Denkverbot

aben wrote:

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:
na primjer,
s jedne strone, katolici želu zabroniti rad nediljon jer je to protiv boga, a s druge new ageri želu zabroniti poučavanje da je zemlja rovna ploča jer je to protiv znanosti. a jedno i drugo je fašizam koji nas osan nefašistov u ovoj državi moramo trpiti bez obzira ki od te dvi frakcije trenutno nadjača.

A nije fašizam ako čovjek nema pravo niti na jedan jedini slobodni dan tjedno, nedjelja ili neki drugi? Pa si zbog toga smanji kvalitetu osobnog i posebno obiteljskog života, pati žena, pate djeca, pati demografija, pate kućni ljubimci, a bome pate i omiljeni kristali (ovo posljednje barem po nekima).

nije

A onda dobro.

pravo koji uključuje afirmaciju drugih ni pravo nego privilegij, ne postoji obaveza drugih ljudi da ti budu prijatelji da bi ti mogo lumpovati.

ali, ne boj se, u situaciji u koj su ljudi slobodni ulaziti i izlaziti iz asocijacija, vapaji za neradnin danima bi bili samo ružna fusnota u povijesnin udžbenicima...

Nije ovdje poanta u društvenom životu nego u biologiji.

aben wrote:
dobro, a jel mi moreš opisati mehanizam nametanja, ono kako se konkretna uvjerenja nameću; tipa ča rti se dogodi ako ne usvojiš određeno nametano uvjerenje?

i ne okrići temu na seks, nis odovna

sto se tu ima opisivat ?

ne dogodi se nista, zivis po svojim uvjerenjima jer tebi tako pase i sve dok s tim ne cinis nikome nazao, it's ok

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

kic wrote:

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

PhoebeBuffay wrote:

kic wrote:

PhoebeBuffay wrote:
Od kuda to za ghandija kic?

pise i u nj biografiji mislim, nije svojoj zeni dao da lijekove uzima, a sam je uzimao lijekove, bio rasist i spavao s maloljetnicama..

kome smo prepustili Indiju.

O svasta...

To je upozorenje da dobro pazimo kakve stavove zauzimao o političarima, posebno o državnicima takvog ranga kao što je bio Mahatma Gandhi.
Naime, on je bez obzira na nakaradne primjera ponašanja u svojem osobnom životu ipak bio veliki državnik koji je za Indiju učinio enormno puno, više nego je to možda učinio bilo tko u povijesti cijelog potkontinenta, a pogotovo više nego je to od njegovih suvremenika itko bio u stanju i te mu zasluge nitko ne može osporiti.

overcredited totalno

Englezi su se ispuhali u ww2 inace nisce ne bi bilo, Churchill:
If we leave, fighting will break out everywhere, there’ll be a civil war. Eventually, the Moslems will become masters, because they are warriors, while the Hindus are windbags. Yes, windbags!

Moguće, o tome bi se svakako dalo raspravljati, kao što se među povjesničarima i raspravlja.
Međutim, mišljenja sam da nitko ne bi uspio tako uspješno objediniti te slobodarske porive indijskog stanovništva da se nije pojavio Mahatma. Za takav uspjeh nije dovoljan samo običan političar, birokrat, administrativac, pogotovo ne čovjek poslan sa nekim zadatkom iz bijelog svijeta, za to je bio neophodan netko tko je poznavao dušu cijelog potkontinetna, netko sa snažnom osobnom karizmom i vizijom manje ili više nenasilnog izlaska Indije iz imperija, netko koga će mase slijediti manje ili više bez pogovora. 
Netko tko je u konačnici poznavao i mentalitet Britanaca i znao je da će oni jednog dana jednostavno otići, što recimo jednoj Španjolskoj nikada nije uspjelu u njihovim kolonijama, od njih se sve morali silom oteti (nevažna Zapadna Sahara je ovdje valjda jedina iznimka), a vidimo da se taj imperijalni refleks kod njih zadržao i do danas (Katalonija).
Druga je priča što se nakon osamostaljenja Indije kasnije događalo između hindusa i muslimana, pa još kasnije u vezi osamostaljenja Bangladeša od Pakistana itd.

genijalac je cesto hulja, pogotovo politicki genijalac, i bilo bi postenije ga gledati kao obicnog politicara nego prosvijetljenog moralnog uzora kad to i nie..

?? naravno da se smije reci. zar je to potrebno naglasavati? istina da se na sve strane nicu virtialne lomace....no, vjerujem da drustvo jos uvijek nosi u sebi zrnce mudrosti....
da, smije se reci ali se MALO ili gotovo nista ne podizima da se isto sprijeci .osim tek toliko, reda radi, i umirivanja javnosti, netko je nehdje i prozvan, kaznjen veoma rijetko.da se nekim slucajem ne bi stekao dojam kako crkva nista ne poduzima, to je njihiv problem , STO NIJE, i sl.

religija je osobna stvar svakog pojedinca i svako njeno nametanje poziva nasilje. tocka.

betty.boop wrote:

aben wrote:
dobro, a jel mi moreš opisati mehanizam nametanja, ono kako se konkretna uvjerenja nameću; tipa ča rti se dogodi ako ne usvojiš određeno nametano uvjerenje?

i ne okrići temu na seks, nis odovna

sto se tu ima opisivat ?

ne dogodi se nista, zivis po svojim uvjerenjima jer tebi tako pase i sve dok s tim ne cinis nikome nazao, it's ok

palac gore.....

maggie13 wrote:

aben wrote:

maggie137 wrote:

aben wrote:

maggie13 wrote:Kad je tako dobar.
I jednom se zivi.
Barem koliko pamtimo.

pecivo pospeno sa cukron je poor mans heroin

dobra je to ovisnost.
Covjek bez ovisnosti mi je sumnjiv.

nemo čovika brez ovisnosti, samo su neke ovisnosti štetne, a neke nisu, ili manje jesu

sve su.
A, to za manje-vise samo vrijeme prosudi.

jel ovisnost o umjerenom i izbalansiranom životu štetna?

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

aben wrote:

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

A nije fašizam ako čovjek nema pravo niti na jedan jedini slobodni dan tjedno, nedjelja ili neki drugi? Pa si zbog toga smanji kvalitetu osobnog i posebno obiteljskog života, pati žena, pate djeca, pati demografija, pate kućni ljubimci, a bome pate i omiljeni kristali (ovo posljednje barem po nekima).

nije

A onda dobro.

pravo koji uključuje afirmaciju drugih ni pravo nego privilegij, ne postoji obaveza drugih ljudi da ti budu prijatelji da bi ti mogo lumpovati.

ali, ne boj se, u situaciji u koj su ljudi slobodni ulaziti i izlaziti iz asocijacija, vapaji za neradnin danima bi bili samo ružna fusnota u povijesnin udžbenicima...

Nije ovdje poanta u društvenom životu nego u biologiji.

u kojen smislu?

betty.boop wrote:

aben wrote:
dobro, a jel mi moreš opisati mehanizam nametanja, ono kako se konkretna uvjerenja nameću; tipa ča rti se dogodi ako ne usvojiš određeno nametano uvjerenje?

i ne okrići temu na seks, nis odovna

sto se tu ima opisivat ?

ne dogodi se nista, zivis po svojim uvjerenjima jer tebi tako pase i sve dok s tim ne cinis nikome nazao, it's ok

pa nametanje podrazumjevo neki oblik prisile, a budući da sun jo joko zainteresirun za totalnu bezrezervnu osudu sve oblike prisile, voli bi da mi se nacrto di je tu prisila.

jer, ono ča jo vidin je pisanje po monitoru, nekad govor..a to su sve nenasilne pojave. sefirot je godinami trubi o nametanju a nikad ni hoti pokozati u čemu se sastoji to nametanje.

vidin da ni ti ne želiš napisati po čemu je neko izražavanje svojih misli, jedun od temeljnih preduvjeta civilizacije, nametanje. zoto, nemun druge opcije nego da nametnem svoju misao: 

nametanje svojih uvjerenja je sintagma koja služi za dikvalifikaciju sugovornika.

night sky wrote:?? naravno da se smije reci. zar je to potrebno naglasavati? istina da se na sve strane nicu virtialne lomace....no, vjerujem da drustvo jos uvijek nosi u sebi zrnce mudrosti....
da, smije se reci ali se MALO ili gotovo nista ne podizima da se isto sprijeci .osim tek toliko, reda radi, i umirivanja javnosti, netko je nehdje i prozvan, kaznjen veoma rijetko.da se nekim slucajem ne bi stekao dojam kako crkva nista ne poduzima, to je njihiv problem , STO NIJE, i sl.

religija je osobna stvar svakog pojedinca i svako njeno nametanje poziva nasilje. tocka.

zoč si na kraju stavila riječ točka? jel ti to namećeš svoje mišljenje?


jel li moreš napisati malo više o tomu ča su to virtualne lomače, kako se manifestiraju i jesu li to nasilne radnje i ako jesu, po čemu?

aben wrote:

maggie13 wrote:

aben wrote:

maggie137 wrote:

aben wrote:


pecivo pospeno sa cukron je poor mans heroin

dobra je to ovisnost.
Covjek bez ovisnosti mi je sumnjiv.

nemo čovika brez ovisnosti, samo su neke ovisnosti štetne, a neke nisu, ili manje jesu

sve su.
A, to za manje-vise samo vrijeme prosudi.

jel ovisnost o umjerenom i izbalansiranom životu štetna?

naravno.
Najprije, sto je definicija takvog zivota.
Potom, slozimo li se svi oko iste(sto nikad necemo, ali recimo), fakat steti uzbudljivosti i raznolikosti zivotnih iskustava.
U najmanju ruku.

ja branim kolonijalizam, a aben slobodu misli

what a day

maggie13 wrote:

aben wrote:

maggie13 wrote:

aben wrote:

maggie137 wrote:
dobra je to ovisnost.
Covjek bez ovisnosti mi je sumnjiv.

nemo čovika brez ovisnosti, samo su neke ovisnosti štetne, a neke nisu, ili manje jesu

sve su.
A, to za manje-vise samo vrijeme prosudi.

jel ovisnost o umjerenom i izbalansiranom životu štetna?

naravno.
Najprije, sto je definicija takvog zivota.
Potom, slozimo li se svi oko iste(sto nikad necemo, ali recimo), fakat steti uzbudljivosti i raznolikosti zivotnih iskustava.
U najmanju ruku.

kako umjerenost šteti uzbudljivosti i raznolikosti?

kic wrote:
ja branim kolonijalizam, a aben slobodu misli

what a day

same ol, same ol

night sky wrote:?? naravno da se smije reci. zar je to potrebno naglasavati? istina da se na sve strane nicu virtialne lomace....no, vjerujem da drustvo jos uvijek nosi u sebi zrnce mudrosti....
da, smije se reci ali se MALO ili gotovo nista ne podizima da se isto sprijeci .osim tek toliko, reda radi, i umirivanja javnosti, netko je nehdje i prozvan, kaznjen veoma rijetko.da se nekim slucajem ne bi stekao dojam kako crkva nista ne poduzima, to je njihiv problem , STO NIJE, i sl.

religija je osobna stvar svakog pojedinca i svako njeno nametanje poziva nasilje. tocka.

Personal boundaries are guidelines, rules or limits that a person creates to identify reasonable, safe and permissible ways for other people to behave towards them and how they will respond when someone passes those limits. They are built out of a mix of conclusions, beliefs, opinions, attitudes, past experiences and social learning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_boundaries

Christianity Has a Major Boundary Problem

Christianity has a boundary problem. It has a major problem respecting and maintaining personal boundaries.


What do I mean by boundaries? Boundaries are those personal limitations and lines of demarcation which tell someone else where his business ends and where the next person’s begins, and vice versa. In normal, healthy, adult relationships each person has responsibility for himself or herself and others should not infringe upon that responsibility because doing so is an encroachment of personal space. Think of them as the emotional equivalent of the proverbial good fences that make good neighbors.

When personal boundaries are violated, the recipient of this treatment feels demeaned, depersonalized, and devalued. It’s as if someone else has said, “I have such a low estimation of your ability to make good decisions that I have simply decided to make them for you. Now bend over and take it.” You aren’t really given a choice in the matter. Someone else has taken that right from you by presuming to tell you what to do and how to think. Your own opinion and concerns do not matter. What they want and think is more important than what you want and think, and if you don’t like that then the problem is with you, so shut up.

Sounds terrible, right? That sounds like abusive, uncaring treatment, doesn’t it?

Well, Christianity teaches you to do precisely that—particularly fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity, although I wouldn’t limit this criticism to those strains alone. Most versions of Christianity show little to no respect for personal or relational boundaries. Keep in mind, these are belief systems that say you are so very bad that you deserve to be punished forever, and in order to make amends for that, Jesus had to be tortured and killed for it instead of you. That’s how despicable you are. Entire nations have been destroyed just to provide an object lesson in what God will do to those who don’t get right with him.

I know, right? That’s awful. And yes, I know there are other versions of this religion which have discarded the penal substitutionary view of the atonement (because who cares how the Bible actually interprets itself, right?), but even those kinder gentler versions can’t seem to shake the dogmatic belief that people are fundamentally broken. If we weren’t fundamentally messed up then why would we need saving in the first place? And saved from what, ourselves?

The brilliance of modern Christianity lies in its ability to sugar coat this message, reframing it in entirely positive sounding terms. “We want you to have the best life possible! We’re offering you a priceless gift! If you turn it down you’ll be missing out!” That’s good marketing, honestly, and it sells well. People and institutions have made millions from it. But underneath the saccharine, smiley surface lies a profoundly disturbing message: You are so incomplete and insufficient as a human being that you will never be okay without what we have to offer you. Happiness and fulfillment are impossible apart from what we are trying to sell you. You must have this or your life will have been wasted.

The best salesmen are the ones who have convinced even themselves that what they’re selling is worth every penny. They are the most persuasive, because they’re completely sincere. It’s no different with evangelism. When Christians push their message onto the rest of the world it’s usually because they genuinely believe the stuff they’re saying (or perhaps more precisely they want to). But in so doing, they are failing miserably at recognizing and respecting personal boundaries. I’d like to give you some examples of how many different ways they do that, many of them pulled from my own life.

Hard Lessons Learned in My Own Life


Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/excommunications/2015/05/christianity-has-a-major-boundary-problem/#OJ6dpLSkIkvtJmOu.99

ajmo, preciznosti radi, razvrstati tvrdnje koje su nametanje a koje nisu.


svemir se okriće oko svita, i svi sati zemljopisa bi tribali biti izborni, te divergentni s obziron na sustav ki promiču.

svi imaju pravo na obavezne sate zemljopisa ki su u skladu s trenutnim znanstvenim koncenzusom.

sve ljude osim onih ke jo odaberen tribo streljati.

ja sam za mir, i ne volin kad se neko svađa.

ko ura je?

različiitost je bogatstvo i one ke nisu različiti treba pobiti.

aben wrote:

maggie13 wrote:

aben wrote:

maggie13 wrote:

aben wrote:
nemo čovika brez ovisnosti, samo su neke ovisnosti štetne, a neke nisu, ili manje jesu

sve su.
A, to za manje-vise samo vrijeme prosudi.

jel ovisnost o umjerenom i izbalansiranom životu štetna?

naravno.
Najprije, sto je definicija takvog zivota.
Potom, slozimo li se svi oko iste(sto nikad necemo, ali recimo), fakat steti uzbudljivosti i raznolikosti zivotnih iskustava.
U najmanju ruku.

kako umjerenost šteti uzbudljivosti i raznolikosti?

koliko odricanje steti iskustvenom procvatu?

Gnječ wrote:

night sky wrote:?? naravno da se smije reci. zar je to potrebno naglasavati? istina da se na sve strane nicu virtialne lomace....no, vjerujem da drustvo jos uvijek nosi u sebi zrnce mudrosti....
da, smije se reci ali se MALO ili gotovo nista ne podizima da se isto sprijeci .osim tek toliko, reda radi, i umirivanja javnosti, netko je nehdje i prozvan, kaznjen veoma rijetko.da se nekim slucajem ne bi stekao dojam kako crkva nista ne poduzima, to je njihiv problem , STO NIJE, i sl.

religija je osobna stvar svakog pojedinca i svako njeno nametanje poziva nasilje. tocka.

Personal boundaries are guidelines, rules or limits that a person creates to identify reasonable, safe and permissible ways for other people to behave towards them and how they will respond when someone passes those limits. They are built out of a mix of conclusions, beliefs, opinions, attitudes, past experiences and social learning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_boundaries

Christianity Has a Major Boundary Problem

Christianity has a boundary problem. It has a major problem respecting and maintaining personal boundaries.


What do I mean by boundaries?  Boundaries are those personal limitations and lines of demarcation which tell someone else where his business ends and where the next person’s begins, and vice versa.  In normal, healthy, adult relationships each person has responsibility for himself or herself and others should not infringe upon that responsibility because doing so is an encroachment of personal space. Think of them as the emotional equivalent of the proverbial good fences that make good neighbors.

When personal boundaries are violated, the recipient of this treatment feels demeaned, depersonalized, and devalued. It’s as if someone else has said, “I have such a low estimation of your ability to make good decisions that I have simply decided to make them for you. Now bend over and take it.”  You aren’t really given a choice in the matter. Someone else has taken that right from you by presuming to tell you what to do and how to think. Your own opinion and concerns do not matter.  What they want and think is more important than what you want and think, and if you don’t like that then the problem is with you, so shut up.

Sounds terrible, right?  That sounds like abusive, uncaring treatment, doesn’t it?

Well, Christianity teaches you to do precisely that—particularly fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity, although I wouldn’t limit this criticism to those strains alone.  Most versions of Christianity show little to no respect for personal or relational boundaries.  Keep in mind, these are belief systems that say you are so very bad that you deserve to be punished forever, and in order to make amends for that, Jesus had to be tortured and killed for it instead of you.  That’s how despicable you are. Entire nations have been destroyed just to provide an object lesson in what God will do to those who don’t get  right with him.

I know, right?  That’s awful.  And yes, I know there are other versions of this religion which have discarded the penal substitutionary view of the atonement (because who cares how the Bible actually interprets itself, right?), but even those kinder gentler versions can’t seem to shake the dogmatic belief that people are fundamentally broken. If we weren’t fundamentally messed up then why would we need saving in the first place?  And saved from what, ourselves?

The brilliance of modern Christianity lies in its ability to sugar coat this message, reframing it in entirely positive sounding terms. “We want you to have the best life possible!  We’re offering you a priceless gift!  If you turn it down you’ll be missing out!”  That’s good marketing, honestly, and it sells well. People and institutions have made millions from it. But underneath the saccharine, smiley surface lies a profoundly disturbing message:  You are so incomplete and insufficient as a human being that you will never be okay without what we have to offer you. Happiness and fulfillment are impossible apart from what we are trying to sell you. You must have this or your life will have been wasted.

The best salesmen are the ones who have convinced even themselves that what they’re selling is worth every penny. They are the most persuasive, because they’re completely sincere. It’s no different with evangelism. When Christians push their message onto the rest of the world it’s usually because they genuinely believe the stuff they’re saying (or perhaps more precisely they want to).  But in so doing, they are failing miserably at recognizing and respecting personal boundaries.  I’d like to give you some examples of how many different ways they do that, many of them pulled from my own life.

Hard Lessons Learned in My Own Life


Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/excommunications/2015/05/christianity-has-a-major-boundary-problem/#OJ6dpLSkIkvtJmOu.99

ti sebi daješ pravo misionariti protiv crkve, a meni ne daješ pravo neistine i dvostruka mjerila raskrinkavati?

dakle, mogu onda i ja staviti jedan citat koji pobija tvoje lažne iskaze i da ti iako nisi dovollno inteligentan za shvatiti to - ukazati na tvoja dvostruka mjerila

aben wrote:ajmo, preciznosti radi, razvrstati tvrdnje koje su nametanje a koje nisu.


svemir se okriće oko svita, i svi sati zemljopisa bi tribali biti izborni, te divergentni s obziron na sustav ki promiču.

svi imaju pravo na obavezne sate zemljopisa ki su u skladu s trenutnim znanstvenim koncenzusom.

sve ljude osim onih ke jo odaberen tribo streljati.

ja sam za mir, i ne volin kad se neko svađa.

ko ura je?

različiitost je bogatstvo i one ke nisu različiti treba pobiti.

morat cemo radit denkverbot recape..

Gnječ wrote:

night sky wrote:?? naravno da se smije reci. zar je to potrebno naglasavati? istina da se na sve strane nicu virtialne lomace....no, vjerujem da drustvo jos uvijek nosi u sebi zrnce mudrosti....
da, smije se reci ali se MALO ili gotovo nista ne podizima da se isto sprijeci .osim tek toliko, reda radi, i umirivanja javnosti, netko je nehdje i prozvan, kaznjen veoma rijetko.da se nekim slucajem ne bi stekao dojam kako crkva nista ne poduzima, to je njihiv problem , STO NIJE, i sl.

religija je osobna stvar svakog pojedinca i svako njeno nametanje poziva nasilje. tocka.

Personal boundaries are guidelines, rules or limits that a person creates to identify reasonable, safe and permissible ways for other people to behave towards them and how they will respond when someone passes those limits. They are built out of a mix of conclusions, beliefs, opinions, attitudes, past experiences and social learning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_boundaries

Christianity Has a Major Boundary Problem

Christianity has a boundary problem. It has a major problem respecting and maintaining personal boundaries.


What do I mean by boundaries?  Boundaries are those personal limitations and lines of demarcation which tell someone else where his business ends and where the next person’s begins, and vice versa.  In normal, healthy, adult relationships each person has responsibility for himself or herself and others should not infringe upon that responsibility because doing so is an encroachment of personal space. Think of them as the emotional equivalent of the proverbial good fences that make good neighbors.

When personal boundaries are violated, the recipient of this treatment feels demeaned, depersonalized, and devalued. It’s as if someone else has said, “I have such a low estimation of your ability to make good decisions that I have simply decided to make them for you. Now bend over and take it.”  You aren’t really given a choice in the matter. Someone else has taken that right from you by presuming to tell you what to do and how to think. Your own opinion and concerns do not matter.  What they want and think is more important than what you want and think, and if you don’t like that then the problem is with you, so shut up.

Sounds terrible, right?  That sounds like abusive, uncaring treatment, doesn’t it?

it doesnt sound terrible, it sounds like triggering.

TOP DEFINITION

triggering
something retarded feminist landwhales on tumblr say when they see a man, porn, or anything that isn't a women castrating a man.
Landwhale: This 4chan raid is so triggering, I hate men because they are so sexist. 
Normal Person: You hate men because you can't get any cunt 
Landwhale: I CAN GeT Any maN BUT FEMINISMMMMM BUHGA BUHGA JABBBAAAA THA HUTTTTT

govor, a pogotovo pisana riječ ne narušava ničigov osobni prostor. već smo se složili da postoji dobar obrambeni mehanizam-ignor.

 pazi ti ovo drugo, kad su osobne granice narušene, a uopće ne definiro ča su to osobne granice:), unda se žrtva osićo loše :)
 
ki van ovo piše, za jarca pasa tovara :)

maggie13 wrote:

aben wrote:

maggie13 wrote:

aben wrote:

maggie13 wrote:
sve su.
A, to za manje-vise samo vrijeme prosudi.

jel ovisnost o umjerenom i izbalansiranom životu štetna?

naravno.
Najprije, sto je definicija takvog zivota.
Potom, slozimo li se svi oko iste(sto nikad necemo, ali recimo), fakat steti uzbudljivosti i raznolikosti zivotnih iskustava.
U najmanju ruku.

kako umjerenost šteti uzbudljivosti i raznolikosti?

koliko odricanje steti iskustvenom procvatu?

nemun pojma, kakovo odriicanje?

kic wrote:

aben wrote:ajmo, preciznosti radi, razvrstati tvrdnje koje su nametanje a koje nisu.


svemir se okriće oko svita, i svi sati zemljopisa bi tribali biti izborni, te divergentni s obziron na sustav ki promiču.

svi imaju pravo na obavezne sate zemljopisa ki su u skladu s trenutnim znanstvenim koncenzusom.

sve ljude osim onih ke jo odaberen tribo streljati.

ja sam za mir, i ne volin kad se neko svađa.

ko ura je?

različiitost je bogatstvo i one ke nisu različiti treba pobiti.

morat cemo radit denkverbot recape..

zajebo sun sinoć, premini sun rutinu; osto sun gljedati utakmicu, a svi znaju da se to ne rodi na svoju ruku, bez određenih kristala

recAP BI BI FANTASTIČAN, ne naglašavan, slučajno je