The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Plane Crash Sends Message to “Cat in the Hat” Victim

October 14, 2006 | 43 Comments

New York, New York, October 14, 2006
Special to The Raving Atheist

In what some are viewing as more than a coincidence, the plane which crashed into a Manhattan building Wednesday destroyed the bedroom of a woman who was injured in a Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade accident nearly a decade ago.

Kathleen Caronna — who spent weeks in a coma in 1997 after being struck by a lamppost dislodged by the Cat in the Hat balloon — was out of her apartment when the plane carrying New York Yankees ballplayer Cory Lidle deposited its engine in her apartment and sent the bedroom up in flames.

The odds against two highly-publicized incidents afflicting the same person are so high that there is speculation that Ms. Caronna’s fate was beyond mere happenstance.

“Obviously, Cory Lidle was trying to send her a message,” said Susan Hoskins, who lives in a neighboring building. “Sadly, his death means we’ll never know what it was.”

Other disagreed, noting that the recently-traded pitcher did not know Caronna and had no motive to contact her. “The hand of a far more powerful being was behind this,” said local merchant Jim McGregor. “George Steinbrenner did this for a reason.”

Comments

43 Responses to “Plane Crash Sends Message to “Cat in the Hat” Victim”

  1. The Power of Greyskull
    October 14th, 2006 @ 11:32 am

    God must be angry with her, it is the ONLY rational explanation!

  2. Kamikaze189
    October 14th, 2006 @ 11:36 am

    “The odds against two highly-publicized incidents afflicting the same person are so high that there is speculation that Ms. Caronna’s fate was beyond mere happenstance.”

    It’s called a coincidence.

    If you believe in such a thing as fate, you have to assume there is a being that cares to map out your life. Do you believe that, RA? Please, prove this being exists. Then we can decide if it is mapping out our lives.

    If you can’t even prove your entity exists, why should we waste our time talking about fate which it has to guide?

  3. Snakefish
    October 14th, 2006 @ 11:47 am

    Why does god hate the victims that happen to survive his attacks?

  4. "Q" the Enchanter
    October 14th, 2006 @ 12:18 pm

    The improbability suggests that God is trying to kill her–the irony of course being that nonetheless she will thank God for sparing her.

    That irony is even more improbable than the underlying events. In fact, I’d have thought that sort of thing was impossible, did I not live in a world in which it is actual.

  5. Los Pepes
    October 14th, 2006 @ 12:27 pm

    This reminds me of a phrase (forgot the author, but it weren’t me!) that comes in very handy in times like these:

    “Time is infinite; anything that can happen, will happen– and what’s more, it will happen an infinite amount of times.”

  6. woody
    October 14th, 2006 @ 1:15 pm

    What? God is trying to kill her??? And this so call all powerful being has failed to kill this mere mortal female on two occasions… Sound a bit like a sissy crap god to me…..

  7. CycloneRanger
    October 14th, 2006 @ 1:29 pm

    Well, that made me chuckle. If your objective was other than humor (which I rather doubt in the case of this post), then you have failed.

    That woman must be quite beside herself.

  8. Godthorn
    October 14th, 2006 @ 1:30 pm

    It is a comonplace now that there are only 5 or 6 degrees of separation between any two of the 300 million persons in the U.S. Occasionally, a Joe Sixpack living in Nowhere Junction will become personally acquainted with Joseph Jetset, though the odds decree that they will forever remain 5 or 6 degrees separate. The same general assessments can be applied to the particulars of two different noteworthy events. Occasionally there will be a coincidental connection between two otherwise unrelated happenings.

  9. a different tim
    October 14th, 2006 @ 3:23 pm

    hang on…this reads like an atheist post! Surely some mistake?

  10. meep
    October 14th, 2006 @ 4:04 pm

    FWIW, I was a block away from her when the lamppost came down. I had thought of going up to that corner when I picked my spot that morning, but walked a further block south. It was already too crowded by the time I had gotten to that corner.

    The message I got from the event? That I should never go to the Macy’s parade again. Which pretty much would have been my thought had the lamppost not fallen down. It was interesting to experience once, but beyond that once… eh. You’ve got a better view watching TV, unless you’ve got a ground level apartment on Central Park West. Those people were having sweet parties. I watched them more than the parade.

    If I were Caronna, I’d take it as a message that the city is trying to kill her. Lord knows it’s trying to kill most of us who live here.

  11. Tim
    October 14th, 2006 @ 5:27 pm

    Yeah, I’m getting deja vu also …

  12. Joe
    October 15th, 2006 @ 2:14 am

    Perhaps it was a Klingon from Uranus that sent him there! The only way to fend him off is with toilet paper!!! Or, maybe it was just that she isn’t so lucky!! If god were truly pissed he’d have killed us all by now.

  13. Tom
    October 15th, 2006 @ 11:54 am

    RA? Is that you? Is that really you?

  14. severalspeciesof
    October 16th, 2006 @ 8:25 am

    Is it me, or do I sense RA has past the halfway point on his circle journey? I’m going to have to restock on my pork-n-beans.

  15. Crosius
    October 16th, 2006 @ 8:37 am

    Giant balloons shaped like cartoon characters, lamp-post-infilicted head-injuries and mis-steered aircraft as tools of divine revelation?

    Sounds like god has a lot in common with Wyle E Coyote.

    Do people ever listen to themselves when they spout this crap?

  16. Forrest Cavalier
    October 16th, 2006 @ 10:30 am

    We can’t PROVE this was or wasn’t a coincidence. How we choose to respond is the more important matter.

    We are free to believe, but cannot prove, that life is a random series of small and big tragedies outside our control.

    Or we can believe we have the power and can best use our life to create, grow, help, and be helped. But we cannot prove it.

    I’d prefer the friendship and advice of an atheist in Group B over a Christian in Group A. Such an atheist would support my beliefs better.

  17. Drusilla
    October 16th, 2006 @ 1:24 pm

    FC – which is in group A, those who believe “life is a random series of small and big tragedies outside our control” or those who believe we “can best use our life to create, grow, help, and be helped”? Or perhaps you mean you would prefer an atheist who believes the latter, though it can’t be proved, to a Christian who believes in randomness. Please clarify.

    DISCLAIMER: Only seeking clarification. Not seeking to make a point at this time.

  18. Drusilla
    October 16th, 2006 @ 1:28 pm

    Query: Why do so many posit a malevolent god? If you don’t believe in God, you surely can’t believe in an evil genius. Or is it possible that you do believe in God and also believe that He is evil?

  19. Jahrta
    October 16th, 2006 @ 2:22 pm

    Don’t worry about that disclaimer, Drusilla – rest assured you were never in danger of making a point.

    To answer your most recent query, no, atheists do not believe in god or gods, and if any of us did, then we would cease to be atheists. I know that so many of you theists simply salivate at the notion that deep down we really do believe in your particular brand of cuckoo bananas bullshit, because you can’t fathom the notion that there are some people who value logic and rationality over stone-aged superstitious mubo-jumbo, but such is life. Some of us put forth the malevolent god theory as the most feasible scenario of an ultimately ridiculous premise (along the lines of “who would win a fight between Superman and the Hulk”? – it doesn’t mean that deep down we believe in either of these fictional entities). There are myriad examples of god(s) behaving horribly in virtually all holy texts, and a wicked god who allows goodness and beauty makes far more sense than a purely loving god who allows his subjects to suffer miserably while they await an eternity in hell, or sing his praises and kiss his arse until the end of time.

  20. Thorngod
    October 16th, 2006 @ 2:38 pm

    Here’s why he would have to be monstrous, Drusilla: If “God” was the primal reality, omniscient and omnipotent, then all choices were his, and by one superb decree he guaranteed that Earth would be a perpetual theater of horror. That decree was that, in order to survive, all beasts must hunt and devour other living things. Case closed!

  21. Drusilla
    October 16th, 2006 @ 4:59 pm

    Dearest Jahrta –

    Please see, #3 (“Why does god hate the victims that happen to survive his attacks?”), #4 (“The improbability suggests that God is trying to kill her–the irony of course being that nonetheless she will thank God for sparing her.), #6 (“Sound a bit like a sissy crap god to me…”), #12 (“If god were truly pissed he’d have killed us all by now.”), your own #19 (“a wicked god who allows goodness and beauty makes far more sense than a purely loving god who allows his subjects to suffer miserably while they await an eternity in hell, or sing his praises and kiss his arse until the end of time.”) ,and certainly Thorngod’s explanation at #20. (I omit #1 which is obviously tongue in cheek.)

    You posit. I ask why. If God doesn’t exist, then there can be no evil god. If you don’t believe in God then why waste time commenting on a non-existent evil one? Even if “deep down [you don’t] believe in either of these fictional entities,” even a shallow belief is still belief. If you claim to “value logic and rationality,” then be logical and rational.

    And why pass up an opportunity to laugh at the silly people quoted in the article? (You all take such pleasure in laughing at other people. Sometimes you are immensely crude and crass but you love doing it.) Neither mentions God. Susan Hoskins imagines Lidle was trying to communicate w/ Caronna (it would have been easier to use a phone) and Jim McGregor believes George Steinbrenner was the “powerful being behind this” (I’d call him creepy rather than evil). Both are fodder for a plentitude of laughs at people who perhaps don’t believe in God but do believe in some sort of amorphousness that they would never consider God. So why deny yourselves?

    PS – I have Sjogren’s. On good days, salivating is difficult so I really can’t spare any spit. But if things change, I’l let you know.

  22. Drusilla
    October 16th, 2006 @ 5:00 pm

    Dear Thorngod –

    I’ll respond to your answer tomorrow. (I promise, it won’t be a belly full.)

  23. Snakefish
    October 16th, 2006 @ 10:27 pm

    For some reason, I don’t think you get it Drus. You think we actually think there is a god and that he is evil?

    We don’t believe in a god. We mock what christians believe and point out that, if there were a god, he would have to be some sort of evil. In no way does this suppose a god exists. I think you understand that, and are just being ingenuous.

  24. JUST_ANOTHER_PRIMATE
    October 17th, 2006 @ 7:51 am

    Drusilla — why do many atheist portray your god as being one evil motherf***er ???

    Read the bible.

    Your god is a vicious capricious egotistical megalomaniac !

    I wouldn’t want to believe in that nut case if he did exist.

  25. Jahrta
    October 17th, 2006 @ 10:31 am

    Ok apparently you didn’t get it, Dru, so I’ll try again.

    I don’t believe in a god or gods. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim that there is an invisible omnipotent omniscient entity that started us off and has some sort of emotional investment in our well-being.

    That having been said, of all available options in the god formula, what we come back with is that god is either powerless to stop evil from happening (i.e., not omnipotent), complacent in allowing it to transpire (not all-loving), unaware of it whenever and wherever it occurs (not omniscient), or sets it in motion/wants it to happen/relishes in the suffering of its creation (certainly not all-loving – exhibits signs of being sadistic and evil). Couples with hundreds if not thousands of examples from the KJV of the bible alone (for the time being ignoring all other religiouns and religious texts), the only thing a rational sane individual can ascertain is that your god, if he existed, would have to be evil.

    Now, I don’t believe that god is evil because I don’t believe in god, nor do i believe that much – nif not most – of what you hold dear as the history of your religion even transpired in the first place.

  26. Drusilla
    October 17th, 2006 @ 12:48 pm

    I suppose you need it put very simply: So many of the commenters on this site have a negative obsession with God. Even though this particular post mentions nothing at all about God, most of the comments mention, even focus on, not just God but an evil god. And, being the thoroughly curious creature that I am, I wonder why so many of you do so. The counselor in me pricks up her ears and asks, what is going on here?

    By fixating on something that you all insist is not real, at the very least, you confer upon this evil god some sort of an existence. By insisting that “if there were a god, he would have to be some sort of evil,” you automatically open the door to the possibility of God’s existence: if denotes possibility and yet atheism rejects the “if” of God.

    You can’t have it both ways. Where no possibility exists, if cannot exist. Where no possibility exists, there are only absolutes. Where no possibility of God exists, you would not call my God vicious capricious egotistical megalomaniac because my God would not exist to be anything of the sort, no matter what was written in any book.

    It is as if many here have a grudge against God. Sometimes I think many of you are saying that if the world was different, you would believe in God. If suffering didn’t exist, you would believe in God. If you could drop a hammer on a persons head without injuring him, you’d believe in God. But if no God exists, then He can’t be evil or good. And yet so many comments refer to, even focus on, the evil god.

    It’s very interesting.

    PS – Still not salivating, but I will talk to my rheumatologist about whether posting on similar sites might increase my saliva output. That would be a lovely bonus.

    PPS – Thorngod, this is the response I promised yesterday. Much shorter – yes?

  27. Snakefish
    October 17th, 2006 @ 12:57 pm

    The only reason your ‘hypothesis’ would work is if we are possessed by the thought of evil gods. We aren’t. We joke about it. That isn’t obsession.

    You’re just trying the old theist trick of ‘you just hate god’. Only with more bells and whistles.

    It’s silly, and makes you look silly.

  28. JP
    October 17th, 2006 @ 1:34 pm

    “It is as if many here have a grudge against God. Sometimes I think many of you are saying that if the world was different, you would believe in God. If suffering didn’t exist, you would believe in God. If you could drop a hammer on a persons head without injuring him, you’d believe in God. But if no God exists, then He can’t be evil or good. And yet so many comments refer to, even focus on, the evil god.

    It’s very interesting.”

    Why don’t thiests have ANY ability to understand nuanced thought? We are commenting about a CONCEPT of god, we do not believe one exists.

    Just because I say god damn when I hit my thumb with a hammer does not mean I think a god exists.

  29. Thorngod
    October 17th, 2006 @ 2:27 pm

    A response, yes. But an answer? I’ve never received a valid answer to that analysis, and I’m confident I never will. People have invented a myriad celestial scenarios in hopes of justifying the ways of “God” to their fellows, but a creator whose design requires that his creatures kill and devour each other for sustenance would be terrible beyond expression, and there is no way that even the mumbo-jumbo of theology could transmute such fiendishness into the attitude we call mercy.

  30. Kate B.
    October 17th, 2006 @ 2:46 pm

    Unless, of course, weakness, vulnerability, and death actually reveal something to us about who we are or what God is. In which case, a God who wished to reveal himself through nature might write weakness and death into the script. Alternately, there’s the fact that, according to Christianity, original sin damaged the created order and introduced carnivorous tendencies to the universe, which God allowed to remain so that we could learn from them.

    “Terrible beyond expression,” eh? Just beacuse we’re not all photosynthetic? You have a very limited range of expression, in that case.

  31. Godthorn
    October 17th, 2006 @ 6:46 pm

    “…weakness, vulnerability and death…” doesn’t cover a gnat’s ass. How about Drusilla’s Sjogrens, and Stephen Hawking’s ALS, and the plethora of other diseases I have seen so many good people suffer and shrink and die from at too young an age, all engendered by either a flaw in the masterful design or the voraciousness of all those microscoscopic little fiends your imagined “God” must have, by your scheme of things, so ingenuiously created. How about the infants snatched from their mothers’ arms, pitched into the air, and speared on the swords of the barbarians, and the millions that shrivel and slowly starve to death every year around the world, just to mention a couple of the untabulatable horrors that are due solely to the necessity of “eat or be eaten.”

    And lest you think I must have been embittered by some terrible personal tragedy, or by some physical defect or disease, I inform you that I have been inordinately fortunate. I have suffered nothing more serious than one kidney stone and a hemmorhoidectomy. I have run, jumped, backpacked, have garnered medals for diving and swimming, have never broken a bone, and I never have headaches, stomachaches, or nightmares. Any adherent of the spirit faith who had led a life so charmed as mine would be certain he or she was being protected by a very special guardian angel. I credit serendipity.

    But, you say, “original sin damaged the created order and introduced carnivourous tendencies….”
    Tendencies, indeed, and we came already fully loaded with claws and fangs! And he allowed those “tendencies…so that we could learn from them.” Hell of a lesson!

    How facile, how silly, such tortured explanations!
    I know how desperately you cling to that illusion, but you came here asking for challenges to you beliefs, to test your faith and your resolve. If you hope to hold onto them in comfort, then you should retreat to your stained-glass chapel, from whence you can ignore nature and reality and enjoy the blessings of ignorance and the glory of the heavenly spheres.

  32. Kate B.
    October 18th, 2006 @ 7:44 am

    “If you hope to hold onto them in comfort, then you should retreat to your stained-glass chapel, from whence you can ignore nature and reality and enjoy the blessings of ignorance and the glory of the heavenly spheres.”

    On the contrary, Thorngod, your arguments have done nothing to damage the comfort of my faith. Nor would your “God can’t exist ’cause he made carnivores” line of reasoning seriously challenge anyone’s faith, I suspect.

    As for the examples you cited: The barbarians weren’t driven by “eat or be eaten,” any more than than the warlords in the Sudan are so driven. The God I believe in allows free-will, which means he allows bastards like warlords and barabrians the freedom to act, and to have their actions actually have consequences (as opposed to saying, “Oh, those are bad, I’ll just omnipotently do away with such actions or consequences”). You can try blaming the suffering caused by PEOPLE on GOD, but it isn’t going to challenge anybody’s faith (which, I assume, is what you’re trying to do) because your argument doesn’t take into account the free will with which Gid endowed those people, and the fact gtaht he isn’t going to take that free will away.

    And yes, “weakness, vulnerability and death” do cover the diseases you mentioned. And yes, it is a hell of a lesson. But in my experience, suffering is one of the best teachers of compassion. If you want free will (and who doesn’t?), that means that kindness cannot be compelled. Which means that we have to learn it somehow.

    Do I expect you to be convinced by this? Hell, no. I know for a fact I’m not explaining it well. I’m not exactly a theologian. But I don’t think you should expect any serious Christian to be converted to atheism by your argument from pain, especially after centuries have been crammed full of writings and meditations on the exact same problem. In other words, No theist will feel the need to retreat from your arguments into the chapel.

  33. Godthorn
    October 18th, 2006 @ 12:54 pm

    Some retreat, some don’t. The blindness of the blind faith is usually protection enough.

    So “God” allows unspeakable suffering in order to teach the rest of us compassion. Another lesson we could very profitably do without.

    And “free will.” Yes, I might like to have one of those–but I’m not really sure. But the fact is that every opinion, every decision, every act you and I perform is determined by all the cumulative forces that have acted on us since birth and before. You feel “free” only because you are aware of what you want and intend. If you want proof of this, just try for half a second to change the most insignificant belief you hold.
    You can’t. Your beliefs, and therefore your “will,” get changed by your encounters with the other people and things of the world, never by an autonymous you.

    And if you think the existence of “barbarians,” and the more polite predations of everyone else–including even nice folks like you and I–are not the result of the necessity to prey on our fellow beasts (including other humans), then you have not perceived the inescapable consequences of the law of the jungle.

    As for the theologians, I have heard and read all the best. Their arguments are merely more sophisticated versions of your own. After all, from whence to you think your own arguments came? From the theologians, of course!

  34. Drusilla
    October 18th, 2006 @ 5:19 pm

    a creator whose design requires that his creatures kill and devour each other for sustenance would be terrible beyond expression, and there is no way that even the mumbo-jumbo of theology could transmute such fiendishness into the attitude we call mercy.

    But then what is mercy – do you know? It ain’t an attitude. It’s the result of an action.

    The OED defines mercy as: 1) compassion or forgiveness shown towards an enemy or offender in one’s power. 2) something to be grateful for. 3) when used before another noun, motivated by compassion as in a mercy killing. It’s origin is the Latin merces meaning reward or pity. It’s Greek antecedent is eleos whose origins are believed to be an imitation of the cry beggars use to plead for alms.

    Mercy is intrinsically linked to begging and, Christianity insists it can be no other way since we are the “enemy or offender in [God’s] power” dependent on Him for everything. We have chosen to make ourselves His enemy. We smash the hammer down on ourselves and on all of creation with frequent regularity. We have been doing so for ages and of course there are consequences and of course they affect all of us. We are at war with God and my Sjogren’s and other autoimmune diseases, Stephen Hawking’s ALS and the plethora of other disease and crime and loneliness and all the ills we suffer are a result of that war. It’s a cosmic war and so all creation bears the consequences of our actions.

    God didn’t design a world that “requires that [H]is creatures kill and devour each other for sustenance” but our more than ancient war marred the world so that now this is what creation does. But He hasn’t left things that way, because he truly is God “terrible beyond expression” but terrible in the sense that as Moses and the ancient Israelites understood. But then mercy is “terrible beyond expression.”

    I believe your use of my illness as an example was an indication of concern and I’m grateful. And yet this illness is mercy or it can be if I choose not to continue the war but to experience it as an opportunity to share in the Cross. The best analogy I can think of is dancing which can be terribly hard work and at times, very painful. But every dancer is willing to do the work and suffer the pain because of the goal – the perfect pirouette, a memorable performance, or simply for the exquisite joy of moving in a way that makes the legs almost superfluous. Sharing in the Cross offers immeasurably more and so of course it’s much more difficult. But it is like dancing because in the midst of the difficulty, there is great joy.

    I probably danced my way out of my mother’s womb so it makes perfect sense to me that there is a great deal of hard work and suffering involved in accomplishing goals. When the Cross is real, I know that Easter is real too. And Easter is an extravagance of mercy. It is the most unspeakably terrible good that can ever be. It is finally being like God and I would suffer anything to reach that goal because I love Him and because it makes no sense to me to reject the good I don’t deserve but He chooses to give me anyway.

    I know you don’t believe that. But I do and so do many others.

  35. Godthorn
    October 18th, 2006 @ 7:53 pm

    Yes, Drusilla, you are a true believer. And although you have your “mercy” definition backward, I’ll just leave it here.

  36. Godthorn
    October 18th, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

    I suppose I should clarify my “mercy” comment, since you quoted your Oxford. The most common form of the word–and the one I had been using–is numbered 1 in your entry. I referred to mercy as an attitude, because attitude is the primary requirement in any instance of mercy. Note the phrase “compassion OR forgiveness” in the OED definition. While you could say that forgiveness, in some sense of that term, is necessarily present, compassion is not always. Mercy is very often performed perfunctarily. In any case, it is not “the result of an action.” There is no action, and hence no result, unless someone is attitudinally disposed to be merciful.

    Since I’m here again I will make a couple more observations. In your 4th (Mercy is….) paragraph, and again near your conclusion, you express a common religious attitude that I find absurd, and that I suspect is a psychological inversion. You belittle your humaness and imply that by rights your “God” should stomp you and the rest of us into the ground. This is a well-studied phenomenon in child psychology. The well-puclicized “Stockholm Syndrome” is another emanation of that primal pack-leader psychology. The abused child believes that it is itself at fault, that it deserves its torture, and that its tormentor, the all-powerful parent, is just and unimpeachable.

    Who is the victim here, and who the tormentor? Is it the parent or the child? Is it the Creator or the creature? Is this something you might profitably think about? Or would you really rather not?

  37. atheist
    October 18th, 2006 @ 10:52 pm

    “God didn’t design a world that “requires that [H]is creatures kill and devour each other for sustenance” ”

    But if your god is omniscient then yes, he did design such a world. Did your god know beforehand what would happen? If he is omniscient then he must have, yet he chose to go ahead and create the world anyway. In your belief, god created the world, the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve… didn’t he? Yet he must have known that they’d Fall, and that this would result in life feeding on life to survive.

    Your god–if he is omniscient–knew full well what would happen ahead of time. Yet he went ahead and created, he set up the board and placed the pieces.

    I can’t help but think that if your god exists, it must be one hell of a boring game.

  38. Brian Macker
    October 18th, 2006 @ 11:31 pm

    RA, Doesn’t this article break your vow not to be a mocking meany? The woman just had her dwelling and her belongings destroyed, not to mention barely escaping death.

  39. beepbeepitsme
    October 20th, 2006 @ 7:49 pm

    It’s interesting how we attach 2 unrelated events and attempt to assign correlation. Both instances involved inanimate objects, so for some people, there is a desire to assign meaning to the happenings of both events based on a loose perception of similarity. If she had had a cracked skull from falling down the stairs AND a plane had crashed into her appartment, there would be less desire to attach meaning to both events.

    Because separate events occurred which involved inanimate objects hitting her, or nearly hitting her, some people are superstitiously willing to falsely correlate the 2 as having a combined meaning or a combined message.

    Correlation does not equal causation.

  40. James
    October 27th, 2006 @ 12:35 pm

    A good name keeps its lustre in the dark. James.

  41. Eric
    November 9th, 2006 @ 12:05 pm

    [URL]http://www.anne-geddes.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.museo.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.virgilio.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.totti.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.novella.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.devi.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.sex.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.carabinieri.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.del-piero.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.piccolo.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.hentay.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.poesia.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.morandi.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.inzaghi.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.tarot.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.prosciutto.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.verona.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.curriculum.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.manga.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.stanza.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.ebay.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.finale.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.serena-grandi.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.giochi.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.cellulari.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.alessandra.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.italia-master.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.informatica.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.meteo.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.fare.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.alitalia.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.monza.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.fontana.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.porno.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.parma.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.juventus.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.pisa.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.verdi.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.poco.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.mp3-musica.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.politica.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.bolle.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.tutto.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.venezia.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.rafael.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.prima.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.calciomercato.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.italy.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.pompei.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.rossa.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.uomo.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.napoli.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.angelo.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.lesbiche.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.cannavaro.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.foto.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.porn.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.libera.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.credito.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.ramazzotti.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.traduttore.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.presidente.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.avril-lavigne.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.abiti-da-sposa.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.elisabetta-canalis.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.rossi.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.gianna.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.cavalli.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.culo.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.libero.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.palermo.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.cipro.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.ringtone.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.adriano-celentano.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.canzoni.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.casa.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.pesca.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.telefono.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.cari.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.milan.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.michele.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.shakira.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.natura.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.campioni.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.rimini.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.calendario.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.testi.naturtlista.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.cucina.lu7oro5.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.universita.umbriaj.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.bikini.umbriaj.org[/URL]

  42. james
    November 10th, 2006 @ 3:20 pm

    monkey’s can’t fly planes. therefore, god exists.

  43. Noble
    April 1st, 2009 @ 3:23 am

    Hello! The babes are here! This is my best site to visit. I make sure I am alone in case I get too hot. Post your favorite link here.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links