4,394 Responses to Silvio, #quantocazzomimanchi!

  1. samochody says:

    I am definitely bookmarking this website and sharing it with my acquaintances. You will be getting plenty of visitors to your website from me!

  2. Bruno Pedley says:

    I needed to thank you for this good read!! I certainly loved every little bit of it. I’ve got you bookmarked to check out new things you post…

  3. Volkswagen dealers in Los Angeles while in the 60s and 70s werebr /almost everywhere. I worked for Volkswagen of America’s LA Region during the 70s as a District Parts Manager. At a single time I called on 14 VW retailers and 7 Porsche/Audi dealers. Of people 21 dealers inside the mid-seventies, only four or 5 are still in organization. There have been four DPM’s in the LA Region and the dealer survival rate was substantially identical for all the Districts. It wasn’t a very sight to watch them close up!!

  4. I also believe that mesothelioma cancer is a rare form of many forms of cancer that is often found in those people previously exposed to asbestos. Cancerous cells form in the mesothelium, which is a defensive lining that covers the majority of the body’s bodily organs. These cells ordinarily form within the lining from the lungs, tummy, or the sac which encircles the heart. Thanks for discussing your ideas.

  5. No shit, this pussy is amazing, Can’t believe those chicks are real!!

  6. Adora says:

    Given that the exact phrase “for the purpose, among others, of” has been well attested for more than two hundred years, I don’t think anyone could argue that “for the purpose of” necessarily means “for the sole purpose of”. The article tries to imply that the prosecutors’ case would require “for the purpose of” to mean “for a purpose of”, but that’s simply not how the words “the” and “a” work; it’s obvious that “the purpose of ___” does not imply that no other purposes exist, just as “the tall man” does not imply that no other men exist. I think that the “the”/”a” question is really a red herring. The same question could be posed with an expression like “for fun”: if a law forbade contributions that were made “for fun”, would that imply that it only forbade contributions that were made “just for fun”, or would it imply that it forbade any contributions where fun was a motivating factor? (As Jon Weinberg says, the real question is legislative intent.)

  7. Byron says:

    It can be extremely difficult to surpass Joomla ! with respect to simplicity along with versatility.

  8. Cyprien says:

    The RIAA did this at the University of Oregon, where I did my undergrad. The University tracked uploads and downloads on the university internet system as a matter of course, and thus the first successful prosecution of music piracy occurred as a result. It’s a school legend about how the SWAT team stormed a dorm room. It’s ridiculous that the RIAA thinks they are allowed to do what they’re doing just because they’re big and powerful. I also support the decision of the College’s administration not to disclose information to the RIAA. Bullying people around does no good in the long run, but only if enough people are willing to stand up to them.

  9. Chevalier says:

    I might have inadvertantly deleted the actual
    verify message that was sent! I you will please
    send another.
    Thank you,
    Richard Wolf

  10. Amarante says:

    *Hello! I wish to supply a enormous thumbs up with the great info you’ve here for this post. I will be coming back to your blog for more soon.

Comments are closed.