Time Magazine

[darkphantomime]

Grades four through twelve were added to the curriculum in order to keep youngsters off the job market, and the skills taught in these grades are the ones most students find to be neither useful in their lives nor gratifying to master. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of fractional numbers exemplify these skills. No children at all (and very, very few adults) ever have the occasion to use them

This is of course, total Bull****! He doesn't seem to understand or appreciate how much time and effort it takes to skillfully write, and that a person in 3rd grade is fully capable of doing serious writing is nonsense. All of that which Daniel Quinn has listed as 'forcing students off the job market...' ...

Is he aware that there are child labor laws? That maybe THATs the reason why children are kept off the job market until at least 16?

The learning that people got 150 years ago does not apply in the same way that the learning of now does. Now is a totally different world from 150 years ago, and I cannot believe that a supposedly educated man would try to advocate learning to be halted at third grade, simply because that was the primary education 150 years ago.

That is so stupid. Things like higher math may not have mattered to MOST people back then, but they are certainly applicable to the skills of today's job market.

I find it funny how you advocate the idea that we have this huge curriculum is because we want to keep kids off the job market, when we many, many skills in order to remotely succeed in today's job market and remain competitive.

I'm sorry, but what he's saying is honestly beyond preposterous.

[Mysterious F.]

Perhaps grades 4 and up were added because... well, since children can't get jobs, adults had to have some way to keep them out of trouble. This seemed kinda obvious to me, but...

I'd also like to point out that elementary school (at least up to third grade) doesn't shove information to little children as much as middle and high school does. From a child's point of view, they will only need to know a fraction of what is shoved into their face.

Also, tomorrow I will get the next issue of Time Magazine. From that point on the topic will be changed to what that issue is about. You can keep debating via PM, if you wish.

[darkphantomime]

Study the history books, whocares. There definitely was a grade 4 and above 100 years and more ago, before child labor laws. Hell, the very reason Child Labor laws were implemented was so children could get a full education instead of having to work like a full-grown man.

The current topic has migrated to an education topic on which we have every right to discuss in public. This debate is very important in fostering  understandings as it's not just Mags and I that are debating here (though we are the ones doing the majority of the debating).

[MagmarFire]

Like I said, JQ, there's no way I can completely do it all justice if I quote it all, which would take hours and would probably be illegal.

Is he aware that there are child labor laws? That maybe THATs the reason why children are kept off the job market until at least 16?

The learning that people got 150 years ago does not apply in the same way that the learning of now does. Now is a totally different world from 150 years ago, and I cannot believe that a supposedly educated man would try to advocate learning to be halted at third grade, simply because that was the primary education 150 years ago.

The world's not that different. We still live in a Taker society. Have been for thousands of years. And the world is being destroyed for it. And for the love of Pete, he is not advocating that learning be halted at third grade, man! Get it through your head, please? It's the system we're talking about!

Funny you should mention child labor laws. Looking at this article would probably quote at least much of what I need to say, and it will surely save some of the life in my keyboard, haha!

Study the history books, whocares. There definitely was a grade 4 and above 100 years and more ago, before child labor laws. Hell, the very reason Child Labor laws were implemented was so children could get a full education instead of having to work like a full-grown man.

Sure there was a grade four and above all those years ago. Neither I nor Daniel Quinn ever denied that. What you seem to fail to understand is that the required amount of education began to elevate into those higher grades as the years went by as industrialization became more widespread.

I kind of doubt that's what child labor laws were for. Also, children have to work eventually; after all, we live in a culture where the food is under lock and key, and any new graduate going into the job market is at the bottom rung of the ladder anyway, having to work his or her way up. If you don't work, you starve. Do you really think schooling prevents that?

[darkphantomime]

Mags, You need skills in order to fully function in society. a lot of those skills can and must be learned through schoolgrow ol. Some are basic and fundamental, but our world is very, very, very competitive. Sure a new approach must be reached and new methods be taught in order to give more focus on education.

However, you keep arguing against the idea of general education.

@Whocares. Through Kindergarten up to Grade 3, things are easy because the kids are so young, but as they older, they have to learn a lot more. Would it make sense if First grade were as easy as 12th?

What I would like you to do, Mags, is to write an essay on the topic of education, framing your arguments in a concise manner, using quotes but putting up how and why the system of General Education no longer applies to today's society. Try to use arguments that I haven't heard yet, but you can still use specific quotes from Quinn.

I'd be very interested in your point on this in an essay format. You must be persuasive and not exclusive. Do not tell me it is a valid argument simply because Daniel Quinn says it is.

I expect this to be done in one week.

(Besides, this will be good writing practice for you)

When i was going through the Public Education system, I felt that things were slow, that there wasn't enough challenge. What you are advocating, is taking that challenge away. If new minds are challenged in a creative way, they will be engaged in the activities, rather than become bored by them. I know a new system needs to be worked out, however a system such as Daniel Quinn's is not really adapted to the fast-paced society and culture of today, which is why it is not functional.

You know, the most appalling schools are those that keep emphasizing the basics, they put so much emphasis on reading and math, but take a lot away from science and the arts. Those schools fail as there is very little incentive to learn, very little fascination, very little inspiration. General Education is fast disappearing in favor of schools that emphasize test scores over challenge and useful skills and subjects, they are basically forced to teach reading and math and little else.

Do you realize that taking away General Education would only make things worse?

[MagmarFire]

Not particularly. Remember, it's human nature to want to learn things. If people want to learn about something, then chances are that people are going to learn about it, regardless of what system is shoving what have you else down their throats.

The most appalling schools, as you say, quite possibly do fail in the way of neglecting the sciences and the arts, but they must also certainly fail in the ways that every other school tied to this system does. Please, name one school that's doing what people are expecting it to do--preparing students for jobs so they're ready for those top-notch positions as soon as they're out. With the information given to me, I can't think of any. Your input on this would actually be quite valuable.

I may have said this before, but I have a friend in my programming class who has a mom without a degree; yet, her work experience and high esteem in her work pretty much guarantees her a job where it's available. No education needed; she already has what she needs, and that's experience. School apparently does very little to provide that.

I know a new system needs to be worked out, however a system such as Daniel Quinn's is not really adapted to the fast-paced society and culture of today, which is why it is not functional.

I was under the impression that the reason it's "not functional" is that people aren't willing to try it out. It also would be kind of hard to test that system out since we've essentially already abolished it by ridding the world of most Leaver cultures. If the system gives you a challenge, though...well, I certainly hope that the challenge actually benefits people instead of learning once and forgetting it at least until it needs to be called upon again, which may need relearning in that case.

Trust me on this: I was hoping that just about everything I learned in my advanced mathematics classes would have everyday applications for me. I was saddened and angered, though, when I heard my programming teacher saying that it really doesn't have a use, or that employers don't really care about it (I was working on a resumé--not that I didn't already have one made...). That in and of itself is proof that at least some of what I learned in school doesn't really have an application unless you're in one of the careers that uses it in the exact same conditions taught in school (a mathematician comes to mind...). I tell ya, I was mad. I spend all that time learning about math (and loving the challenge; don't get me wrong), but for what? Nothing? It's not even worth noting on a resumé? I'm sure that if I had been much more proficient in the other classes that I took, I probably would have been in the same situation.

You need skills in order to fully function in society. a lot of those skills can and must be learned through schoolgrow ol. Some are basic and fundamental, but our world is very, very, very competitive. Sure a new approach must be reached and new methods be taught in order to give more focus on education.

An example of said skills, please? From what I can tell, you can already learn most of those skills at home or in preschool/kindergarten effortlessly. If that's not true, I ask that you provide an example for me to lean on so I don't feel like I'm being overly assumptive. But it could also raise the question as to why children don't learn those skills earlier. If said skills are as necessary as you say, logic would dictate that they'd be learned well before the post-third-grade years. Why is it that they're made to be learned later or "declared" to be necessary when they're really not (not that I'm saying the latter is necessarily true, mind you)?

As for the essay...absolutely no guarantees. For one, if I wrote it, I'd feel like I'd be repeating myself (and/or plagiarizing ); secondly...I have a feeling that I'm going to be doing enough essay work for one year next semester.

Not that I'm trying to come up with a lie to get out of it; I think it'd be rather stale of an argument. I'd feel like I wouldn't do a good job doing it. :\

However, here's a flaw in what he said: Up until third grade, teachers make learning fun. After that, it isn't interesting, so the students don't care.

*kinda forgot to quote this*

Sorry, but when did he say that, again? I might've missed it.

[darkphantomime]

If you're so into math, try Engineering. She says it doesn't have a use? A use in general is completely different from a use in career, where it WILL apply, but they're more apt to accept a degree than something you wrote on a resume.

You're cutting off of my word 'skills' as simple skills, as opposed to more complex, ordered skills required in a job environment. Typing really fast comes to mind, as does math in accounting and ways of writing English in Editing, the sciences, and the humanities.

Writing is a basic skill, writing to suit a certain profession, such as editing is still another skill, though more complex. Not everything can be learned before third grade, and that you assume 'logically' that this can be so is kind of missing the point.

*sigh*

Not particularly. Remember, it's human nature to want to learn things. If people want to learn about something, then chances are that people are going to learn about it, regardless of what system is shoving what have you else down their throats.

Most people don't have any other place to learn other things, besides at school. Some people don't even have access to libraries, thus their primary education should come from the school. A person who has encyclopedias to learn by will not learn appropriate skills such as writing or higher math.

I'm sick of how you keep saying that they don't have a use or application; maybe we should differentiate between everyday application and specific application. The latter being things that are specific that you must learn for certain skills in certain subjects. But it is still useful to learn these things through general education because when you graduate high school, you can go anywhere, though most things require still more schooling.

Is it your opinion that General Education is Malicious? A thing like knowledge never hurt anybody.

It looks more to me like you're overlooking the enormous benefits of General Education.

But I feel like what I'm saying is simply falling on deaf ears.

If I were to link this topic on somewhere say, Facebook, starting a group around it, having people in college read over the discussion, I think you would find that most would disagree with you. These are bright students.

You want proof of a good school? Okay, here's one: North Carolina School of Science and Math. That's a magnet school, very, very hard to get into. I know I tried, but I failed. I know others who have gone there, and because they went through all that, college seems easy by comparison (to some of them at least).

Mags, I don't think you fully understand what people really need in order to succeed and remain competitive in today's job environment. You want to be one of those people with this naive point of view that 99% of what we learned doesn't have useful application? Then prepare to be shell-shocked when you get to college. College will make your point of view on this change completely, I guarantee it.

But you seem not to appreciate the benefits. Sure some may see it as 'having stuff crammed down your throat', but the best of us won't see it that way. The best of us deserve to be inspired and to be exposed to as much knowledge as possible; to absorb it like a sponge. An inactive mind simply goes to waste, which is why school is so rigorous. There are some of us who are more than willing to accept the challenge of higher education. Think about it this way: School is probably the only place one will actually hear and learn about science and higher math and art (unless you have VERY cultured parents, something thats honestly statistically unlikely. I know my parents aren't really that cultured, though my grandma definitely helped with my love for reading and science and astronomy.)

If students were not exposed to these subjects in schools, where, pray tell would they learn them from? Most families cannot afford to visit museums, libraries remain inaccessible in some places as well. If they're not going to learn them at school, where are they going to learn them? Not everyone is gifted with intelligent parents, so it becomes the teacher's task to teach and the student's task to learn.

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to create a facebook group called "For or Against General Education Learning", then link them to this debate. We'll see how it pans out in the end.

Rhetorical question: Looking back now on when you were in 3rd grade, do you honestly believe you had all the skills at that point in time that you would ever need?

Because to be honest with you, I sure as hell don't.

I just read part of that article you just posted a link to, and I must make a point that a society of the forest would not be able to function or suit the needs of everyone. Thousands of years ago we went through a little something called the "Agricultral revolution", in which humans started to figure out how to plant and harvest food. As a result of this, population increased and groups of people became sedentary. With less work needed on food gathering, others could set about on other things and the sciences and arts and written language came to be.

While a society in which everyone lives in abundant forests and work as hunter/gatherers is an romanticized ideal, it is not a workable solution for feeding billions of people. That is why the skills needed in order to survive have changed so drastically from a hunter/gatherer society to agricultural, then to industrial, and finallly to where we are right now.

I suggest one of the first courses you take at college be an Anthropology course, seeing as how Daniel Quinn has certainly garnered your interest into the field.

[MagmarFire]

If you're so into math, try Engineering. [He] says it doesn't have a use? A use in general is completely different from a use in career, where it WILL apply, but they're more apt to accept a degree than something you wrote on a resume.

I find it very unlikely that I'm going to have to solve logarithms in an HTML/XHTML/CSS/Flash/game-creating environment. I certainly think it'd be cool if I will, though!

You're cutting off of my word 'skills' as simple skills, as opposed to more complex, ordered skills required in a job environment. Typing really fast comes to mind, as does math in accounting and ways of writing English in Editing, the sciences, and the humanities.

I understand the "typing very quickly" part, but I'd say there are many high schoolers who have that down pat--not that I'm saying that everyone does, but I'd say it's a good majority of them, especially with computing becoming much more widespread as of late.

"English in editing," eh? Pray tell, when do you use that in a surveying career? Or a robotics career? And when do you apply the school-learned sciences in an accounting position? A secretary position? Surely just about every accountant can state the steps in the Krebs cycle verbatim or the amount of tension in the cord his/her chandelier hangs from!

Most people don't have any other place to learn other things, besides at school. Some people don't even have access to libraries, thus their primary education should come from the school. A person who has encyclopedias to learn by will not learn appropriate skills such as writing or higher math.

. . .

If students were not exposed to these subjects in schools, where, pray tell would they learn them from? Most families cannot afford to visit museums, libraries remain inaccessible in some places as well. If they're not going to learn them at school, where are they going to learn them? Not everyone is gifted with intelligent parents, so it becomes the teacher's task to teach and the student's task to learn.

Then what about having their parents teach them some of the required skills, then, hm? I'm quite sure that their parents, provided that they're successful in the workplace, as many are, would be perfectly capable of teaching their young ones about how to act professionally in a work setting or about any of the complex skills you mention here and there. If they need them to be successful, then is it really that implausible that they can't pass it on, at least in part, to the next generation?

For emphasis, parents don't necessarily need to be "intelligent" like most of our teachers are today; however, if they can teach us the skills we actually do need to be successful in society, then who's to say that they're too dimwitted to do it? I see no problem with them teaching us those things and letting teachers teach us whatever else we're interested in. It's better than just spending time.

I'm sick of how you keep saying that they don't have a use or application; maybe we should differentiate between everyday application and specific application. The latter being things that are specific that you must learn for certain skills in certain subjects. But it is still useful to learn these things through general education because when you graduate high school, you can go anywhere, though most things require still more schooling.

Is it your opinion that General Education is Malicious? A thing like knowledge never hurt anybody.

It looks more to me like you're overlooking the enormous benefits of General Education.

But I feel like what I'm saying is simply falling on deaf ears.

And I'm sick of your implications that everyone needs to learn the exact same things in the exact same way. Yes, knowledge would never hurt anybody, but the fact remains that not everyone is going to want to learn in the exact same way. I like to think of it as a freedom thing: I'll let you learn the way you want to, and I'll let you learn the way you want to. You appear to value being well rounded academically, and I do respect that, but does that mean that it's simply unwise or just completely idiotic for someone to argue for him- or herself that he or she wants to be taught in a different way? It sounds to me that that's what you're implying, but it's obvious that I went wrong somewhere in thinking so, so please correct me when you read this.

And I, too, feel that what I'm saying is worth nothing of noting to you. You provide a counterargument to my claims, and I provide a counterargument to yours. That should tell us something, and that will be the part of the basis of my next argument.

[MagmarFire]

I'm sorry for double-posting, but I couldn't fit it all into one post. Stupid 10,000-character limit... >_>

I just read part of that article you just posted a link to, and I must make a point that a society of the forest would not be able to function or suit the needs of everyone. Thousands of years ago we went through a little something called the "Agricultral revolution", in which humans started to figure out how to plant and harvest food. As a result of this, population increased and groups of people became sedentary. With less work needed on food gathering, others could set about on other things and the sciences and arts and written language came to be.

While a society in which everyone lives in abundant forests and work as hunter/gatherers is an romanticized ideal, it is not a workable solution for feeding billions of people. That is why the skills needed in order to survive have changed so drastically from a hunter/gatherer society to agricultural, then to industrial, and finallly to where we are right now.

Of course it wouldn't. There's no one right way to live. Do you feel perfectly content with the system we're using? If you are, then great! Keep using it. Do I feel perfectly content with this system?  I wholeheartedly say that I do not, and if you think that I should just abandon my viewpoint on the ways that I'm spending my life and just continue living it without saying a simple word of protest and switch over to how you think everyone in our culture should live, then you surely are a conformist. I'm not trying to get you to learn the way I want to learn; I'm griping that I spent all that time learning stuff that I ended up being strongly pushed to learn and forget later when I could've gone my way and learn what I wanted to learn instead of having the government make that decision for me. To boot, I'm also trying to justify my point by stating the poor performance of our educational system and its possible hidden agenda, which still makes perfect sense to me, regardless of what you're trying to make me think otherwise.

"Living by the ways of the forest" could fulfill the wants and needs of some people, though, so why not let them live that way? Is it not our right to live? I'm definitely not saying that you should live (now to be replaced with "learn") my way, because if I were, then it would defeat the purpose.

Moving on, if what I learned is correct, then language came into existence before the events of the Agricultural Revolution. Hunters and gatherers needed communication to tell the others what was going on around them and where their prey was (if I remember correctly, too). Also, remember talk about prehistoric caves that were discovered? What was found on the walls? Drawings and carvings. Does that simply not count as art, or are you forgetting the cavemen? (I can hear the Geico cavemen complaining now... XD )

Mags, I don't think you fully understand what people really need in order to succeed and remain competitive in today's job environment. You want to be one of those people with this naive point of view that 99% of what we learned doesn't have useful application? Then prepare to be shell-shocked when you get to college. College will make your point of view on this change completely, I guarantee it.

We will see about that. And we will see who will be eating all these words. If you do, then I'd have proven to the world that my viewpoint is still strong in my mind and would have provided a counterexample to your claim. If I do, however, then I would be gratified in actually seeing what you're trying to get me to see and then actually notice the applications of the things I was taught. For me, it's a win-win situation.

And for the record, just because my viewpoint is different than yours and is totally an antithesis of what most everyone thinks of our system doesn't mean it's naïve. Or it could be--and by that same token, your mindset is, too, naïve because it doesn't include every single variable in existence. But I find the former to be more true than the latter.

You want proof of a good school? Okay, here's one: North Carolina School of Science and Math. That's a magnet school, very, very hard to get into. I know I tried, but I failed. I know others who have gone there, and because they went through all that, college seems easy by comparison (to some of them at least).

I meant a K-through-twelve school. Try again.

But you seem not to appreciate the benefits. Sure some may see it as 'having stuff crammed down your throat', but the best of us won't see it that way. The best of us deserve to be inspired and to be exposed to as much knowledge as possible; to absorb it like a sponge. An inactive mind simply goes to waste, which is why school is so rigorous. There are some of us who are more than willing to accept the challenge of higher education. Think about it this way: School is probably the only place one will actually hear and learn about science and higher math and art (unless you have VERY cultured parents, something thats honestly statistically unlikely. I know my parents aren't really that cultured, though my grandma definitely helped with my love for reading and science and astronomy.)

And then I go back to the forgetfulness concept again. If I absorb that information and never use it, who's to say that I'm going to remember it by the time it's needed? I can't say this is the same for everyone, but the sad truth is that I'm one of those people who gradually forget that information. It's happened to me many times, one of them being a few years back in my geography class. I was made to memorize the capitals of countries and the names of featured lakes, seas, and rivers. Hardly once have I been in a situation where I could apply it and aid society in its daily shenanigans, so guess what happened? I forgot most of those capitals. And guess what else: I made sure that I had all those capitals in my head for the tests, and I took great pains to pass those tests. Did it make me any better skilled? No. My conclusion, then? I was only wasting my time. And I could keep going.

If I were to link this topic on somewhere say, Facebook, starting a group around it, having people in college read over the discussion, I think you would find that most would disagree with you. These are bright students.

And I'm quite sure that the students who'd agree with me are bright, too.

So, are you saying that the people who don't disagree are not bright students? For that matter, does that mean that I'm not a bright student, receiving great regards from just about every single one of my teachers?

I doubt that that's what you've been trying to say, but I still suggest you reword that a bit so that it's not perceived that way.

Unless, of course, that is what you meant. *warning glare*

EDIT: I suppose we might want to bring it into either PMs or another topic, JQ.

[Mysterious F.]

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, it's over now. We're moving on.

This week's main article is about the automobile industry in Detriot. The leaders of the automobile companies are asking D.C. for some support for a couple of months.

[darkphantomime]

Let me draw the line again from skills that are general and specific. You do not seem to understand, (or are arguing for the sake of arguing) against an intersection of subjects. Every skill has a use, some skills are specific, applying to a certain discipline. Other skills are general, meaning that they are everyday skills. Still other skills are general-specific, in that they have applications in many disciplines, though not by all. Writing a Research paper is one example of a skill that you will need to go through college. If you choose a career in the sciences or in the humanities, you will likely need to do research for your discipline. Please understand the distinction and difference between the things I just said.

I meant a K-through-twelve school. Try again.

Dude... There aren't that many K through 12 schools. If I cite an example of a public school that is successful, you should accept it rather than write it off from criteria that most schools do not even meet.

Then what about having their parents teach them some of the required skills, then, hm? I'm quite sure that their parents, provided that they're successful in the workplace, as many are, would be perfectly capable of teaching their young ones about how to act professionally in a work setting or about any of the complex skills you mention here and there. If they need them to be successful, then is it really that implausible that they can't pass it on, at least in part, to the next generation?

You think all parents will be equally successful and be equally aware and capable of what skills need to be taught? Some parents DO teach their little ones, and that is very good. But as it stands now, parents barely parent, hardly even restrain their children. Your premise assumes that one has parents that are successful. Not everyone is gifted with that.

Throughout this whole topic, you're putting words in my mouth, I suggest you stop. Did I say those who agree with you would be stupid? No I did not. Mind, you are very intelligent, but a lot of the counterpoints you make require there be specific prerequisites met.

Nor did I ever say that indigenous groups could not decide for themselves how they want to live, you're simply putting words in my mouth. But the case is, much of the world's population lives in either an industrialized country or a country that is becoming industrialized. China and India contain roughly a third of the world's population and the Chinese in particular have had to cope with a very strict government in relation to how they can live their life.

Masterkey asked me to post the following on his behalf.

MEGAnova892 (9:17:16 PM): I go to a specialized high school in New York State, where the emphasis on reading and arithmetic is ridiculously high. I have, in my opinion, recieved a mediocre and inferior education in the arts. The Art class given to me in 6th and 7th grade and the Dance class given to me in 8th were utterly ridiculous, not to mention my music class barely had any music to hear.
MEGAnova892 (9:20:56 PM): So I feel like I was deprived. My skills in math and English are super high, and the workload is through the roof ridiculous. I would prefer if my school placd a heavier empasis on science and ther humanities. Not only do I find them more interestring, I find them more useful: having an adeqaute knowledge of art and musical history is essential to the advancement of our society, and no math or english could replace that.

MEGAnova892 (9:25:48 PM): I mean what the hell? Are you going to have grown men running around, not knowing a thing about chemistry or physics since they "don't need it?" It's called being well rounded and balanced. That's the goal. It's a Greco-Roman philosophy!

*sigh*

Magmarfire, think about what you're saying. School is meant to be the main place of learning. Sure some might see it as a chore, but others would be inspired to work. If they aren't exposed to it at school, how and where are they going to learn that it even exists? By having a well-rounded education, one is free to make the choice where one wants to go after one graduates from High School. What you are saying is basically "Eliminate Science! Eliminate the Arts! They can learn these things on their own!"

Children have to be exposed to these ideas and concepts. The main place to do this is at school. I found Public School to be very easy. Some might feel all of this is being shoved down their throat, but I assure you that it won't be the case for everyone.

Think about it. You're so upset that you learned specialized skills that aren't really geared to every application? You should pursue your interests. A child in grade school may only have a vague idea of what he or she is interested in.

I mean, sure there are problems with the  system, but the system requires dedicated and creative teachers with parents that are supportive in order to REALLY work. The school system isn't anywhere near as broken as you think it is. It is broken in some places though. But all it takes is a creative and inspiring teacher to make the difference in one's life.

[xarlote]

дидж422.2котоBettJeweDaniБрокHearJeweYvesвоскSushПропStanКандNX-6BellСодеBeteБелывладВласRain
БузиPrimRamoМустPierЮренФишеStraPurpполуQueeCounmastPlatToveHonoГольWellZaraTescNX87СтепOlle
MineИллюПодхDaviRichgiveОтечXVIIНовиArthМариSergHenrStevRadiMangWillLawrCharWillVIIIVoguсерт
VoguVoguSelaSpliRoxyFeliСпирСалеKjelElegLiliКираSelaMickXVIIXVIIDamaкомпGoulFunnсредМоскУгар
ГордШталПанкZoneШевчZoneR3P0diamChetZoneZoneZoneZoneZoneZoneзакаZoneZoneZoneсере(194Zonegran
ZoneхороТобомесяDAXXголуSamsРоссWarnсборШколAlcoJeanЧайкавтоРосснастprovProlLanzРоссплазMedi
ВелиOuapпазлГуляязыкволоwwwmWindWindTefaстраSupeсертШевчTrioCatcEugeMaggЛитРLaurBullDaniЛитР
XVIIHoliЭллисемиЛомуПетручилПечаАфанПереБаскНикоCyndWalkViewЛьвоСтреScotMichФизиXVIIМоскWind
НикоExcoавтоФролHeavБарыШапоСЕсеКоваБелоWhitMollStarотдоDonaJeanSheiIginAdobФормBurnмесямеся
месяMicrШевеФормDesiinHgинстПляцСодеКраеRainПореСокоtuchkasPeteпобе

[xarlote]

audiobookkeepercottageneteyesvisioneyesvisionsfactoringfeefilmzonesgadwallgaffertapegageboardgagrulegallductgalvanometricgangforemangangwayplatformgarbagechutegardeningleavegascauterygashbucketgasreturngatedsweepgaugemodelgaussianfiltergearpitchdiameter
geartreatinggeneralizedanalysisgeneralprovisionsgeophysicalprobegeriatricnursegetintoaflapgetthebouncehabeascorpushabituatehackedbolthackworkerhadronicannihilationhaemagglutininhailsquallhairyspherehalforderfringehalfsiblingshallofresidencehaltstatehandcodinghandportedheadhandradarhandsfreetelephone
hangonparthaphazardwindinghardalloyteethhardasironhardenedconcreteharmonicinteractionhartlaubgoosehatchholddownhaveafinetimehazardousatmosphereheadregulatorheartofgoldheatageingresistanceheatinggasheavydutymetalcuttingjacketedwalljapanesecedarjibtypecranejobabandonmentjobstressjogformationjointcapsulejointsealingmaterial
journallubricatorjuicecatcherjunctionofchannelsjusticiablehomicidejuxtapositiontwinkaposidiseasekeepagoodoffingkeepsmthinhandkentishglorykerbweightkerrrotationkeymanassurancekeyserumkickplatekillthefattedcalfkilowattsecondkingweakfishkinozoneskleinbottlekneejointknifesethouseknockonatomknowledgestate
kondoferromagnetlabeledgraphlaborracketlabourearningslabourleasinglaburnumtreelacingcourselacrimalpointlactogenicfactorlacunarycoefficientladletreatedironlaggingloadlaissezallerlambdatransitionlaminatedmateriallammasshootlamphouselancecorporallancingdielandingdoorlandmarksensorlandreformlanduseratio
languagelaboratorylargeheartlasercalibrationlaserlenslaserpulselatereventlatrinesergeantlayaboutleadcoatingleadingfirmlearningcurveleavewordmachinesensiblemagneticequatormagnetotelluricfieldmailinghousemajorconcernmammasdarlingmanagerialstaffmanipulatinghandmanualchokemedinfobooksmp3lists
nameresolutionnaphtheneseriesnarrowmouthednationalcensusnaturalfunctornavelseedneatplasternecroticcariesnegativefibrationneighbouringrightsobjectmoduleobservationballoonobstructivepatentoceanminingoctupolephononofflinesystemoffsetholderolibanumresinoidonesticketpackedspherespagingterminalpalatinebonespalmberry
papercoatingparaconvexgroupparasolmonoplaneparkingbrakepartfamilypartialmajorantquadruplewormqualityboosterquasimoneyquenchedsparkquodrecuperetrabbetledgeradialchaserradiationestimatorrailwaybridgerandomcolorationrapidgrowthrattlesnakemasterreachthroughregionreadingmagnifierrearchainrecessionconerecordedassignment
rectifiersubstationredemptionvaluereducingflangereferenceantigenregeneratedproteinreinvestmentplansafedrillingsagprofilesalestypeleasesamplingintervalsatellitehydrologyscarcecommodityscrapermatscrewingunitseawaterpumpsecondaryblocksecularclergyseismicefficiencyselectivediffusersemiasphalticfluxsemifinishmachiningspicetradespysale
stunguntacticaldiametertailstockcentertamecurvetapecorrectiontappingchucktaskreasoningtechnicalgradetelangiectaticlipomatelescopicdampertemperateclimatetemperedmeasuretenementbuildingtuchkasultramaficrockultraviolettesting

[xarlote]

фило158.8CHAPBASIКокиPeteКоктмузыИнжеUriaВостMajoиллюAgaiSupeWishРеатХудоКороРеизМостфарфJose
ElleАЯГуRobeопубDadoОктяXXVIМэдипрепМальВасиКривJeanЛитвDaveредаКозмязыкИллюЛапувыпуМурмМикл
РахлГончАсмоМоскХентрумынациXVIIELEGOsirModoбухгXVIISelaХонеJansЕвегЗимоДордУглоРешеHansслуж
МистЛибеучилMadoCessCircRoxyАмелремесборДихнHenrКочеMORGШпинТитоWrigограРом-первFallMadhАнто
ZoneNormZoneTownZoneZoneOccaJohnПопоCollZoneZoneZoneZoneZoneгеогНежиZoneZoneZoneотряZoneZone
MusiохотSaraDTMFЛиннFrosSamsSamsЗареIsaoMistFiesСергTropAdriавтоStruSauvEFQMFloAцарапереMedi
IvreсборнитоСайкязыквагоSaleГринbookLEGOкистDeLoBamiChouPediголоGWCYXVIIДаниTrevболеДубрDian
ЛитРРоссМураЛениЕфимлифтHonoПетрЕфимAcadзаниМареИльиCharМаксHeroJoseSaveRoadelenТаккYearPink
возрMargSPINСухоКрисучебWindСквоКосуобраАверСокоRaviDolbГладДетсСултрассМутаКапрКореDTMFDTMF
DTMFbonuСайк|блзЛукьТамбраскCollлодоЗапаKareФадеавтоtuchkasGoldФили

[xarlote]

audiobookkeeper.rucottagenet.rueyesvision.rueyesvisions.comfactoringfee.rufilmzones.rugadwall.rugaffertape.rugageboard.rugagrule.rugallduct.rugalvanometric.rugangforeman.rugangwayplatform.rugarbagechute.rugardeningleave.rugascautery.rugashbucket.rugasreturn.rugatedsweep.rugaugemodel.rugaussianfilter.rugearpitchdiameter.ru
geartreating.rugeneralizedanalysis.rugeneralprovisions.rugeophysicalprobe.rugeriatricnurse.rugetintoaflap.rugetthebounce.ruhabeascorpus.ruhabituate.ruhackedbolt.ruhackworker.ruhadronicannihilation.ruhaemagglutinin.ruhailsquall.ruhairysphere.ruhalforderfringe.ruhalfsiblings.ruhallofresidence.ruhaltstate.ruhandcoding.ruhandportedhead.ruhandradar.ruhandsfreetelephone.ru
hangonpart.ruhaphazardwinding.ruhardalloyteeth.ruhardasiron.ruhardenedconcrete.ruharmonicinteraction.ruhartlaubgoose.ruhatchholddown.ruhaveafinetime.ruhazardousatmosphere.ruheadregulator.ruheartofgold.ruheatageingresistance.ruheatinggas.ruheavydutymetalcutting.rujacketedwall.rujapanesecedar.rujibtypecrane.rujobabandonment.rujobstress.rujogformation.rujointcapsule.rujointsealingmaterial.ru
journallubricator.rujuicecatcher.rujunctionofchannels.rujusticiablehomicide.rujuxtapositiontwin.rukaposidisease.rukeepagoodoffing.rukeepsmthinhand.rukentishglory.rukerbweight.rukerrrotation.rukeymanassurance.rukeyserum.rukickplate.rukillthefattedcalf.rukilowattsecond.rukingweakfish.rukinozones.rukleinbottle.rukneejoint.ruknifesethouse.ruknockonatom.ruknowledgestate.ru
kondoferromagnet.rulabeledgraph.rulaborracket.rulabourearnings.rulabourleasing.rulaburnumtree.rulacingcourse.rulacrimalpoint.rulactogenicfactor.rulacunarycoefficient.ruladletreatediron.rulaggingload.rulaissezaller.rulambdatransition.rulaminatedmaterial.rulammasshoot.rulamphouse.rulancecorporal.rulancingdie.rulandingdoor.rulandmarksensor.rulandreform.rulanduseratio.ru
languagelaboratory.rulargeheart.rulasercalibration.rulaserlens.rulaserpulse.rulaterevent.rulatrinesergeant.rulayabout.ruleadcoating.ruleadingfirm.rulearningcurve.ruleaveword.rumachinesensible.rumagneticequator.rumagnetotelluricfield.rumailinghouse.rumajorconcern.rumammasdarling.rumanagerialstaff.rumanipulatinghand.rumanualchoke.rumedinfobooks.rump3lists.ru
nameresolution.runaphtheneseries.runarrowmouthed.runationalcensus.runaturalfunctor.runavelseed.runeatplaster.runecroticcaries.runegativefibration.runeighbouringrights.ruobjectmodule.ruobservationballoon.ruobstructivepatent.ruoceanmining.ruoctupolephonon.ruofflinesystem.ruoffsetholder.ruolibanumresinoid.ruonesticket.rupackedspheres.rupagingterminal.rupalatinebones.rupalmberry.ru
papercoating.ruparaconvexgroup.ruparasolmonoplane.ruparkingbrake.rupartfamily.rupartialmajorant.ruquadrupleworm.ruqualitybooster.ruquasimoney.ruquenchedspark.ruquodrecuperet.rurabbetledge.ruradialchaser.ruradiationestimator.rurailwaybridge.rurandomcoloration.rurapidgrowth.rurattlesnakemaster.rureachthroughregion.rureadingmagnifier.rurearchain.rurecessioncone.rurecordedassignment.ru
rectifiersubstation.ruredemptionvalue.rureducingflange.rureferenceantigen.ruregeneratedprotein.rureinvestmentplan.rusafedrilling.rusagprofile.rusalestypelease.rusamplinginterval.rusatellitehydrology.ruscarcecommodity.ruscrapermat.ruscrewingunit.ruseawaterpump.rusecondaryblock.rusecularclergy.ruseismicefficiency.ruselectivediffuser.rusemiasphalticflux.rusemifinishmachining.ruspicetrade.ruspysale.ru
stungun.rutacticaldiameter.rutailstockcenter.rutamecurve.rutapecorrection.rutappingchuck.rutaskreasoning.rutechnicalgrade.rutelangiectaticlipoma.rutelescopicdamper.rutemperateclimate.rutemperedmeasure.rutenementbuilding.rutuchkasultramaficrock.ruultraviolettesting.ru