The Couch

Where are geniuses, thinkers and polymaths?

Comments on Where are geniuses, thinkers and polymaths?

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 03/31/11 - 12:01 AM:
Subject: Where are geniuses, thinkers and polymaths?
[This seems to have been triggered by Henry's post in 'Nuclear Power' thread , on which, Willem also reflected]

I am not aware of actual statistics but I feel that population of world is many times than what it used to be in the days of European renaissance.

1. Are there geniuses/polymaths/thinkers of rank of Sir Issac Newton, Albert Einstein or Leonardo Da Vinci?

2. If yes, why are they not recognized so?

3. If no, what is the cause of 'scarcity of geniuses'?

Even in Philosophy, you do not find many Wittengensteins, Nietzsches or Kants...which should have been the case...


4. Why I am not blessed enough to find a Lao-tse or a Jesus or a Buddha, to walk side by side to him? [ Now please do not refer to Dalai Lama or Adi Da or Ken Wilber or David Icke]

or

Is it that geniuses of today, will be given full credit after three for centuries...so...recognition of geniuses takes a lot of time?
[ Seems not to be true, in case of Einstein, Da Vinci or Newton...they were recognized during their life times...but yes, they got more credit later on...]

Some of you might suggest that Mark Zuckerberg or Yoshiro Nakamats or Stephen Hawking are indeed geniuses but then, they are too few.

Statistically, China and India should produce 10 Einsteins, 10 Buddhas and 10 Shakespeares; where are they?

I will be glad to hear your ideas...
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 03/31/11 - 11:20 AM:

what is your definition of a genius?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/01/11 - 12:57 AM:

libertygrl wrote:
what is your definition of a genius?



I think we are talking about 'Universal Geniuses' and Polymaths, examples might be Da Vinci, Leibniz, Hypatia, Socrates, Newton and so on...smiling face
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/01/11 - 12:59 AM:

I posed the same question to Win Wenger Ph. D. and excerpts from his response might be worth reading :

I won't say that every revered genius of the past got to be so via being trained by Socratic Method. Some did. Others were partially or wholly protected from the stultifying effects of our schools, in many cases by for one reason or another not attending school in the first place. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison are American examples, and Nicola Tesla was largely kept our of regular school processing by reason of his illness. The positive note in this is that in this country, hundreds of thousands of children are now being home schooled, with highly varied parents at least a few of which will be doing some of the right things to support the emergence of the child's higher qualities.

My younger daughter was phoned by her son's upset second grade teacher. Her complaint: her son - my grandson - was too (positively) enthusiastic about math, and wanted his mother's help in settling all that down! One more in an excruciatingly long list of instances illustrating why we haven't been producing more geniuses over here.

China presents very different reasons. They have indeed been getting away from the traditionalist schools, whose teaching manner and goals both left no room for original genius to emerge. Nearly all of what they have gotten into, though, appears to be desperately urgent vocational and specialized schooling which - again - is leaving no room in which an independent observing and inquiring child can gain traction and take hold, and the sociostructured power gap between youth who fit the mold well enough to graduate into advantaged positions, and those who don't, is too rigidly set in place to allow much to develop from the millions who as of yet don't get much schooling.

I'm hoping that your country, with its mixture of traditions and history of at least a few geniuses emerging from unconventional circumstances, can perform in this regard much better than either China or the U.S. As the deepening sea of troubles gathers all around the world, we badly need some geniuses.

As you can see, I attribute most of our lack of geniuses to the poor performance of most of our schools. A further observation on this stems from studies of the production by the population of gifted people who were as gifted kids the subject of study in Lewis M. Terman's often-cited encyclopedia, Genetic Studies of Genius, published by Stanford University in Stanford, California. It turns out that this set of recognized highly gifted individuals, during their subsequent careers made far fewer contributions to civilization than could have been expected for a comparable body of people with their gifts and IQs. For those kids who were recognized as gifted, their schools and teachers did all they could to educate them properly. Of course, schools in that era (the 1930s) were more concerned with "getting the right answer" than they are today and that definitely appears to account for some of that shortfall, but still I think it shows more....
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 04/01/11 - 1:11 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:
I think we are talking about 'Universal Geniuses' and Polymaths, examples might be Da Vinci, Leibniz, Hypatia, Socrates, Newton and so on...smiling face

examples are not the same as a definition. smiling face it's not clear to me what they have in common in your view, and why the other people you mentioned should not be considered geniuses.

so. what is your definition?

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/01/11 - 1:20 AM:

lib wrote:
examples are not the same as a definition. it's not clear to me what they have in common in your view, and why the other people you mentioned should not be considered geniuses.

so. what is your definition?


[ eekYou are still awake eek] The persons I mentioned may well qualify as 'universal geniuses', still, the question is that why we have lesser number of geniuses in spite of population explosion?

The reason why I am avoiding the definition is---because I do not have an exact definition.

losely though: Einstein changed the way we look at the world, so did Newton, Galileo and Socrates.

To frame a definition in which Leonardo Da Vinci fits is not very easy task.

If I still do not make sense, let me know; I will further try to come up with a better definition.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 04/01/11 - 1:01 PM:

Apparently they are all writing books on determinism, LOL. laughing

Seriously, we would be hard pressed to find a 'genius' in our world. We only label them such in retrospect. There are plenty of big names out there, I'm sure, but the real geniuses are probably lost in the slew of media personalities that constitute our intellectual culture.

These days scientists become know by investigating minutiae. They advance their science in tiny increments. The 'next' genius will be someone who creates a bold new paradigm that can't be easily dismissed as nonsense by the old guard. The person won't just be a technician creating a new tool, like some of these free energy guys, but a visionary that creates a new way of thinking about the world that solves some outstanding problems.

As far as philosopher geniuses, I don't think they exist because philosophy is not much needed in our society.

As far as spiritual geniuses, they are always hard to find, and may exist right now, quietly teaching their truth. But often these men are not radical visionaries, but eminently practical persons, with solutions for real life problems that can be applied immediately.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 04/01/11 - 1:05 PM:

The next Buddha, meanwhile, isn't scheduled to appear for a few millennia, so don't hold your breath. laughing And don't buy that Maitreya nonsense either.

8)
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/02/11 - 9:50 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:
The next Buddha, meanwhile, isn't scheduled to appear for a few millennia, so don't hold your breath. laughing And don't buy that Maitreya nonsense either.

8)


I disagree. I am convinced positively that even Gautam Buddha would have rejected such notions, with a really good assertion that, everyone alive, has the chances of full blooming of the flower of consciousness, given, proper living.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/02/11 - 10:04 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:
Apparently they are all writing books on determinism, LOL. laughing

laughing

Monk2400 wrote:

Seriously, we would be hard pressed to find a 'genius' in our world. We only label them such in retrospect. There are plenty of big names out there, I'm sure, but the real geniuses are probably lost in the slew of media personalities that constitute our intellectual culture.


Indeed. In retrospect, we find geniuses who have shaped our world. Einstein and Newton along with Leonardo Da vinci, though, were quite well known during their life times as super-geniuses, especially Einstein!

These days scientists become know by investigating minutiae. They advance their science in tiny increments. The 'next' genius will be someone who creates a bold new paradigm that can't be easily dismissed as nonsense by the old guard.


Indeed. A genius in the process...

Monk2400 wrote:
The person won't just be a technician creating a new tool, like some of these free energy guys, but a visionary that creates a new way of thinking about the world that solves some outstanding problems.


Even in case of inventors, you do not have many Teslas or Edisons around which should have been the case with such a great population!

Monk2400 wrote:
As far as philosopher geniuses, I don't think they exist because philosophy is not much needed in our society.

raised eyebrowSocrates? Nietzsche? Leibniz? Kant? Wittgenstein? You must be joking in denying philosopher geniuses?


Monk2400 wrote:
As far as spiritual geniuses, they are always hard to find, and may exist right now, quietly teaching their truth. But often these men are not radical visionaries, but eminently practical persons, with solutions for real life problems that can be applied immediately.

8)


I feel, not even a single spiritual genius of the rank of Lao-zi, Buddha or Jiddu Krishnamurty is around. That too, when population is many times than what it used to be in the times of Buddha or Lao-zi.


Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/02/11 - 1:46 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:

I disagree. I am convinced positively that even Gautam Buddha would have rejected such notions, with a really good assertion that, everyone alive, has the chances of full blooming of the flower of consciousness, given, proper living.


Lol, well, that's not what he says about the appearance of Buddhas in the world. Of course, the liberation of this or that person is another matter, since what the Buddha calls persons are not really persons, which is why they are persons.

wink
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/02/11 - 1:51 PM:

Quantity can't account for quality.

Thinker13 wrote:

raised eyebrowSocrates? Nietzsche? Leibniz? Kant? Wittgenstein? You must be joking in denying philosopher geniuses?


No, I'm speaking about our contemporary times, like this century, the last 50 years or so. Its difficult to imagine a 'philosophy' text being revolutionary in our age.



Thinker13 wrote:

I feel, not even a single spiritual genius of the rank of Lao-zi, Buddha or Jiddu Krishnamurty is around. That too, when population is many times than what it used to be in the times of Buddha or Lao-zi.


Does the world need such a person? Perhaps they don't exist because they are not required at this time. We are already awash with spirituality from all corners of the imagination. A new spiritual leader can only polarize existing factions.

8)
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/02/11 - 2:01 PM:

There are plenty of talented people (near geniuses) out there. We don't need to make celebrities of them. It would be a distraction from their work.

Posthumous recognition is normal, probably due to the time it takes to fully extend and explore the use-value of someone's ideas.






Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/02/11 - 2:07 PM:

Nihil Loc wrote:
There are plenty of talented people (near geniuses) out there. We don't need to make celebrities of them. It would be a distraction from their work.

Posthumous recognition is normal, probably due to the time it takes to fully extend and explore the use-value of someone's ideas.







thumb up

KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/04/11 - 12:51 PM:

What are you talking about Thinker? I'm right here.

Just kidding.

We do have people who are fighting to change the world (and the minds of the world) right here and now. Some of them are more of a genius than people give them credit for. Do I have specific examples? None that I am legally allowed to name. Unfortunately, HIPAA seems to prevent that.

However in today's society it is rather hard for geniuses to succeed in life. Many geniuses of the past, if not most, had disabilities. In the current times, those with disabilities are diagnosed early on and put in places and situations that tend to restrict their ability. I was of Mensa level until I was put on medications. Then my IQ level dropped.

Where are today's geniuses? Some of them are undoubtedly stuck in mental units and group homes. Other are activists fighting for the rights of animals, the disabled, and women.

There is also the problem of courage. It takes a lot of courage to think outside the box. Even more so to speak outside it. We talk online because we have found a safehaven in this forum. Some people won't hear of our ideas in the real world. My father is one of them. So there may be many geniuses fighting a quiet battle online as well, hoping that someway... somehow there voices will be heard.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/05/11 - 4:25 AM:

What are you talking about Thinker? I'm right here.

Just kidding.


You need not be kidding. If you could persist with your genius; I should be the first person to acknowledge that you are the latest ‘Universal Genius’!

We do have people who are fighting to change the world (and the minds of the world) right here and now. Some of them are more of a genius than people give them credit for. Do I have specific examples? None that I am legally allowed to name. Unfortunately, HIPAA seems to prevent that.


You might be right…

However in today's society it is rather hard for geniuses to succeed in life. Many geniuses of the past, if not most, had disabilities. In the current times, those with disabilities are diagnosed early on and put in places and situations that tend to restrict their ability. I was of Mensa level until I was put on medications. Then my IQ level dropped.

Irony! Isn’t it? Diagnosis is meant for curing and supporting the genius but the way this support is done often tends to aggravate the problem and does not help the budding geniuses blossom fully!

Where are today's geniuses? Some of them are undoubtedly stuck in mental units and group homes. Other are activists fighting for the rights of animals, the disabled, and women.

May be. My point is that in spite of many improvements in living and explosion of population, we are not able to see many geniuses comparable to Socrates, Archimedes or Hypatia!

There is also the problem of courage. It takes a lot of courage to think outside the box. Even more so to speak outside it. We talk online because we have found a safehaven in this forum. Some people won't hear of our ideas in the real world. My father is one of them. So there may be many geniuses fighting a quiet battle online as well, hoping that someway... somehow there voices will be heard.


Courage is an internal problem. I hope you are getting me. The courage and other constraints were present in earlier renaissance ages as well.
You should persist with your pursuits of Truth and ye shall win!
thumb up
AKG
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005
Location: Seattle, WA

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 52
AKG
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/23/11 - 9:20 PM:

I'll bump this. I like many of the points already made and I'll add my take:

The world is a very different place today than it was 2000 years ago or 500 years ago or even 50 years ago.

I would say there are many great thinkers working today who are at least of the caliber of the ones you used as examples. In the last decade or so, many mathematical problems have been solved and theorems have been proven that waited the better part of a century or more for a genius to come along and work them out. Watch some TED talks and you'll see that many hard questions in all fields are finally being answered (and many new questions being asked.) Microsoft, Google, and the like are full of amazing intellects.

The thing that separates your examples from our contemporary great thinkers is that they came first. They laid the foundations upon which today's great minds build. In the intervening centuries the great minds of past have been proven right. All that can be done is to expand on their understanding.

Someone would have to prove those predecessors wrong to get their names added to the pantheon. There is still some room in areas like Physics and Cosmology that there may be a great upset in our understanding but if so it will come from large teams working on very expensive experiments, not a lone legendary mind working at a chalkboard.

As far as polymaths go, the amount of knowledge humanity now possesses in many subject areas exceeds the knowledge capacity of the human brain. It has been estimated that to be regarded as an expert in any subject area requires the acquisition of 300,000 or more discrete facts and that the total factual knowledge capacity of the brain is in the range of 1 to 3 million discrete facts, most of which is required to just get along in our information overloaded society. (Sorry, I don't have citations for these numbers handy.)

Given this, any individual is going to be hard pressed to achieve expert-level knowledge of more than two subject areas.

That's my two cents on this.

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/25/11 - 1:23 PM:

hi akg, lots of good points thumb up
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/12/11 - 3:24 AM:

I really appreciate your points AKG, though, I differ on a few points and would like to make myself clear on those, later on, if possible. Well written thumb up
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/13/11 - 1:50 AM:

akg wrote:
The thing that separates your examples from our contemporary great thinkers is that they came first. They laid the foundations upon which today's great minds build. In the intervening centuries the great minds of past have been proven right. All that can be done is to expand on their understanding

‘Came first’ is an insinuation like Rutherford’s (for a student): “everything worthy has already been discovered; so don’t try hard now”. I mean to say that Socrates came first and then Newton came first and then Da Vinci came first and then Einstein came first and then Hawking came first and so and so on. This ‘being pioneer’ should never stop ideally. Secondly, my contention is, statistically, there should be a greater number of pioneers today. Where are icons that are more perceptive than Socrates and Einstein? I do not see even a single example, where as there should have been at least 100 Socrates and 100 Eisteins as the population and life expectancy both have increased quite dramatically!
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/13/11 - 1:51 AM:

I do feel though that your Polymath argument seems to have some elements of truth in it. thumb up
AKG
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005
Location: Seattle, WA

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 52
AKG
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/08/11 - 11:30 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
akg wrote:
The thing that separates your examples from our contemporary great thinkers is that they came first. They laid the foundations upon which today's great minds build. In the intervening centuries the great minds of past have been proven right. All that can be done is to expand on their understanding

‘Came first’ is an insinuation like Rutherford’s (for a student): “everything worthy has already been discovered; so don’t try hard now”. I mean to say that Socrates came first and then Newton came first and then Da Vinci came first and then Einstein came first and then Hawking came first and so and so on. This ‘being pioneer’ should never stop ideally. Secondly, my contention is, statistically, there should be a greater number of pioneers today. Where are icons that are more perceptive than Socrates and Einstein? I do not see even a single example, where as there should have been at least 100 Socrates and 100 Eisteins as the population and life expectancy both have increased quite dramatically!


I'm bored tonight, so I'll bump this again two months late...

I think I failed to make myself clear because you focused on the "came first" part and not the idea I was trying to convey.

Where are the great explorers like Columbus, Lewis & Clark, Shackleton, etc...? There are none because the entire surface of the globe has been mapped to sub-meter resolution from space. The few remaining "explorers" are exploring places few even care about. Our human space exploration program is so pathetic that we've already done the same for most of the planets and moons in our solar system before anyone has even set foot on them. The first person on Mars is going to go with an iPhone in his pocket loaded with Google's Mars maps!

Although our society and technology has changed a great deal, we live on the same planet in the same universe as the great pioneers and we are the same species (we haven't evolved into something different since Einstien's day.) Science isn't an intellectual dick measuring contest, it's an effort to explain our universe; how it works, our place in it, why things are as they are.

The great intellectual pioneers mapped out the conceptual coastlines of the scientific world. There is certainly more to learn but what is left is mostly details. No one is going to get praise for rediscovering the structure of the atom or DNA, children are taught the basics of these things.

There are teams of scientists every bit as brilliant and "pioneering" as Einstien working at the LHC on extremely complex experiments trying to more preciesely measure the properties of the quantum particles and prove the existance of predicted ones like the higgs boson. I argue that these minds are not recognized as what they are for the very reason you are asking your question: one Einstien-like intellect is an amazing thing. Thousands are a statistic.

The great names of our intellectual fields planted their flags on new continents and named them after themselves. Those who come afterwards find ever smaller stretches of new territory, which the general public finds ever more incomprehensible and irrelevant. That doesn't mean that it actually is irrelevant, some small pieces of knowledge can be incredibly valuable and useful. But if it takes a whole team to make the discovery because of the complexity of the experiments and the public can't comprehend the discovery nor its importance, how will the scientists gain world-wide name recognition?

I hope I have explained myself more clearly. If not, I fear you and I may have different philosophies of knowledge and may never be able to agree fully on this topic. Either way, I've had fun thinking about this.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/15/11 - 11:37 AM:

I think you're spot on AKG. And there's something else. Genius is worth serious bucks these days, so very often you'll find them at corporate research facilities or at management level. Especially in IT: Just think of the guys that designed google, of Steve Jobs, and lots of other people. A woman was on Belgian radio this week, telling about how she changed the entire imaging industry with her mathematical inventions. As if it was just another day job.

Receptionista
New
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 12, 2011

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 5
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/12/11 - 9:20 PM:

AKG said:
AKG wrote:
The great intellectual pioneers mapped out the conceptual coastlines of the scientific world. There is certainly more to learn but what is left is mostly details. No one is going to get praise for rediscovering the structure of the atom or DNA, children are taught the basics of these things.


OK, but what of people who are actually study structure function, as opposed to the initial discovery of the structure? i.e.: replication, transcription, remodeling? To say that these people will not get praise.. Praise by whom? People Magazine? USA TODAY? Bing? Or will they be praised by the jury of their peers; praise from whom is more important than any mention on Access Hollywood.

I think the problem with seeking GENIUS is that the sliding scale of genius-definition is just that- sliding. Each time someone comes to embody the pinnacle of their field/s, should the next "genius" in the field be considered less of a genius because they use the information/inspiration of the previous genius?
Fenyman was a genius- will there be no more geniuses in the field of physics because Feynman held said title?

Maybe Pioneer vs Genius is the real issue- "Look, I found a new coastline" vs "Look, I came up with a math tool to calculate the coastline."

AKG wrote:
...it will come from large teams working on very expensive experiments, not a lone legendary mind working at a chalkboard...


IT NEVER HAS.
If Cecil B. DeMille had his casts and crew of thousands, then Watson, Crick and Wilkins (AND Franklin) had untold numbers of lab techs and interns; as the man (John Donne) said: "No man is an island."

Again, from AKG:
AKG wrote:
But if it takes a whole team to make the discovery because of the complexity of the experiments and the public can't comprehend the discovery nor its importance, how will the scientists gain world-wide name recognition?



Again, I ask, is "World-wide name recognition" a necessary part of the definition of Genius? Must a Genius, by definition, be a household name? And when?- Galileo was certainly not a world-wide name in his own time. Ask a housewife from 1967 if she recognized the name Hartline, she would have shrugged.

Better PR does not a better genius make.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/12/11 - 10:02 PM:

hi receptionista, welcome to the couch!

AKG wrote, "I would say there are many great thinkers working today who are at least of the caliber of the ones you used as examples." so i don't think he's using praise as a basis for measuring genius. i think he's making the point that there are many geniuses in the world, but that it's just not likely that we will hear about all or most of them.
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.