|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 27, 2010 3:59:47 GMT
Iaido is forms only with an emphasis on the philosophical and spiritual; there are multiple person kata in some schools, but overall, iaido has a strict non-competitive stance with no sparring whatsoever, hence the '-do' suffix. Tameshigiri is, to my knowledge, never practiced by iaidoka until they achieve a high level of skill, if at all. Why else would it be called 'moving Zen?' Iaijutsu, on the other hand, are actual combat techniques for everyday life in case you were attacked. It is the same with kendo, a sport that features little to no actual techniques save for those needed in competition, and kenjutsu, the actual techniques designed to kill a man as quickly as possible.
Would iaido be useful in combat? Most likely, given the nature of the techniques. Is iaido meant for combat? Not a damn bit. The mentality of it is the most important thing and the mentality of iaido is that of a philosophy regarding the use of the sword. '-do' is used in arts meant to train body and mind, '-jutsu' is used in arts to train for combat; that's a big difference in mentalities. And yet, an iaidoka who wasn't bound by that mentality could employ their skills in any situation. The prime focus of iai (both do and jutsu) is the battougiri as well as an instantaneous response. A quick response with a properly executed battougiri takes 1/8th of a second, maybe 1/4th depending on the practitioner's frame. Further, a battougiri is a horizontal strike intended to gut the opponent like a fish with the swiftest and most natural of movements; it is so simple that even an untrained swordsman can execute it with ease. Hearkening back to the original topic of the gun draw, the modern gun is not a quick draw at all as you have to pull straight up (I'm using a hip holster as an example since they are mostly open carry, which a sword would have to be) and then either cock your wrist at an extremely uncomfortable angle and fire doing who knows what to your wrist due to recoil or extend your arm fully into a proper shooting position and then fire. It seems pretty simple that the natural movements of the battougiri are easier to master and quicker to deploy.
Oh, right, by the way, I have no 'formal' training does because I've never deigned to pay a school to teach me anything, but that does not mean I have no training and am as utterly ignorant as you think me. Besides, since I am not chained down by the mentality and philosophy of a school and its teachings, I am free to draw upon every source I can and incorporating it into a single cohesive method. I am capable of taking what works and discarding what doesn't, unlike those being taught in the rigid formality of a dojo wherein you must do it their way, even if it's not the best or most effective. Seems like a waste of talent to me.
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Oct 27, 2010 4:38:11 GMT
Vincent,
You are in the hole, please stop digging any further. I am surprised at your ability to comment in an arts you never practiced in. Not only comment, but claim of authoritive knowledge. This is unbelievable.
I am sorry but your ignorance of Iai is astounding. Equally estounding is your arrogance. You don't practice any formal swordmanship and have no experience with marksmanship. Yet you claim to know both. I am pretty sure you also claim that you are better than most Iai sensei as well.
Iaido are combat training. Seitei Iai came into existence because many masters thought that Kendo is becoming a sport and feel the need to steer it back to its combat origin. FYI, the vast majority of Iaido practioners also belongs to a Koryu. Koryu are schools that were found before the Meiji Restoration -- classical schools of swordmanship. Schools that were found when people were still murdering each other with swords. I belong to Muso Shinden Ryu. The whole focus of Iaido or Iaijutsu (for Koryu) is to survive a surprised attempted assassination.
In every waza, the scenario is identical. Whether walking or sitting, an Iaidoka is supposed to respond to an opponent who went through great length to conceal his malicious intention and launched a surprised attack at that last minute. Survive the assassination attempt is the one and only goal. Everything in Iai is done for a reason, to squeeze out every single ounce of efficiency in the draw. To master Iai is to eliminate wasteful and unneccessary movement. There is no uneccessary motion in Iai, None! Because wasteful motion means death.
It is perhap the most scientific martial arts I have studied. Everything has a reason. Sitting down has to be done a certain way. Why? You are most vulnerable when transition from the standing to a sitting position. If you sit down incorrectly, you would not be able to respond to a surprised attack. You must do thing a certain way in a dojo because it has proven in the past to be the most effective way of doing it. Tried and true method of combat versus wannabe who think they can invent something despite having zero experience with combat.
Why do WMA guy like John Clement digging up old manuals and went through great length to translate them and interpreted them? Because those manuals are the distilation of proven methods via trial-and-errors -- someone learned it the hardway. It is the tried and true proven combat experience of someone who have seen the blood being shed. The same is true of Iai waza.
But what I do know? In fact, what do all those founders of various Iai schools know? They only survived a few duels. You professed to know more than them -- having no training or real combat experience.
PS: I do think people who have no formal training (or real life-and-death experience) are ignorance. This is true of swordmanship or civil engineering. If you have no degree in civil engineering, as least have real experience of actually building a bridge. If you have no formal swordmanship, you better have survived a duel to be credible.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 27, 2010 5:03:25 GMT
I never said I knew more than they do. In fact, I know I don't; I don't really want to, either. I would rather take what works and use it rather than being bogged down by things that don't and every style has something that does not work when compared to another. No art is perfect, no weapon, no practitioner is perfect, and anyone who believes so is a fool. All have their shortcomings. The sword is a short range weapon, the gun a long range weapon, the person who wields them fallible.
You seem to be confusing Iaido and Iaijutsu; they are very different in their mindset though their techniques may be similar. Iaido as it currently stands, alongside kendo, judo, and others is as a method of disciplining the mind and body while forgoing their killing aspects. Iaijutsu retains that killing aspect, as would kenjutsu, jujutsu, and the others. As for Koryu, yes, they were founded before the Restoration, but that simply means they are older and more proven. Relying on the title of koryu as a means of judging whether or not it is worth studying, frankly, is the same thing that prevents people from advancing, because they distrust the new, no matter how promising. How many years did it take for the gun to become a universal weapon? How many years did it take for the car to become the standard method of transportation? The list goes on and on and your attitude, no offense, is the pinnacle of this manner of thought.
As an example, many kata in Iaido start in Seiza. When was the last time you or anyone you knew sat in seiza outside of the dojo or solo practice? The answer is probably never, because we sit in chairs off the ground, whereas in Japan, where these techniques originated, it was most common to sit on a cushion. The techniques would be very different if they had been developed from a sitting position such as cross-legged, reclining, or sitting upright in a chair. As for sitting down, I don't know about you, but I rarely sit on the ground if I can help it, considering the vulnerability of the position; I squat or crouch or take a knee. I happen to be extremely paranoid so I am always ready for a fight or flight situation.
But, regardless, I am done with this because, quite frankly, there's nothing more boring than a debate with someone so set in their ways that they refuse to consider something new. We will just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Hyoujinsama on Oct 27, 2010 5:31:32 GMT
It seems I'm getting stuck farther and farther in the muck...I really need to just ignore this thread.
Vince, I think, when in doubt, it's better to stick with topics that are understood than breaking into topics that are admittedly not and risk insulting an entire demographic. From reading your post, it is fairly obvious that any understanding you may have of iai is both second hand and skewed.
I think the line between iaido and iaijutsu has been blown way out of proportion; from a thin, slightly separating division into an impassible crevasse of a size that no one could mistake. In reality, the difference between iaido, the way, and iaijutsu, the application of techniques, varies from school to school and sensei to sensei. Sure, what most people consider iaido can be considered meditative. Sure, iaijutsu can be considered combat techniques. These roles can (and often are), however, apply to either or. The fundamentals of both iaido and iaijutsu are the same.
Something worth noting. Most schools of iaido are either from, or are based on schools that were from, a time when samurai fought. These sword schools taught combat. Take Mugai Ryu, which is commonly accompanied by either "Iaido" or "Iai Heiho". It was founded in the 1600s. Mugai Ryu, while called iaido, also contains kenjutsu, both for on and off the battlefield. Mugai Ryu students are still called iaidoka.
"Battougiri", as made popular by shows like Rouroni Kenshin, is NOT something that can be described so simply. It is not just "a horizontal strike intended to gut the opponent like a fish", and it is not so easy that an untrained swordsman can do it with ease. ...Not unless slicing through your saya and into your hand is being counted as part of "battougiri".
Nukiuchi generally cuts either horizontally (suihei/ichimonji), at a rising angle (gyakukesa), or at a falling angle (kesa). It involves controlling both the accelerated draw, the follow through, the sayabiki and angle of the saya as it retreats from the blade, etc. If you overswing, you lose control of the weapon, can injure your joints, and drop all forward pressure you had on your side. Lack of sayabiki and managing saya alignment can result in very easily damaging your saya and hand. Starting the arc of a cut too soon will also aid in slicing your palm.
There is a lot more to nuki than is being discussed. It shouldn't be dismissed as "easy".
Funny. Just because you learn at a school doesn't mean you're "chained down". Sure you have to do things their way while you're there, but consider this:
It's hard to take something away from training when training has never been had. Sure, there are books and videos, but that doesn't mean that, simply by watching books and videos, you are going to do it right.
Do it right or don't do it at all, at least when it comes to studying combat.
|
|
|
Post by Midori Kawakami on Oct 27, 2010 6:12:08 GMT
"Never blame your sword for your own shortcomings. As an iaidoka, if you cannot trust your blade, you have no business wielding it."
My words were seem to have been misconstrued in this quote. Honestly, it was aimed at Student's aforementioned 'Samurai Wannabes' who have no formal training, are too obstinate to get formal training, mess up and injure themselves or someone else as a result...and then blame their weapon for the incident, when it was really their hardheadedness and lack of training that caused the situation to begin with.
Swords are scary things. A little fear (read: respect) is healthy, until you understand your blade as well as you do your own soul. A little respect goes a long way in things like not chopping your thumb off, not cutting through the saya and not putting someone else' life in danger while you're using your sword.
This type of respect is taught in dojos.
A sword is, first and foremost, a weapon. Whether it is an archaic one or not is a moot point. Many people tend to forget this and think of it more as a toy that they can destroy things like waterbottles with. Formal training instills a respect in the wielder that is difficult to find and manifest elsewhere. Without training, you are more likely to forget that the three-foot-long sharpened piece of metal in your hand is an implement of combat and could severely injure yourself, someone else, or the blade itself by lack of respect and therefore, poor judgment. This is the point I was attempting to make in that statement. With training, the fear is replaced by respect, and with respect comes trust. Trust in yourself, and trust in your weapon, and with trust and practice comes proficiency.
As has been mentioned, iaido is as much a combat art as iaijutsu is. It's up to the individual practitioner to decide for him/herself what their art means to them, but the arts themselves are centuries-old killing techniques. It does take more than a few months to master swordsmanship, even if one is practicing eight to twelve hours a day. You can find old footage of some of the JSA greats that came before us on youtube; these people were in their prime as swordsmen when they were in their sixties and later, though they had been training their entire lives. These are life-long arts with a thousand-year history of practical application. Meditation only became involved when the sword became otherwise 'obsolete' due to guns replacing them as a primary means of self defense involving weaponry. yes, it does take a lot of discipline. It definitely takes a lot of time. They most certainly can be used for meditation, but that was not their first purpose, nor is it their sole or primary purpose now.
As Kyodai said, I too am torn as to what I would grab in a defensive situation, and I believe it would come down to what was closer. I definitely feel more comfortable with swords, but if someone breaks in my house and has a gun, a sword is probably not going to be the first thing I reach for, unless all other options (with bullets) are otherwise unavailable to me.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 27, 2010 7:08:01 GMT
That's why I said to paraphrase; I didn't want to make it sound like you yourself were saying exactly what I was saying, because I knew that's not what you were meaning.
And I also didn't say 'master.' I said 'to become proficient.' To me, there is an extraordinary difference between mastery and proficiency that doesn't seem to be coming across. To me, mastery is the complete and total understanding of the art and the techniques therein, whereas proficiency, to me, means that if you were a soldier in any medieval culture where swords are the dominant weapon, that you would be able to march onto the field of battle and hack through your enemies with a reasonable assurance of coming back alive. To become proficient takes a few months; to master takes a lifetime. That is the distinction I have been trying to make.
To be perfectly honest, I cannot fathom how anyone can forget that a sword is a weapon that has been used to kill for near on seven millennia. I treat every sword as a weapon, be it the wall-hanger in my closet or the bokuto by my bed. They are weapons, no matter their purpose. An SLO can kill just as sure as a high quality katana or dao or bastard sword and so can a wooden bokuto; that's what prompted the invention of the shinai. In every sparring session I've ever had, we did away with the one-hit rule I've seen many others using and instead opted for something more realistic: you hit an arm, you lose it. You hit a leg, you lose it and have to either hop on one foot or take a knee. You hit a thumb, you have to grip your sword as hard as you can with just four fingers and your palm. Is it perfect? No. Is it better? Not at all. It's just different and gives you a more accurate sense of how actual combat would have been. I say again, a sword is a weapon meant for killing; they are instruments of death with an elegance and refinement that has inspired many a poet and captured the minds of millions. This is why I despise wall-hangers for, though they are capable of killing, they are not meant for it and are as armor that will not protect you for they have lost their purpose.
@hyoujinsama: I was oversimplifying for the sake of debate. However, I appreciate the correction and I'll keep it in mind, though, maybe it's just me, but it seems as if a saya would have to be poorly constructed to be sliced through so easily. I know there's what, about a 1/4 of an inch or so on the sides of the saya? That seems thick enough to prevent a blade from slicing through it, particularly since the katana, and swords in general, were never meant to be 'razor' sharp, since that would produce a brittle edge that would chip in combat. Can you enlighten me on that? As for cutting your hand, if I remember right, from what I've seen of iaido, the hand is closed over the koiguchi, correct? Why is this? I've never heard it explained (that I remember), but it seems rather foolish and only adds to the number of things you have to teach, rather than performing nukitsuke, backing your hand off, and then drawing.
EDIT: Removed my remarks about the 'do it right or don't do it at all' comment because I felt they were too harsh and I have no desire to argue with anyone here, much less someone I respect. Suffice it to say, I have many things against that statement that I won't post here.
However, I'm wondering if we've diverged from the topic, since we've gotten mainly into a discussion on the techniques and the styles themselves, but I can't be sure since, can you really discuss a sword's effectiveness and practicality without mention of the myriad schools of thought on them?
|
|
|
Post by Hyoujinsama on Oct 27, 2010 7:45:11 GMT
I'd say this is still part of the original topic as it is all in regards to the proper usage of a weapon who's practicality is in question. If you throw a loaded gun at someone, you're not using it right, and it's not an effective weapon. To have a good, unbiased discussion/comparison, all things considered must be equal in at least the understanding of their application.
I wish 1/4" of wood was thick enough to prevent injury from improper draw, but, alas, it's not. I know someone who (within a month) sliced through not one, but two saya from improper drawing. While the katana should never be "razor sharp", it is still plenty sharp enough to split right through a saya. Cutting through wood with the grain doesn't even require that much of an edge.
The only time the hand is actually closed over the koiguchi is during noto. When setting up for nukiuchi/nukitsuke (which is the complete action of draw cutting), the hand is between the kurigata and the tsuba, holding the saya in preparation for sayabiki. When the sword is drawn (nuki), the hand pushes the saya back and turns it to facilitate the drawing. At no time during this act, though, should the hand be closed over the koiguchi. It is often closed near it, but never too close...which, again, is aided by the fact that the tsuba is still in the way until the sword is out of the saya anyways.
As for the whole "do it right or not at all", I did say "when it comes to studying combat". What good would it do to study and practice combat application the wrong way?
|
|
|
Post by Midori Kawakami on Oct 27, 2010 8:01:11 GMT
This is the specific person my quote was referring to (speaking to, if you will). It's actually quite easy to cut through a saya if one performs nukiuchi with improper technique.
It does take more than a few months to become proficient in JSA, because of all the subtle nuances of the art. This is part of where the respect thing comes in as well; you learn so much more about an art if you actually study it under a sensei, and with knowledge comes respect; for the art, for your blade, for yourself. It takes more than a few months just to get footwork to an acceptable level, truth be told. And footwork is every bit as important to JSA technique as the sword itself is, as are body mechanics in general, which one has a hard time comprehending without guidance. Without a firm foundation, very few can become proficient at sword arts to any degree; granted, there are a rare few gifted individuals out there who have with no type of training whatsoever, but they are the grand exception rather than the norm.
I also wanted to mention that drawing a gun from a holster is a much faster and more natural motion than drawing the sword is, because of the body mechanics involved in each.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 27, 2010 8:23:27 GMT
Alright, I just wanted to check since I'm trying to break my habit of derailing threads. Though, I would like to point out, that while you probably wouldn't kill anyone, you could probably still throw a gun at somebody and knock them out. That's effective, right? :lol: Ah, well, that's definitely an issue. I must be thinking in terms of cutting through a bokuto or a saya used as an off hand weapon, but now that I think about it, that would be cutting against the grain, which I believe is nearly impossible to do. As a matter of curiosity, the blade is supposed to ideally only touch the inside of the saya at the kissaki, the hada, and the mune (taken from this video on saya making at about 1:40 in: ), but why is this? It seems to me that that would speed up dulling of the edge and making a lot easier to cut through the saya. That's how I've done nukitsuke since the first time I picked up a sword or even when using my bokuto, so I couldn't understand how the hand could be cut during the process; it seems I was getting a few things mixed up here and there with the way you explained it at first. With noto, is there any particular reason as to why the hand is closed over the koiguchi? It honestly does not make much sense to me as it seems a very good way to get cut by the kissaki or even the back of the blade if you're using a moroha-zukuri. With that last bit, there's not much good and I actually misunderstood what you meant by it; I've heard that phrase many times throughout my life and it has always been used to mean "if you don't do it the right way (read: my way), you're doing it completely wrong and you're an idiot for it." This came from my habit of finding the simplest and quickest way to do something, whether it was the established way or not, and more often than not, it wasn't, so I used to get in a lot of trouble because I found a quicker and easier method to do something and did it that way as opposed to the 'right' way. So, the various things I had originally said were derived from the meaning I mentioned above and I'm glad I removed them; that would have been a good way to head this thread south really quick.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 27, 2010 8:31:55 GMT
This isn't an attack or anything, but I actually find that difficult to believe because, while I've never fired an actual gun, I have used an air pistol with a hip holster (borrowed from a friend when we were horsing around) and I found it quite aggravating attempting to draw it from its holster with any kind of speed, whereas I've always found it pretty simple and natural to draw a sword. To me, the pistol required several separate actions: raising my hand to the pistol grip, pulling it up and out and then moving the pistol forward in order to take a proper firing stance. On the other hand, with a sword, I just slide my hands over, turn it and draw as I step forward. It just feels very natural to me, but perhaps I'm just strange like that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 16:04:05 GMT
Now I believe, the discussion is starting to get back to the original topic (almost). I've only been half-way following the discussion lately, and the sword vs gun or do vs jutsu arguments were never really intended to be the point. It's not about which is better but whether the sword is still good. I think Midori has already explained that the sword still is an effective weapon. The issue is whether it is still useful to carry around for its original purposes.
As to the quote above, people tend to use whatever is most comfortable. If there were an intruder that broke down my back door in the middle of the night, and I had one of my swords (actually I have a machete) next to my bed or one of my guns (a Ruger). I'd probably choose the gun first. Why? Because I've used it the most. I'm more comfortable with it. If I were in a real fight, I'm not going to do anything unnatural or novel when my life depends on it. I've fired a lot of rounds from a number of guns, but I've never cut tameshigiri targets. If you've never fired a gun before, and you've cut hundreds of tatami rolls, then you'd probably pick up a sword - because it's the most natural. Now, the issue is, under what conditions could you pick up a sword to defend your life and not get killed yourself?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 16:12:51 GMT
I was interested in Larry's experiment with his son because I strongly believe that there ARE circustances in which a sword, bayonet, or knife is the best choice of weapon. Likewise, there are a host of debates on firearm forums about which firearm is the best for a home invasion scenario (black gun vs pump, etc), but nobody picks a bolt-action or muzzle loader. Why? If there are multiple intruders, a fast second shot isn't practical.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 27, 2010 16:46:23 GMT
Well, since the gun is the primary weapon of the age, as I believe was mentioned, gun vs. sword factors a great deal into a discussion about the sword's practicality as a weapon in the modern age. To me, practical also means effective and the gun has greatly reduced the effectiveness of the sword since their effective ranges are so different. The practical range of a sword is, well, up close and personal, so about 3-6 feet depending on the sword's length and your own reach, whereas the practical range of a gun is 3-60 feet, though I'd say it's most effective at about 12 feet or so, given that it's almost incapable as a melee weapon (there's pistol whipping, but you could do that with a fist).
In regards to your question, what are we defining as a sword for this particular scenario? Any specific length? Personally, if I were going to choose a sword for self-defense, I'd pick a short sword like a wakizashi, gladius, or similar weapon. It would be more maneuverable indoors and quicker on the draw than a longer sword.
Also, why isn't a fast second shot practical for multiple intruders? That doesn't really make sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 16:56:00 GMT
If you're using a muzzle loader, there's no such thing as a fast second shot - that's why it's not practical. Some bolt actions have a box magazine, so they're more similar to a pump action or lever action. The same criticism could be said of crossbows...
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 27, 2010 17:03:08 GMT
Oh, okay. It sounded like you were saying that having a quick second shot wasn't practical with multiple intruders, so you had me confused. With crossbows, what about something like this mini-crossbow from Kult of Athena? www.kultofathena.com/product.asp ... i+Crossbow It's got a 45lb draw weight, so you could draw it as easily as you would a bow, there's no stirrup to brace so you can draw it, so it'd probably be something like a single shot bolt action, but it'd still be pretty quick since the action is simpler and it's easier to load. Still, it's not that quick considering the single shot nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 17:25:58 GMT
Seems like it'd be fairly limited in application too...short range, single targets, thin skinned...but it'd work in a pinch.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 27, 2010 17:34:14 GMT
Well, most ranged weapons are limited in their applications, but then again, that could be said of all weapons since their only purpose is killing; except knives, which are also almost universal tools. Still, I think that melee weapons tend to be more versatile than ranged weapons since they're really only effective at a distance whereas a melee weapon, if absolutely necessary, could be used as a ranged weapon and thrown (a la Lynn Thompson). I wouldn't recommend throwing a sword, though, since there's too much edge; a spear, knife, axe, or even a mace, though, that's another story. I still wouldn't recommend it unless you had a backup.
As for the crossbow, I think that particular model is meant only for recreation, but it'd serve in a pinch; again, though, you have the problem of aiming. That's one of the good things about the niuweidao: if you're hacking off pounds of flesh at a time, it doesn't really matter where.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 19:07:06 GMT
True, I don't see a hunting knife doing you much good if you throw it at a bear - depsite what Hollywood movies may show. Nor do I think throwing a bladed weapon at an attacker would do much good either - unless you're one of those circus performers who throw knifes at apples on peoples head for a living. One of the coolest guns I'd even seen that I wish I could afford would be the M1897 trench gun with bayonet. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 27, 2010 19:16:02 GMT
The only way a hunting knife would be much good against a bear (theoretically, mind you) is if you managed to get on its back and stab it in the head. Other than that, if you go after one with anything less than a large caliber gun, I'd say good luck, since an arrow or crossbow bolt probably wouldn't hit hard enough and a bear could probably break the shaft of a spear. But that's neither here nor there. As for actually throwing a knife, I think, with a little practice, and a sturdy enough knife, you could probably do a fair bit of damage; at the least, it would serve as a distraction to either draw a larger weapon, flee, or close the distance between the two to prevent them from drawing their own weapon. At least, I think so. That would be a wicked gun, though, with that length, I'm not sure how useful it would be indoors. Instead of a gun with a bayonet, what about a pistol sword? It's the best of both worlds!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2010 20:01:23 GMT
I didn't see that picture. Do you mean the Final Fantasy Gunblade? The next time Tinker has one of his Sword Geek podcasts ask him if he can make one. I'd bet he shoots blood out of his ears! HA! Attachments:
|
|