« first day (3609 days earlier)      last day (26 days later) » 
00:00 - 18:0018:00 - 00:00

12:00 AM
Gute Nacht.
 
Normally the stems come from the genitive sg, but there's a coincidence of nom pl and gen sg in most Latin declensions at least.
Iridescent
Which is just starting to be pretty. :)
> 1804 Tennant in Philos. Trans. (Royal Soc.) 94 414 I should incline to call this metal Iridium, from the striking variety of colours which it gives, while dissolving in marine acid.
I know it's confusing but don't blame Latin: the coincidence of nominative plurals and genitive singulars also exists in English: cats vs cat’s.
Unlike Latin, we in English have no distinctive genitive plural in regular nouns, leaving us stuck with cats’ again.
Only happy nouns like children’s or mice’s have aurally distinct possessive plurals.
 
12:15 AM
@tchrist But not in the third declension.
Iris is of mixed declension, being a proper name really.
 
The Times intend to release more stories about his taxes over the next five week leading up to the election. Compare that to the Russians dribbling out leaked mail from the Clinton campaign. Times wins.
@Cerberus Yes, I know.
 
But the genitive shows the stem irid-.
 
Yep.
 
So I wasn't sure what you were talking about.
 
You can see third-declension stems just about everywhere you look in English.
 
12:16 AM
16 mins ago, by tchrist
Normally the stems come from the genitive sg, but there's a coincidence of nom pl and gen sg in most Latin declensions at least.
 
General, temporal, corporal.
 
This isn't really relevant, as the stem is the same.
 
@Cerberus First and second, but you can see the needed bits in the genitive of the third as well.
ok
 
Whether you deduce the stem from irides or iridos doesn't matter, does it?
Now, had you taken it from the accusative, irin, you'd have got the other stem.
 
@Cerberus No.
 
12:18 AM
It being of mixed declensions/stems.
 
Venereal beats Venusian. :)
 
Venusian would be improper.
 
Rather.
Nominal. Human.
Nocturnal.
It's all in the adjectives, I tell ya.
 
@Cerberus maybe for a goddess, but not for a planet.
 
It's wrong either way.
 
12:21 AM
Regal.
@Robusto Martian. :)
And martial of course.
jovial
 
@Cerberus You are such a traditionalist.
 
You say Marsian, if you like.
I won't stop you.
Or Neptunusian, why not?
 
You seem to have skipped Uranus. :)
People are mad at me for saying that working is not an adjective in a working relationship. Well, it's not, no matter whether it's a participle or a gerund.
That's because too many people think whatsoever shall a noun modify must an adjective be.
But even Donatus had participles! :)
A rather working relationship means something very different.
You can have a relationship for working, and you can have a relationship that's working very well thank you so much for asking.
Neither of those is an adjective.
Let alone an adverb wtf.
Anguished English and the Yngling Saga.
Ings just confuse the casuals. We should forbid questions about them. :)
 
@Cerberus: Doesn't Uranus in Latin mean "the original old man"?
 
Your butt hurts?
 
12:33 AM
Mine? No.
 
@tchrist Well, you could say any participle is adjectival.
 
@Robusto It depends whether it has a long a or a short one.
 
@Robusto Perhaps in Germano-Latin.
 
Hmm.
 
@Cerberus Can you? You can't very a present participle in English the way you can adjectives.
That's very coming along nicely.
Nope.
 
12:35 AM
@tchrist You are assuming that using those adverbs should be a reliable test.
Another thing: a word can belong to several categories at once.
And also in (developmental/transformative) succession.
People seem to think a word has only one layer and is only one part of speech.
 
@Cerberus Not in context it cannot.
It can have only one part of speech when it is used in a given syntactic context.
Because it can do only one thing.
 
Looks like the Republican counties in NM are the hardest hit by the coronavirus. Why am I not surprised?
 
@tchrist In the sense that a sentence can contain multiple contexts in which the same word takes part.
Alternatively, you could analyse a word as e.g. an adjectival verb.
Call it one compound part of speech, or call it two parts of speech at the same time: it matters not to me.
 
Proof that Google's heuristics for feeding people ads are shit. I keep seeing this in my YouTube home page.
If ever there was a person less likely to fall for such a scam, it's me. And possibly Tom.
If someone shipped me those coins free I would not be able to throw them in the trash fast enough.
 
12:51 AM
Haha.
Oh, I'd fall for it.
I don't think I have a Youtube home page.
 
If you have an account on YouTube you have a home page.
 
@Cerberus You must analyse by syntactic constituent, not by simplistic parts of speech.
 
I'm not sure what you mean.
 
> Laboriously working the land is a good way to earn a living.
What's the subject and what's the predicate?
Of the matrix verb, what you would call the main clause.
 
We all know how to analyse that sentence.
 
12:58 AM
The predicate is "is a good way to earn a living".
The subject is "Laboriously working the land".
 
Yes.
 
Nothing is more than one part of speech there.
We know that working is a verb there not a noun or an adjective.
 
The word working is verbal, in that it has several typically verbal dependencies (adverb and object).
 
No.
 
But it is nominal, in that it is the head of a nominal phrase.
 
1:00 AM
It's a verb.
Nope.
 
I.e. a gerund.
 
It is the head of a noun phrase but it is not a noun.
It is a verb.
 
So you say.
 
Verbs can head noun phrases.
 
I say nay.
 
1:00 AM
To live fast is better than not at all.
 
What you are doing as assuming it's only one thing at the same time.
 
Show me the noun.
There are no nouns in my sentence. None.
 
The infinitive functions similarly to a gerund.
Which has nominal and verbal aspects to it.
 
The subject is the the constituent "to live fast".
Come on.
 
Naturally.
 
1:01 AM
You're confusing concepts.
 
But the head of the phrase is the infinitive.
 
There are no nouns in that constituent.
It is the subject. That doesn't mean it has to have a noun in it!!!!!
 
I'm trying to step away from using nouns like noun and verb altogether, in order to appease you.
 
It breaks things to insist otherwise.
 
Usually, the head of a phrase has properties similar to the phrase as a whole.
 
1:03 AM
A gerund is never a noun. It is only ever a verb.
 
Exceptions are zero-headed phrases, like some quotations.
 
Just because a gerund clause can be a subject doesn't mean it has to have any nouns in it.
For someone to claim otherwise is inconceivable.
 
As I said, I stepped away from nouns in your honour.
 
What is the subject of the sentence I just entered?
 
We agree about subjects.
 
1:05 AM
The one whose verb is is.
"For someone to claim otherwise" is the subject.
And there isn't a single noun there.
 
What would you call the noun-like aspect of a gerund? You may pick any term that pleases you.
 
I don't know of any.
You're confusing words with constituents.
 
You know, it's not very polite to say one's interlocutor is "confused" when he does not feel he is.
 
Giving somebody a hard time isn't helping your cause.
I'm using example sentences.
"Giving somebody a hard time" does have a noun: time.
 
Do I have to send you both to your rooms?
 
1:07 AM
But the entire thing is the subject. You cannot reduce it.
 
1 min ago, by tchrist
I don't know of any.
 
Clearly it is a constituent that can serve as a substantive.
 
This I cannot understand.
@tchrist Of course.
 
You cannot modify it with adjectives. You cannot connect it to another noun phrase using a preposition.
It has objects. It can only be modified with adverbs. It's a verb. Full stop.
It is not "noun-like".
 
@tchrist Why can I not connex it to another noun phrase using a preposition?
The thought of giving someone a hard time?
The thought of giving.
 
1:10 AM
"The thought of giving someone a hard time" puts it on the other argument, that of the preposition.
 
"Puts it on"?
 
Swaps order.
In "The delicate inner workings of a wristwatch" there is no verb, only nouns.
 
@tchrist I don't really understand.
 
NP of NP.
 
I would say the word workings has some vestiges of verbal properties.
 
1:12 AM
Continually giving someone a hard time in the morning works.
@Cerberus Only if somebody workings it.
 
So I think what is happening here is that we use different criteria in determining parts of speech.
 
What can you do with workings that you can do with a verb?
Give it an object? No. Modify it with an adverb? No. Inflect it into the past tense? No.
 
Well, it's clearly formed from a verb. There is still some notion of action in it. So I'd call those vestiges of verbality.
 
Make it serve as the predicate of a subject? No.
It's a deverbal noun.
 
Which includes the word verb.
 
1:14 AM
Like a defrocked priest or a defrocked Fräulein.
 
Workings is, to me, more verbal than chairs.
 
No more frocking.
 
But less verbal than working in I am working now.
 
@Cerberus You didn't know the person who chairs your department?
 
Haha.
 
1:16 AM
It's an ex-verb, a whilom verb of yesteryear. It stopped being a verb the moment you pluralled it like a noun.
 
But I still think it is strange how you see nothing at all reminding you of nouns in a gerund.
 
Just like in misunderstandings.
You can eventually find a verbal etymon if you pick its parts apart long enough. But calling it a verb is silly, and calling it verbal serves no useful purpose of my acquaintance.
 
Why are you still using the word verb when I went out of my way to avoid those words, as a concession to you?
 
Noun, verbs, adjectives. These things I know.
 
> A gerund (/ˈdʒɛrənd, -ʌnd/[1] abbreviated GER) is any of various nonfinite verb forms in various languages; most often, but not exclusively, one that functions as a noun. In English, it has the properties of both verb and noun, such as being modifiable by an adverb and being able to take a direct object.
Wikipaedia.
 
1:18 AM
Clauses need not be finite.
 
This is not some crazy pet theory of mine.
 
So that's written by people who don't know shit.
 
You may see things differently.
 
Or who are handwaving away things that matter.
What the trump does "functions as a noun" mean? Nothing.
 
Are you willing to consider the possibility that all of linguistics is a matter of definition?
 
1:20 AM
Thus spake Donatus.
 
@tchrist It is perfectly clear and accurate to me.
 
I'm going for donuts.
 
7 mins ago, by Cerberus
So I think what is happening here is that we use different criteria in determining parts of speech.
You may use whatever criteria you prefer.
 
"Dog food" has two nouns. It has no adjectives. This "functions as" nonsense is a facile lie.
 
But I don't think it is wise to treat the choice of criteria and the definition based on them as an Objective Truth.
I don't think anything more can be said about it.
 
1:22 AM
You have to move beyond parts of speech, for all modern analysis relies upon assigning grammatical roles to entire syntactic constituents. They're all that matter, not individual words.
Parts of speech allow no such thing as recursion.
Syntax does.
And human language is fundamentally a matter of being able to have SYNTAX.
That's what makes it special.
Any bonobo can string together words in random orders without creating meaning out of their orders.
But people are different. Human language nests.
> This is the horse and the hound and the horn
That belonged to the farmer sowing his corn
That kept the rooster that crowed in the morn
That woke the judge all shaven and shorn
That married the man all tattered and torn
That kissed the maiden all forlorn
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn
That tossed the dog that worried the cat
That killed the rat that ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.
Monkeys cannot do that.
That's why syntactic constituents are the only model that describes human language. Mere part of speech assignation cannot do so.
You keep assembling little pieces into a single constituent, then move up the hierarchy and recurse till done.
I'm from Wisconsin, so at this point at night the only thing left that I want to know is how you can use a crumpled horn to milk a cow with because they never taught us to do that there.
There is no answer to that question which involves parts of speech, only one that involves constituents. They're all that matters for the mind of Man.
In linguistics, transformational grammar (TG) or transformational-generative grammar (TGG) is part of the theory of generative grammar, especially of natural languages. It considers grammar to be a system of rules that generate exactly those combinations of words that form grammatical sentences in a given language and involves the use of defined operations (called transformations) to produce new sentences from existing ones. This mechanism was first introduced to general linguistics by the structural linguist Louis Hjelmslev, son of the mathematician Johannes Hjelmslev who invented the Hjelmslev...
> But the fundamental reason for [the] inadequacy of traditional grammars is a more technical one. Although it was well understood that linguistic processes are in some sense "creative," the technical devices for expressing a system of recursive processes were simply not available until much more recently.
> In fact, a real understanding of how a language can (in Humboldt's words) "make infinite use of finite means" has developed only within the last thirty years, in the course of studies in the foundations of mathematics.
That's what I've been talking about.
Do keep in mind that Chomsky first published Aspects of the Theory of Syntax in 1965, which means that his "in the past 30 years" starts with Alan Turing's work in the 1930s.
 
1:45 AM
studies in the foundations of mathematics have given rise to a new philosophy of language
 
Yes.
 
I think Bertrand Russell knew this.
 
@skullpatrol Not all things that Russell knew were written in his Book of Things I Know I Don't Know were written in his Book of Things I Don't Know.
 
True.
 
 
2 hours later…
3:28 AM
> Monthly credit card receipts, reported to the I.R.S. by third-party card processing firms, reflect the way certain of his resorts, golf courses and hotels became favored stamping grounds, if not venues for influence-trading, beginning in 2015 and continuing into his time in the White House.
Okay, now we know where the Times got its information.
His accountants and his family would not have access to those data.
No one but the IRS would.
And considering the unusual steps they took to put all that information under lock and key after he took the White House, it can't have been some random flunky.
 
Sounds like he's been using a third-party cover
 
This seems a lot more like how Bob Woodward got ahold of key details about the Watergate cover-up through "Deep Throat", who was actually then-FBI Asst. Director Mark Felt.
 
Yup, sounds like a scandal
 
I doubt it will have been Bob Mueller. I'm thinking it has to be someone at the Treasury Department with a rank that requires Senate confirmation.
However, that's a federal crime, so it really is quite surprising.
 
He thinks he is invincible
 
3:39 AM
No, he wants us to think that.
But honestly, he's gone a long way towards making himself that. Just not far enough.
McConnell and Barr are certainly aiding and abetting all that bull.
 
Bullying will take you far.
 
Pull the bully from his pulpit down to the Pit long prepared for him by Dante.
2
 
lol
let him abandon all hope
 
Abaddon awaits him.
The angel of destruction.
 
I found a classic lecture by George Polya, wanna see?
 
3:50 AM
Am prepping for bed.
 
Save it for when you have an hour to spare.
His problem solving technique is a classic
 
 
3 hours later…
6:59 AM
@Færd Are those supposed to be exclusive options?
 
 
2 hours later…
9:22 AM
> Scientists say that one day we may be able to live on Mars. I don't know. I tried it for a month and gained 30 pounds.
 
9:32 AM
Try living on Milky Way. much less fattening.
(although I think the US snack "Milky Way" is different to the UK one, so I'm not sure it's universally true)
 
10:29 AM
 
11:00 AM
 
11:50 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive body detected (43): what means "low ceilling means in "The old man at the bridge"? by Ghost on english.SE
 
 
2 hours later…
1:33 PM
@MattE.Эллен Robust US version on left, your paltry simulacrum on right.
Neither is anything I would consider eating.
 
@Robusto the US one looks like a UK Mars bar
 
I avoid candy bars like poison these days.
Milky Way is a brand of chocolate-covered confectionery bar manufactured and marketed by the Mars confectionery company. There are two variants: the global Milky Way bar, which is sold as 3 Musketeers in the US; and the US Milky Way bar, which is sold as the Mars bar worldwide. == American version == The Milky Way bar's North American variant is made of nougat topped with caramel and covered with milk chocolate. It was created in 1923 by Frank C. Mars and originally manufactured in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the name and taste derived from a then-popular malted milk drink (milkshake) of the day,...
As usual, Wikipedia has all the info.
 
oh, so it is the Mars bar
 
Marketers are always trying to confuse you.
 
 
2 hours later…
3:31 PM
@MattE.Эллен protecting your neck is very important while waiting for Covid testing. cc: @CowperKettle
 
@Robusto When Mars first appeared in 1993 in Russia, my dad bought a whole carton of them. They tasted like miracle
LOL
In the Soviet Union, it was nearly impossible to buy chocolate after 1986. So I overindulged on chocolate in the 1990s.
When I was in the first grade of school, it was still possible to buy a brick of chocolate, even in our school canteen. And then Perestroika started, and a lot of goods vanished.
 
Part of reason the US has a diabetes epidemic
 
The Soviet trade system strictly depended on a stringent balance of cash issued to people as salary. Wishing to revive the economy, Gorbachev gave some freedoms to individual factories, and shops.
Their management immediately used the situation to sell the most precious goods on the black market.
And thus the goods vanished from the stores, because the supply was limited.
Further, it was allowed to increase salaries if the specific state-owned enterprise was doing good. This has resulted in inflation, which additionally acted to sweep the stores of remaining goods.
Basically, Gorbachev's idea was good, to revive the economy. But as you start introducing market-type incentives in a command-type economy, it starts disintegrating.
In previous iterations, the Soviet government dealt with this problem by announcing the lowering of all prices, but at the same time drastically reducing salaries.
By the time of Gorbachev, this was made impossible, because he also loosed the grip on the media, allowing some critique to trickle on the pages of magazines, newspapers.
Maybe he could have improved the economy if he kept strict control over media. Allowing only an economic transition to partial market economy, but without any democratization.
 
Wasn't there social media back then?
 
In 1986-1991?
Haha.
The Internet was first launched in the USSR in the summer of 1991, just a couple of months before the Sovier regime fell.
So no, there was absolutely no social media.
In January 1992 there were probably hundreds of enthusiast users of the Internet in media establishments and in computation centers.
 
3:44 PM
China still has no social media.
 
The loosening of control over media and introduction of some democratic institutions resulted immediately in nationalistic clashes. For instance, a war started in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988.
And this war has resumed a couple of days ago. Between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
I remember that when we had some arguments between pupils in our classroom, the teacher used to day, stop creating a Nagorno-Karabakh here.
China somehow managed to retain a single-party state while transitioning to a harsh robber baron capitalism.
 
@skullpatrol ? They have a major social media platform (wechat) which can be used for everything regular social media can be used, plus paying bills, rent, and other things.
It's said you can't get a job without wechat
3
 
Really? I stand corrected.
 
Yeah, it's crazy. I had a short business trip there a few years ago and I had to sign up to wechat to get anything done
 
Can anyone from the outside join wechat?
 
3:54 PM
Yeah, you can get it on the google store
 
coolio
 
4:41 PM
Russian girl decides to flee to Africa from her parents. With English subtitles.
LOL. After this video went viral, they were invited to the Embassy of Sierra Leone
So she kind of went to Africa
 
@tchrist If it's not an adjective, what is it?
@tchrist Hmm. Is the Creature's name now becoming an expletive?
@tchrist Can monkeys use words? I know that chimps can sign language.
 
5:00 PM
@FaheemMitha It's a participle or a gerund. I thought it was a participle but @Cerberus has made a strong argument that it's a gerund. In any event, it is not an adjective.
 
@tchrist Hmm. I personally would have gone with adjective.
 
@FaheemMitha Why?
 
Maybe in the future we could genetically modify monkeys to make them use language.
 
Because it modifies the noun. Which is about as far as my scanty knowledge of grammar goes.
 
You can't modify it with rather;.
@FaheemMitha Yuck.
 
5:02 PM
@CowperKettle How much of the Soviet Union did you personally live through, while at the same idea having some idea of what was going on?
@tchrist Sorry.
 
That's like saying that "dog" is an adjective in "dog food" merely because it's a noun modifier.
 
@tchrist Fair point.
 
@FaheemMitha Oh, I lived very little in the USSR, from my birth in 1978 to the dissolution of the Union in December 1991
 
@CowperKettle I think we should leave the poor monkeys alone. Haven't we done enough harm to this planet?
 
Up to thirteen years of age.
 
5:03 PM
@CowperKettle Ok, so you probably don't remember much about it.
 
@FaheemMitha Why, people usually remember things starting from about 5 years of age.
 
Just curious, because I've never really talked to people about what it was like in the Soviet Union. Also, Russians are typically not very chatty.
 
I mean long-term.
My parents told me how it was before 1978.
 
@CowperKettle Not me, at least. I don't remember much before I was 8, and between then and around 14 my memory is very patchy.
 
ANd my grandma told me how it was in the 1920s.
 
5:04 PM
@CowperKettle That's not the same as experiencing it personally.
 
Yes, not the same.
Generally I'm thankful that it fell.
 
In any case, it's difficult to get an objective description of events, because human perception is always biased.
 
Or I would have been forced to follow the "party line" and memorize all kind of Marxist Leninist crap in University.
 
Did the Soviet Union actually have universal health coverage and universal education?
I'm not even really clear about that. And universal employment? And housing?
 
Yes. The education became free of charge starting from 1950s
 
5:06 PM
@CowperKettle That sounds... unpleasant.
 
Housing. You could not own an apartment, but you were "given" an apartment.
It remained state property but you were registered there.
 
@CowperKettle So could someone be homeless?
I suppose maybe if they were mentally ill or badly disabled?
 
That depends on the period. I think that starting from about 1950s there were almost no homeless people.
Mentally ill people were taken to mental hospitals.
 
@CowperKettle Ok.
 
Badly disabled people were taken to specialized institutions. Or given pensions and allowed to live under relatives' care
 
5:08 PM
And universal health coverage?
 
One of my relatives was taken to an orphanage during WWII.
"Dom Rebenka". When she was taken by relatives from the orphanage, she could not speak for a year.
@FaheemMitha Yes.
 
@CowperKettle Could not speak? Why?
 
@FaheemMitha The conditions there were so horrible that she was traumatized.
 
You say starting in the 1950s. What changed then?
@CowperKettle I see.
 
The economy grew by the 1950s, and Stalin died. Generally the regime became milder.
You were not under constant threat of being sent to a labor camp, starting from 1953.
In the 1920s there were many homeless persons.
 
5:12 PM
@CowperKettle I see. I suppose things were bad when Stalin was alive. I've heard about collectivization.
 
Maybe in the 1930s also.
Yes, collectivization killed millions.
In my dad's village, people used to kill fruit trees by pouring scalding water on their roots covertly in the night.
In the end of 1920s.
 
Actually, Modi seems to be trying something similar with the recent farm bills, but that's just an educated guess. I haven't looked at it in detail, and I don't have the expertise anyway.
@CowperKettle Why?
 
Otherwise, they would be labeled kulaks for being too rich, and sent to Siberia.
Many people were sent to Siberia for being "too rich" in villages.
 
@CowperKettle So were not allowed to be a rich farmer?
What was the underlying ideology?
 
So people killed their cattle and destroyed trees.
@FaheemMitha The villagers in 1917 voted in their bulk for Social-Revolutionaries, and not for Bolsheviks.
 
5:14 PM
Was being sent to Siberia effectively a death sentence?
 
Stalin hated and was afraid of village dwellers, that's why he started collectivization.
@FaheemMitha No, but it was very harsh. Some people were just landed in the middle of nowhere.
 
@CowperKettle I read the Bolsheviks had a violent takeover. But I forget the details.
I know there were the White Russians before.
 
Siberia is a harsh environment, especially if you are transported there from the warm and sunny Ukraine.
 
@CowperKettle Hmm. I think Modi is trying to destroy what's called the unorganized sector (which includes many small businesses), and increase the power of large corporations. So standard fascist stuff, but I suppose different from Stalin, who wasn't a fascist.
 
@FaheemMitha Yes, they did a takeover, promising to convene an All-Russian Constitutional Assembly that was to decide who and how will rule Russia.
 
5:16 PM
@CowperKettle Why was he afraid of village dwellers?
 
@FaheemMitha Because they voted for Social Revolutionaries. Villagers wanted to have land in personal ownership, and live as they liked.
The S-R partly was the most popular one in 1917.
 
@CowperKettle And Stalin wasn't ok with that then?
 
The Bolsheviks suppressed it.
@FaheemMitha Of course not. The S-R party was his enemies.
The Bolsheviks were against parliamentarism, unlike the S-Rs
 
@CowperKettle What did the Social Revolutionaries stand for?
 
Roughly speaking the Bolshevisks were the Taliban.
 
5:18 PM
A more socialist type of govt, with Soviets and so forth?
 
@FaheemMitha A socialist state but with parliaments and democracy
 
I know the Bolskeviks destroyed the Soviets.
 
Yes, with Soviets but with real elections.
 
@CowperKettle Ok.
 
Yes, the Bolsheviks destroyed the Soviets by retaining them, but taking all their power away.
 
5:20 PM
So the Bolsheviks tried to present they represented a popular movement, but that wasn't actually the case?
@CowperKettle Did the Soviets still exist in some form, then?
I thought they were all shut down.
 
For a short period of time, the Bolsheviks became very popular in the two capitals, Moscow and Petersburg. And Lenin said "It's either now or never", and they did a takeover. In October 1917.
@FaheemMitha The Soviets were shut down in 1991.
 
@CowperKettle Oh. Hmm.
 
This book is a rather good explanation of the whole Bolshevik takeover.
 
So if the S-R Party had prevailed, things might have been different?
 
It starts from 1891 and ends in 1924.
 
5:23 PM
@CowperKettle Ok.
 
@FaheemMitha You can easily get the audio version on Pirate Bay ))
@FaheemMitha Probably yes
 
@CowperKettle Ok.
 
Okay, I'll work some ))
 
@CowperKettle A British historian.
Do you think it's a fair account? I wouldn't expect objectivity from a Brit.
2
 
00:00 - 18:0018:00 - 00:00

« first day (3609 days earlier)      last day (26 days later) »