a biased way. I'm no expert in this, but I expect there are plenty of articles around on the internet about this, they themselves biased. Also, there is a tendency to magnify Israel, Iraq, Ireland and domestic affairs. I am vaguely aware that there must be other conflicts somewhere, but the only other place I can think of is the anti-Semitic attacks in France and the conflict in Zimbabwe. I think I am an example of a biased reader with a distorted view of the world. 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page