Wow Tech Support

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

There is no "respect number"

Posted on 18:00 by Unknown
Von Keigai commented “Ganking is PVP, but PVP is not only ganking, and ganking is not a respected form. As such, you still have a lot to do. Get a real PVPer to respect you. Win a frigate battle. Just one would be a start. Then two. Yeah. Then three. Get a killboard that people must respect because it is awesome. That's your challenge. Get PVPers to respect you.”

Respect is often mentioned goal of “real PvP”. That getting a “gf” after a battle is a reward itself. Jester wrote in his PvP guide “success is rewarded with prestige, the pressing forward of larger organizational goals, financial rewards, or all three.” Since roaming PvP has no financial aspect (the loss is trivial to even an impoverished noob) and it’s not part of a campaign (not to mention that campaigns are officially to get fights as they didn’t want that region anyway), nothing but prestige left.

But there is a fundamental problem here: there is no accepted respect number. No, I’m not making the obvious point that respect is not a scientifically observable quantity like ship kill value. My point that in real life, all kind of activities that draw public respect has some form of signaling and acknowledgement system. While “bravery” and “loyalty” cannot be measured scientifically, you can get official medals in every army if you perform actions which are considered “above and beyond”. Untrue claims to be a decorated war hero is punishable crime in several countries.

The “artistic value” of a piece of artwork cannot be measured by scientific methods either. Yet there are both prizes to be earned, judged by experts and there are sites like Metacritic that collects various opinions from experts and averages this value.

Ironically, scientific value cannot be measured scientifically. You can’t say that Newton did 150 points of progression while Kepler did 62. Yet there is impact factor, counting citations (number of times other scientists found that the article was contributing to their own work) and from there, a number can be gained to measure the scientific value of a work or even the researcher.

In all cases subjective opinion of experts was formalized, netting an objectively existing medal or score that serves as a proof of merit towards the uneducated public, ending all debate. While you can argue if Joe is brave or not as that's opinionated, there is no argument over the fact that Joe got a Silver Star and a Purple Heart, proving that he was wounded in combat and his military superiors believed that he did so while performing exceptionally.

Such “PvP score” or badge could exist in the EVE community, working semi-automatically, scanning killboards for hard kills and then validating them manually. It could also work using a voting system, averaging scores given by multiple experts. Yet not even failed attempts were made to create any kind of such system. Why? Because of favoritism and the terribly easy way to cheat. Experts in the above examples were all on the same sides: members of the same army, fellow scientists, art critics. On the other hand EVE PvP-ers often belong to small groups and there is actually no group in EVE which is widely acclaimed. This is unseparable from the fact that vast majority of PvP losers refuse to accept a superior skilled opponent, claiming “outshipping”, “blobbing” or lag as reason for their defeat. Therefore the same action which is called “awesome skills” by blues of the killer, is called “gank” by everyone else.

Secondly and more importantly – unlike military heroism, art and scientific work – outstanding PvP performance can be easily cheated. Here is a solo carrier kill receiving 3200 points from zkillboard.com, due to its near impossibility, proving extraordinary skills – while in truth I simply bought this carrier from its manufacturer. I could create a titan kill report with a solo noobship if I wanted to.

Because of these reasons, “earning respect” is not simply a bad goal, but an impossible one. No matter what kind of PvP action I’d waste my time with, I would not gain an inch of respect from the public, due to lack of experts, scores and medals. There would always be a way to explain why my results doesn't count (ganking, in a blob, lucky, whatever). This of course true for everyone else. Even if you receive a “gf” from a random guy you’ll never see again, you can’t reasonably expect anyone else to respect you for it. You can spend years killing random ships without anyone taking notice or giving a damn if reminded.
Read More
Posted in New | No comments

Monday, 18 November 2013

Mobile vending machine

Posted on 18:00 by Unknown
CCP Fozzie requested players to give ideas about more mobile structures. The forum already has lot of good ideas. And zillions of stupid ones, half-screen quotes and other nonsense. I wish they could afford more moderators.

So hereby I introduce a genius idea, the Mobile Vending Machine. Wait, Fozzie mentioned it in his opening post? Well, I'm not sure he was serious, because it's actually great. But it should be able to do much more than simply sell mining crystals in a belt.

Like, buying ore. The structure is player owned and only he can make orders in it, according to some new trading skill. Others can complete the orders. Not too many orders of course, like 20 buy, 20 sell with maxed skill, and only one structure per player to avoid overloading the market interface. It has a beacon on the overview as it's openly broadcasting its orders, everyone can find it.

By accessing it, you can buy items it sells and sell to its buy orders from your cargohold. Now let's see its own cargohold. To be any useful, it must have huge cargohold that makes scooping impossible. I mean if you use it to buy ore in a belt, even a million m3 is filled in 11 Hulk-hours, so a mining fleet quickly renders it unusable. Also if you'd try to sell ship hulls, it wouldn't work. So scooping is out of question, if you deploy it, it stays until you either abandon it or someone destroys it. The same reinforcement method applies as the depot and it stops trading while reinforced, but the contents can be removed. It has a fuel bay where it takes cap booster 800 charges, one per hour, housing only 100. If it's out of fuel, it loses its reinforcement ability and also disappears next downtime. I think 10M m3 cargohold is enough.

To buy something, it must fit in your cargohold, with one exception: if you are in a pod, you can buy a ship hull and you get it assembled and you boarding it.

While the Mobile Vending Machine can be deployed in a belt to sell mining crystals and buy Ore, its most important feature is that it can be deployed under a POS shield, acting as a trading module for WH players. It would be revolutionary in W-space, allowing players to use formal methods of exchanging goods instead of using commonly available hangars and hope no one steals it. You could set up an ammo, fitting and small-ship store for your corp or buy their salvage, PI and ore and when you log in, just empty the cargo into your freighter and off you go down the chain to Jita.

Wouldn't this be a great structure?
Read More
Posted in New | No comments

Sunday, 17 November 2013

My big problem with EVE

Posted on 18:00 by Unknown
While there are thousands of different activities you can do in EVE, they be can safely classified into three groups:
  1. Farming ISK
  2. Killing random people
  3. Changing the big picture
By making 40B+/month, consistently for more than a year, I more or less won the first group. I'm not saying that there couldn't be players with higher income, or that I couldn't increase my number, but that wouldn't be much of a difference, because the numbers are already stupid and way beyond the needs of anyone in the game. If you want to earn money, the old posts about trading are still available.

By having 130B+/month kills for two months, with constant weekly increase and no signs of decline, neither a single comment predicting decline for any other reason than me getting bored, I probably set the record on multibox PvP. But even if I didn't (and someone from Marmite did), I doubt that further improvement would be meaningful. I mean if I'd kill 1/5 as much as whole Goonswarm instead of 1/10, would that be any different?

I simply can't do anything but changing a big picture without simply repeating myself, underperforming my previous results or getting meaningless improvements. That is even more of an obstacle front of trying out WH. I mean if I could get the trust of a non-fail WH corp, then what? I'd run sites for 10-15% income of what I could have in highsec and then roll holes to find someone to gank, getting 2-3% of the kills I could get in highsec. Wonderful perspective. Same with incursions, ghost sites, intelligent usage of the new structures or anything that came into my mind or was suggested in comments.

The only thing ahead of me in EVE is changing the big picture, but doing that is harder than saying. At first, it's not something that I can just join to. While I'm sure there are many who aren't satisfied by a big wallet and stupid amount of kills, they keep their goal secret to avoid public failure. Nothing was more downturning about the new South conflict than NC. announcing their escape plan (that stupid Northern Army thing) before the first shot was fired. When they got wind about a war coming, their first move was finding a way to lose without losing their face. Yes, I'm sooo motivated to join them (joining their enemies is impossible as they are Russian speaking except for BL who is officially just "helping out to get fights" and don't plan to hold sov). Oh, I almost forgot CFC who announced to join... as a third party for having fun.

And nullsec is the best part. WHs are the same mess as always, with a "don't evict PvP corps" agreement in effect to actively prevent anything worth mentioning from happening. No, ganking that blinged Moros running sites isn't worth mentioning and no one mentions it, not even the ALOD writers. Lowsec is officially a place for running around as headless chicken and killing anything that is dumb enough to not use cloak or jump drive. FW-low could be interesting if there would be sides instead of a bunch of people having farmalts in all militias, using them according to LP prices.

Highsec is place for solo play, POCOs are interesting but it seems everyone and his mother are preparing to take them, so whatever worth doing there will be done without me.

I don't deny that I feel stuck. I reached the limits of competitive play, I have enough ISK for the rest of my life and more kills that an average "PvP-er" will ever have in his lifetime, but I have no idea how to do something meaningful. So if you are up to something meaningful, something that has a chance to change New Eden, feel free to throw me an eve-mail.

PS: idiots who comment "just go and have fun" will of course be deleted. I'm maybe desperate, but not that desperate.
Read More
Posted in New | No comments

Saturday, 16 November 2013

Highsec POCO ownership

Posted on 04:53 by Unknown
I usually don't make posts on Weekends, but Rubicon is upon us and the main feature, highsec POCOs need further discussion. I already wrote that the only "empire" I can think of is nothing but a price cartel and a wardec price increaser alliance, without any real alliance function.

It wasn't really popular, because people want a "real" group (corp or alliance) that actively defend POCOs. Below I prove that such entity cannot exist in a significant scale. I don't question that a group of friends can own a few POCOs in the middle of nowhere, allowing themselves to do low-tax PI, but in any significant scale, such corp cannot exist.

The main problem is - just like with nullsec moons - POCOs are a top-down income source: the money comes from taxation of the POCOs and go to the corp wallet, where the corp leadership can control it. On the other hand it needs lot of players who do the busywork of capturing and defending these POCOs. The question is why would anyone do this work to let other people get ISK?

In nullsec it's done by propaganda. The alliance leadership upholds a positive image attached to the alliance tag, and for that image, a bunch of dumb socials are doing unpaid work for them. No, reimbursement isn't a payment as you wouldn't lose your ship if you wouldn't be in their fleet. So people shoot structures in bombless bombers for hours for the ability to tell "we aren't highsec pubbies, we are Goons". People are ready to pay scam money to "goon recruiters" or join Sniggwaffe for the faint hope that one day they'll be in PL (actually, did anyone, ever got to PL from Sniggwaffe?). I can (and do) call them stupid, but they are still exist and can be exploited by smart manipulators.

This will not work in highsec, because highsec itself has no respect in the EVE community. No one will do unpaid work just to belong to a prestigious highsec corp, because such thing cannot exist. The "join friends, have fun, shoot stuff" recruitment of lolpvp organizations doesn't work either since in highsec you can't really shoot anyone but war targets.

Of course you can try to borrow the prestige of a nullsec group, by being their official highsec arm. But I wouldn't bet on this, because nullsec alliances often get into wars and need everyone there. Unlike with Sov, you need permanent presence to protect your POCOs, due to trivial logistics, lower structure HPs and less reinforcement timers. Someone can drop a dozen of 2 month old, 5M AFK Catalysts on your POCO and take it down to reinforced in less than half an hour, with trivial risks of loss. If you can't show up, you lost it.

In lack of dumb socials to be used as slave army, the members have to be paid. Any payment method can be gamed and the administration of protecting your POCOs can be a larger task than actually protecting your POCOs. Who were there, how many hours, what shiptype and above all, how much that POCO worth?

If the POCO-corp is a one-man show, such administration is not needed. You know how much it worth, and you can't cheat yourself. If you can protect it alone, you do. If you can't but the POCO worth it, you hire mercs. If you can't profitably hold it, you give it up, or sell it. Since you are already fine alone, you don't need an alliance. My original idea just added a little bonus by gaming the wardec costs.

Of course we don't have hard numbers and the whole highsec POCO thing can be unprofitable due to low utilization. Remember, there are 25000 planets, so lot of places to go for someone who doesn't want to pay your tax.
Read More
Posted in New | No comments

Thursday, 14 November 2013

No way I go to WH space

Posted on 18:00 by Unknown
In the recent days, after I abandoned the failed ganking project, I was a bit lost. People do stupid stuff out of desperation. I almost done one: joining a WH corp that has been asking me to time to time again.

Actually they almost got me, probably liberating me from a Moros (either by their own hands, or by the hands of their enemies) and a Slave pod. The reason I finally bugged out was being totally lost waiting for the orders. I had no idea what will happen, what is the fleet comp, what will we do, how do we get there. Sure, opsec. But in null opsec only meant I didn't know where will the op take place and maybe who will be the hostiles. I always knew what will we do and how to do it. Here, nothing. So I quit before the op took place (if there was an op at all and not just a trap for my Moros).

However the above isn't the fault of that particular WH group (assuming they wasn't just after a Moros awox), but the WH mechanics itself. Even in the lawless nullsec, there is infrastructure. There are fixed gates, stations where your stuff is safe, sites you can farm, means to move to Empire space and so on. But above all, there is market and contract system, allowing both asynchronous and secure transactions.

In a WH you can only exchange items if you are online when the other guy and if you fully trust him. Hint: if you fully trust anyone in EVE, you are a scam victim. This means you have to do everything yourself, assuming you have your own tower. But unless it's your corp, you won't get rights to manage towers. So your life is practically waiting around for being commanded and hoping that your corpmates don't screw over you.

There were boring moments during ganking. It often felt just a dumb grind. But I was always, completely under my own control. I could change what I do, do it differently or in a different space or just dock up and leave the computer. Waiting around having no idea what will happen (especially with a moderately blinged Moros), was probably the worst experience I had during playing EVE. Pulling the plug, sending that "I'm out" mail was a liberating moment.

No way I go WH space, unless I can figure out how to cooperate with people using automated and secure methods, protocols, guides and so on instead of "sit tight and do as I say". Since CCP doesn't consider WH space a priority, it's clear that I can't hope for developer help. So now I'd say with 99.99% probability that I won't be in a wormhole in my EVE life.

Anyway, as the Rubicon expansion is so Highsec focused, I think I'm already in the right place. Just have to figure out how to get something out of it.


The more I think about, the less I want to join the recent nullsec conflict either. Not because I can't really identify with either the totally fragmented SoCo, nor N3 who couldn't tie their shoes without PL who did not even declared to be in this conflict. The real reason is the altruism from the position of a pilot. Imagine that I'm a BL pilot, flying hundreds of hours of combat and finally we win and beat out N3 from South. Now what? What did I won? I can rat in the new space, sure! But I could get ratting right after paying a small sum to join one of the dozen renter alliances. What does this war offer to the winners?

So I have to find a project that is:
  1. Profitable to the participants, even if we consider the cost of opportunities widely available to people.
  2. Allow the participants to co-operate via safe and standard methods instead of blindly trusting me or each other.
  3. Has some other impact in New Eden than making us stupidly rich. (trading would cover the first two)
The best I can think of is highsec POCO domination. I see now that my original idea has the flaw of being too individualist, people want to be in a real corp, even at the cost of efficiency. I simply has to accept that some level of competency must be sacrificed in order to satisfy the social needs of people. After all, I can just block talkative people. Anyone knows of a corporation forming for highsec POCOs?
Read More
Posted in New | No comments

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

Representation of women in MMOs

Posted on 18:00 by Unknown
The feminist plague is upon the gaming community once again, this time against cosplayers.

I mentioned many times that I don’t like feminists, because they don’t see that the “Devil is sexist”, aka the problem source is overall horrible and sexism is its smallest issue and fixing the sexism wouldn’t make the problem significantly smaller.

So the countless feminist writers (read the Tobold article for links) are upset that women are put to display in costumes that show lot of female skin. These costumes are modeled after in-game characters who are similarly dressed, despite their job would need armor, and their male colleagues indeed wear body armor.

To see the solution, imagine that you are really a male warrior, preparing for a battle against the undead. You can die in this battle and the undead hordes can break through, run over your land, killing everyone you knew and rising them as mindless undead slaves of the evil necromancers. Would you, the young, heterosexual male prefer a young, attractive female warrior next to you to wear something really sexy? Or would you prefer her wearing proper armor so she can actually fight next to you?

Forget the rights and respect and personality of women, care only for your own needs and wishes. Who would you prefer on your side marching against the skeletal horrors? A babe wearing heels, make-up and string bikini or a muscular, scarred, barbarian woman who obviously never heard the term “hair styling” but swings a pair of large axes like they were feathers?

The problem with the MMO games is that you are not roleplaying a warrior facing the undead hordes, fighting for the survival of himself and all he loves, even if the lore says so. You are roleplaying a spoiled punk who is in perfect safety from losses and will get rewards just for showing up, regardless of his performance. The undead horde is no danger to you, so the battle capabilities of your female comrades are irrelevant.

Why were losses removed from MMOs? To make them “fun”. However by doing so, objectives were removed or made trivial. Objectives are inclusive. You win in a battle exactly the same moment when every other member of your side (save for the dead) wins. Your victory is their victory too, so you have every reason to help them win. Actions that would harm them would harm your common goal, so harm yourself too. Would you be an asshole with the spaceship pilot next to you, knowing that your alliance will need every single pilot in the upcoming war? Oh, I forgot, you didn't want that region anyway, so why not drive her away for a good laugh?

“Fun” is objectifying: the other person is just a tool to provide you personal fun. And the most obvious fun usage of a woman is as a sex toy. However, this is not sexism, a fun-oriented homosexual or a woman equally objectify young men. Also, the same objectification happens between men too, even if not in a sexual way: they should provide you company in “having fun”: laughing on your dumb jokes, bring you beer and let you win in darts.

Another serious difference is that to reach an objective, you are better off utilizing the knowledge of your teammates. Asking for their opinion, discussing with them, taking their ideas seriously increases the chances of the victory of the team. On the other hand, no one but you know what’s fun for you, so others cannot contribute with their ideas, only by mechanically following the steps you want them. For maximum fun, you should do the talking, the others should be limited to applauding you. Objectives foster discussion, fun fosters "STFU nerd".

Sexist, racist jokes and random asshattery runs rampart in “for fun” groups, while totally not tolerated in a professional place where work must be done. The stunning difference between PL FC-ed Foxcat fleets and TEST-only battlecruiser fleets still haunts me (For that reason, I really don't want to experience a frig or destroyer fleet. Ever.) If you don’t want to be subjected to sexism, racism, homophobia or general jerkiness, avoid people whose goal is to “have fun” like the bubonic plague. In gaming, avoid casual games where bad group performance is rewarded, because it openly rewards “fooling around and having fun”, at your expense of course. Look for competitive games and ambitious groups in games.

Finally a fitting joke:
Feminism is the idea that women are equal to men.
Considering how lowly the average man is, this is probably the least ambitious idea in the history.
Read More
Posted in New | No comments

Tuesday, 12 November 2013

The failure of altruism

Posted on 18:00 by Unknown
What went wrong with my ganking project? In one word: altruism.

It did not offer anything to the gankers in it. It did not give anything to me either as a ganker. It was started as an ambitious goal to change highsec. Had it succeeded it would still not give anything to the participants. The winners would have been those players who had learn the basics of ship fitting and the philosophy behind ganks (padding killboard), removing tears and easy targets from highsec.

Every action has opportunity cost. An hour spent ganking is an hour not spent trading. Since I've completely closed down my highsec trading for this project, it cost me more than 100B in opportunity cost. Other gankers also sacrificed some of their income for it. We got nothing for this money, just the thought that we might make something lasting in EVE, which is marketed exactly as the game where you can make difference. It was enough for me. Wasn't enough for them.

Am I somehow special to have more plans than simply fill my coffers and pad my killboard? Note: the best way to have a good personal killboard is not ganking, but whoring on blob kills. Those N3/PL pilots who were on the BL supercapital trap all got 7-800B kills in October. Practically if you were in NC. and you cared to log in, you got it, while NC. itself just had 1.45T in October. Are other people are OK with only personal goals? While most people are not on this level, claiming to be alone would be ridiculous when anyone can list names like Sindel Pellion, Chribba, there are people who spend lot of time teaching in E-UNI, those who caught SOMER doing RMT and so on. The problem is that these people obviously have different vision about what's right and what difference should be made. I never joined any of the mentioned guys for their goals, why should anyone join my goal?

Compare this with the blog which just passed 6 million visitors, individual pageviews focused on trading advices, the Undergeared project (back in WoW, WotLK I proved that the game went way too easy by doing endgame raiding in beginner gear) and the evidences that World of Tanks rigs the battles. Why does my blogging works if my ganking did not? Because it is a solo project. The blog needs no one but me. I can keep going if not a single man on the planet supports me. The ganking project needed other people to both agree with me and to be ready to do volunteer work for the idea. Now this intersection of groups proved to be too small.

There are two ways out of it: one is moving to ideas that are more mainstream. The Angel Project is a good example, it collects donations for newbies. Most people consider it a noble act. Anyone who had altruism in himself could easily find the project supportable. The other option is to make the next project non-altruist. If the participants are paid, everyone who can agree with the project can join without losing something. Hell, people who don't agree first can join for the money. This is what many commenters suggested with the ganking project too: pay the gankers in form of ships, transportation or whatever. Now, in an hour an average guy can earn about 30M ISK. A mediocre ganker can take out about 150M. So for every ISK ganked, I have to pay 0.2ISK "salary" (in some form). So to reach 2T ganks, I need to pay 400B ISK a month. I don't have that ISK. The only way if the project itself pays. If I could figure out a way to get the money as loot from the ganked miners, I would have an army under me already. But there is none, by design.

The limitation of altruism is the amount of people who both agree with a goal and willing to donate resources. A business-based idea on the other hand is self-paying. Whatever I do next, it must pay for itself.
Read More
Posted in New | No comments
Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Suffer mortals, as your pathetic password betrays you!
    One of the things we often don't put much thought into is password selection. Usually it is a loved-one's name or an easily remembe...
  • (I'm not) defining lowsec
    This is a rather short post, will be one more today, about my very first PvP action. Sugar reminded me of a problem that I read about a l...
  • The big EVE trick
    What is an easy game: where everyone can achieve what he wants easily. What is a hard game: where you can only advance by becoming better an...
  • You must station trade what you haul
    Well, actually you don't if you are fine with hauling for buy orders. This case you lose serious profit. If you are the station trader o...
  • The (total lack of) balance of trade of highsec
    The fact that you can be much more rich in highsec than in the competitive areas of EVE (low, null, WH) is one of my main messages. It can b...
  • Thinking about highsec POCOs
    In the next EVE patch, Rubicon, highsec customs offices will be capturable by players (actually you destroy and build your own, but it's...
  • What would happen if people could trade?
    The question of mirror-ability of strategies often comes up when I post my trading strategy. The 0.01 strategy is clearly mirror-able. If th...
  • October ganking report
    October was a great month for my corporation , We Gank Because We Care. You can see the results on the killboard but since October was 31 d...
  • The proper profit metric
    Live moron of the weekend post . Did they spent the last month under a rock? People having trouble making ISK with trading. Some rather go m...
  • ur a kid!
    The title is a troll comment I get often. It doesn't make much sense. It's clearly not an argument. While we know that socials don...

Categories

  • account
  • account theft
  • adobe
  • alpha
  • arena tournament
  • authenticator
  • authenticators
  • battle.net
  • beta
  • blizzard
  • brute force
  • cataclysm
  • diablo 3 phishing scam
  • dictionary attack
  • drive-by
  • email
  • fake
  • flash
  • game
  • Gold
  • guild
  • gumblar
  • hacked
  • hacking
  • hacks
  • Ideas
  • ISK
  • keylogger
  • march
  • mmo-champion
  • New
  • password
  • password stealing
  • patching
  • phishing
  • raiding
  • Random
  • ranks
  • remote auction house
  • scam
  • scams
  • security
  • security checklist
  • soccer
  • strong password
  • trojan
  • vulnerability
  • warcraft
  • wow
  • wowarmory
  • wowmatrix

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (242)
    • ▼  November (15)
      • There is no "respect number"
      • Mobile vending machine
      • My big problem with EVE
      • Highsec POCO ownership
      • No way I go to WH space
      • Representation of women in MMOs
      • The failure of altruism
      • Thinking about highsec POCOs
      • My project failed
      • The largest awox in the history of EVE
      • Don't Fleet up!
      • Respect: the holy grail of MMOs
      • Talons of the Talos
      • Morons of the week
      • October ganking report
    • ►  October (25)
    • ►  September (24)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (24)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (22)
    • ►  March (20)
    • ►  February (21)
    • ►  January (26)
  • ►  2012 (261)
    • ►  December (24)
    • ►  November (21)
    • ►  October (24)
    • ►  September (21)
    • ►  August (26)
    • ►  July (25)
    • ►  June (20)
    • ►  May (25)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (23)
    • ►  February (23)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2011 (4)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2010 (17)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2009 (4)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile