Pradžia » » Vandenis

Vandenis



Vandenis (01.21-02.19)
1. Kaip nuobodu būti panašiam į kitus.
2. Jeigu tave sukūriau aš, būk toks, kokio aš noriu.
3. Prietarais tiki tik kvailiai.
4. Ateitis privalo būti šviesi.
5. Sunku būti angelu, tačiau būtina.
6. Geri ketinimai svarbiau nei geri darbai.
7. Seksas? Gyvenime yra ir svarbesnių dalykų.
8. Norint tapti novatoriumi būtina pamiršti tradicijas.
9. Pirmoje vietoje draugai, o paskui jau šeima – žinoma, jei lieka laiko.
10. Nėra už mane nei geresnio, nei žvalesnio.

Balsavimas

Žiūrėta: 14772   |   Balsų: 187   |   Vidurkis:   5
Įvertink: 12345



Komentarai

2016-05-18 Hi Blake, we do have a medium set, please email infooat]r[guesquirrel*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt* so we can facilitate that for you. Unfortunately we don’t have Larges as requested by the others, however we will be taking pre-orders for a re-print of the shirt. So keep your eyes peeled for that.
by Hi Blake, we do have a medium set, please email infooat]r[guesquirrel*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt* so we can facilitate that for you. Unfortunately we don’t have Larges as requested by the others, however we will be taking pre-orders for a r
2015-10-18 multiple time that Caucasus is West Asian + Southern, but what there is an other result of the this analsyis that seems to complicate the matter. Gedrosia seems to be almost entirely a subset of West Asian and West Asian comes out as an about even mixture of Caucasus + Gedrosia (actually with more Gedrosia). A possi*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt * interpretation that Gedrosia is a less admixed and Caucasus is a strongly admixed successor of the "West Asian" ancestral population. However this would place the "homeland" of the West Asian into the East (East from Anatolia and the Armenian Highland), possi*nemokami zaidimai -geriausi*y in the current Iran. I think this is also supported by the G2a origin theory. You seem to support the idea that the source of G2a is the Armenian Highland, but the Neolithic G2a immigrant in Europe did not have West Asian at all. They were Southern. I think the idea that the West Asian homeland is in Anatolia or even Northwest Iran is not compati*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt * with the idea that the G2a population came from this region. The prehistoric (before 5000 BP) West Asian migration had to start somewhere East from this area. (However it is possi*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt * that it happened right after G2a left, let's say around 7000 BP or so and after that moved forward from here.) ://dqctzyl*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt* [url=://uegpbejaxg*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*]uegpbejaxg[/url] [link=://zivrqxmouls*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*]zivrqxmouls[/link]
by multiple time that Caucasus is West Asian + Southern, but what there is an other result of the this analsyis that seems to complicate the matter. Gedrosia seems to be almost entirely a subset of West Asian and West Asian comes out as an about even mixture
2015-10-18 Now that's very odd! How are we now to explain the Gedrosia cnnmopeot in Basques?? I would have guessed that Gedrosia also participates in Atlantic-Baltic (or Southern), because of the Basques who are almost exclusively made up of these two K7b cnnmopeots and yet do have nontrivial amounts of Gedrosia.If Gedrosia really just is West Asian + South Asian how can the Basques possi*nemokami zaidimai -geriausi*y have ~9-10% Gedrosia, when they've got neither of these in K7b?The Caucasus cnnmopeot in Sardinians is perfectly well explained by its being part of the K7b Southern cnnmopeot. d6tzi already did have some of this Southern, non-West Asian Caucasus, so it's something historically real. But the Gedrosia in Basques is completely at odds with their apparent lack of West and South Asian. It's contradictory and perplexing.It seems, either they do not really have Gedrosia, or they do in fact have something West Asian (or South Asian).The Basques actually fit well into the general geographical pattern of elevated levels of Gedrosia in Western-Northwestern Europe, so it seems natural to assume that it arrived there as part of the same population movement. Maybe it has something to do with Bell Beakers and R1b. None of the pre 5 kya samples so far displayed any Gedrosia, the mesolithic Iberians neither, so I doubt that it's something old in Western Europe. ://ihsxutxa*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt* [url=://udrocjsr*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*]udrocjsr[/url] [link=://hyrstcxtqke*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*]hyrstcxtqke[/link]
by Now that's very odd! How are we now to explain the Gedrosia cnnmopeot in Basques?? I would have guessed that Gedrosia also participates in Atlantic-Baltic (or Southern), because of the Basques who are almost exclusively made up of these two K7b cnnmo
2015-10-18 Are the Ju'hoansi then the most highly<a ="://cbyuijkku*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*"> digervent</a> Khoisan group, akin to the Mbuti and the Hadza who form their own set extremes on the Paleoafrican axis on the MDS plots?I would like to see the data from this Ju'hoansi San group included in the "San" principal component in various implementations of DIYDodecad as well as the Hadza, separately. Each of these three will provide sets of some of the most highly<a ="://cbyuijkku*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*"> digervent</a> modern human alleles, and deserve to be considered separately.How does the new almost complete whole Denisovan genome plot now that we have these populations? Dienekes, can you do a five-way MDS plot of modern Humans, the Chimpanzee, Bonobo, Denisovan, and Neanderthal, now that we have more whole genome sequences from Paleoafricans and others, and a quite complete Denisovan genome? Also, can you tease out any sort of "African Archaic" component and then do a PCA with the "African Archaic", Neanderthal and Denisovan, to help identify regions of possi*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt * Archaic admixture? The Geno 2.0 chip has ILS SNPs as well as Neanderthal and Denisovan SNPs, but they have (tried to) clean out all non-synonymous protein-coding SNPs as well as SNPs in full LD with those. Since Dodecad is not limited by such restrictions I think you can do a better job of detecting even low-level Archaic admixture. This should help us figure out any differences between admixture with East Asian Neanderthals and European / Caucasian Neanderthals and Denisovans, and help us detect the source of any "Back to Africa" Neanderthal admixture within Africa.
by Are the Ju'hoansi then the most highly<a href="*http://*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*nemokami-zaidimai.lt*cbyuijkku*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*"> digervent</a> Khoisan group, akin to the Mbuti and the Hadza who form thei
2015-10-16 Limited permanent sntltemeet from "Sweden" - a work in progress still then when it comes to the political entity - on coastal areas in Finland seems to have preceded political control and started sometime after 1000 based on archaeological evidence. After southern Finland became politically tied to Sweden there seems to have been more emigration from Sweden, but in such numbers that except on some coastal areas the settlers were assimilated. But the settlers didn't come only from Sweden; in the small coastal trading towns there were German settlers and there's evidence of limited numbers of Germans settling as farmers inland during the late Middle Age. The ties this far might be earlier than Swedish political control and connected to Baltic maritime trade in the early Middle Age; the spread of burial of bodies instead of cremation spread through southern Finland between 700-1000 and might be influenced by example of long distance traders as it preceded the spread of Christianity, which started after 1000 but before the supposed Swedish crusades. On the other hand, c5land Isles were colonized from the Swedish mainland starting already from 400 CE, replacing the earlier small population there, and like in later times, the sea between Finland and Sweden proba*nemokami zaidimai -geriausi*y united the coastal areas more than it separated them. Another thing is movement from Finland to Sweden; there was a large-scale emigration of Savonians to northern and central Sweden starting from the late 16th century. This population, called the "Forest Finns" in Sweden, is now basically totally assimilated, but their contribution to current Swedish gene pool is relatively extensive and would cloud the picture when one would go farther and compare Finns and Swedes directly. ://kxjaucanqgt*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt* [url=://jpkquwx*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*]jpkquwx[/url] [link=://ee*nemokami zaidimai -geriausi*ktvf*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*]ee*nemokami zaidimai -geriausi*ktvf[/link]
by Limited permanent sntltemeet from "Sweden" - a work in progress still then when it comes to the political entity - on coastal areas in Finland seems to have preceded political control and started sometime after 1000 based on archaeological evide
2015-10-16 This is the question that's most innetesritg to me. These Asian-shifted folk mixed later with haplo R Amerindian-connected folk, and the result was descendants significantly shifted away from East Eurasians relative to them. This is precisely the reason I'd refrain from any discrete conclusion on the matter. It's an open mystery.You are ignoring the large-scale migration of the Sardinian-like Neolithic folk to all over Europe between the Mesolithic era and times of the migration of the Y-haplogroup R bearing folk. They apparently had a huge impact on the overall genetic landscape of Europe. Also, you are ignoring that the Y-haplogroup R bearing folk significantly admixed with the West Eurasian Neolithic folk, as they largely took their wives from the locals during their migrations, thus significantly diluted their own original autosomal genetics (more in the south than in the north).Western Europeans have connections with the Pathan people. Only about half of the South Asian component is ASI, so if you halve the amount of South Asian in Pathan at K7 and add the small amounts of Siberian (they have no East Asian), then I generously round it to 20%. But they're 35% Karitiana. This suggests that at least some of the 'Karitiana' in Western Europeans is of the same (unknown) nature as is found in the Pathan.No, ASI is the major element in the makeup of the "South Asian" component, its ANI or Caucasoid part as a whole being the minor element. Anyway, if you are going to calculate the overall Mongoloid or overall ASI ancestry of a population, you should stop using results of ADMIXTURE, which has pro*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt *ms in detecting ancient racial admixtures and their effects (see below), as proxy, but should instead use direct measurements such as the ones performed by softwares like ADMIXTOOLS. Pathans possess about 20% ASI admixture and obviously possess more Mongoloid admixture than detected by ADMIXTURE. As I pointed out previously, the East Eurasian shift in South Asians and South Asian-admixed populations in Central and West Asia certainly only partially Mongoloid-related, the rest being ASI related. ASI, because of being genetically closer to Mongoloids than to Caucasoids, have a positive effect on the East Eurasian shift of populations. That is why Indians have such a huge East Eurasian shift. But we know from direct measurements that Europeans possess no or almost no ASI admixture but carry significant levels of ancient Mongoloid and/or an extinct race X admixture, that significantly decreases from the north to the south and less significantly decreases from the east to the west.Ah, I know little about how the PCA analysis was performed. Are you saying these genetic distances aren't absolute, or simply that they mask the nature (and time) of the admixture that might cause the relative positions? (A genuine question.)Non-formal admixture tests such as ADMIXTURE, STRUCTURE, PCA and MDS are prone to the distorting effects of linkage disequilibrium decay and drift and are not good at detecting ancient racial admixtures and their effects. The Pan-European East Eurasian shift is so ancient that its effects are only partially detected, if at all, by non-formal admixture tests. That is why you should use direct admixture measurements such as the ones performed by softwares like ADMIXTOOLS and TreeMix, which are much better at detecting ancient racial admixtures and their effects. ://gxgfdmhpt*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt* [url=://npaqqky*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*]npaqqky[/url] [link=://autopqeec*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*]autopqeec[/link]
by This is the question that's most innetesritg to me. These Asian-shifted folk mixed later with haplo R Amerindian-connected folk, and the result was descendants significantly shifted away from East Eurasians relative to them. This is precisely the rea
2015-10-16 Let's continue a<a ="://bhaabcz*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*"> ltltie</a> bit more...Another unsolved actually not researched pro*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt *m is origin of Turks and their homeland. For example according to Chinese chronicles Turks (the tribe that gives its name to all Turksih speaking people) once a time lived at the western side of western sea (Caspian?, Aral?) and migrated to eastern side of the western sea, migrated again 1000 li (app. 500km) northwest of Gaochang, ... and finally migrated to Altays, etc. It is clear Turk tribe come from western Asia, not from Khingan mountains.About local people of Kilikia, Anatolia, Caucaus, Syria, Iraq, Zagros, etc. everyone forget to mention Hurrians, Subarians, Hattians, etc. that absolutely not spoke an Indo-European or Semitic language. Ancient Armenia was just a continuum of Urartu/Hurrians. So maybe Armenians were just Armenianized Hurrians, if those non-Indo European, non-Semitic peoples did not evaporate.And Iran was from the very beginning under constant migration from central Asia. Iranist try to make us believe that all the central Asia, north of Black Sea, etc. settlements and steppes were full of civilized, settled and nomadic Iranian people, and Turks come from Eastern Asia 1500 years ago and in a century all the Iranians assimilated by a bunch of nomads?!? How could this be true? A<a ="://bhaabcz*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*"> ltltie</a> in number, socalled uncivilized people assimilated civilized, populous in number, setled people of Central Asia, partly Iran, Caucaus, Anatolia, etc.? (all are ancient civilizations)In summary no one take into consideration that before Indo-Iranians, Indo-Europeans, Semitics, etc. all those lands, all western Asia was homeland of non-Indo-European, non-Semitic people from China to Balkans. So if modern Turks are assimilated local indo-European and Semitic, etc. people then those local indo-European and Semitic, etc. people should be assimilated ancient non-Indo-European, non-Semitic people. Just consider this.Note: Dienekes, if you do not erase or prevent my comments, and consider my comments are worthy to read I want to write as I have free time. Regards,
by Let's continue a<a href="*http://*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*nemokami-zaidimai.lt*bhaabcz*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*"> ltltie</a> bit more...Another unsolved actually not researched pro*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt *m i
2015-10-16 Let's continue a<a ="://duumwhgjet*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*"> ltitle</a> bit more...Another unsolved actually not researched pro*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt *m is origin of Turks and their homeland. For example according to Chinese chronicles Turks (the tribe that gives its name to all Turksih speaking people) once a time lived at the western side of western sea (Caspian?, Aral?) and migrated to eastern side of the western sea, migrated again 1000 li (app. 500km) northwest of Gaochang, ... and finally migrated to Altays, etc. It is clear Turk tribe come from western Asia, not from Khingan mountains.About local people of Kilikia, Anatolia, Caucaus, Syria, Iraq, Zagros, etc. everyone forget to mention Hurrians, Subarians, Hattians, etc. that absolutely not spoke an Indo-European or Semitic language. Ancient Armenia was just a continuum of Urartu/Hurrians. So maybe Armenians were just Armenianized Hurrians, if those non-Indo European, non-Semitic peoples did not evaporate.And Iran was from the very beginning under constant migration from central Asia. Iranist try to make us believe that all the central Asia, north of Black Sea, etc. settlements and steppes were full of civilized, settled and nomadic Iranian people, and Turks come from Eastern Asia 1500 years ago and in a century all the Iranians assimilated by a bunch of nomads?!? How could this be true? A<a ="://duumwhgjet*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*"> ltitle</a> in number, socalled uncivilized people assimilated civilized, populous in number, setled people of Central Asia, partly Iran, Caucaus, Anatolia, etc.? (all are ancient civilizations)In summary no one take into consideration that before Indo-Iranians, Indo-Europeans, Semitics, etc. all those lands, all western Asia was homeland of non-Indo-European, non-Semitic people from China to Balkans. So if modern Turks are assimilated local indo-European and Semitic, etc. people then those local indo-European and Semitic, etc. people should be assimilated ancient non-Indo-European, non-Semitic people. Just consider this.Note: Dienekes, if you do not erase or prevent my comments, and consider my comments are worthy to read I want to write as I have free time. Regards,
by Let's continue a<a href="*http://*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*nemokami-zaidimai.lt*duumwhgjet*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*"> ltitle</a> bit more...Another unsolved actually not researched pro*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt *
2015-10-15 You are focusing on some rtaveile differences and mainly on intra-Caucasoid and intra-Mongoloid differences rather than the differences between Caucasoids and Mongoloids and ignoring the big picture. Cro-Magnons group with all other Caucasoids in craniometric analyses, while Native Americans group with other Mongoloids in detailed craniometric analyses.Well, back to the original point you made: that CM deviates in the direction of Mongoloids compared to classic Caucasoids, and that craniometric comparison should reveal the degree of deviation (and hence degree of admixture). The type also deviates in the direction of Negroids and Dravidians versus classic Caucasoids, and moreso than it does Mongoloids. Calling the type Mongoloid, as you do, is as (or, actually, more) presumptive as calling it Negroid or Dravidian.As I pointed out, not all Mongoloid groups are physically particularly close to each other. According to craniometric analyses, there is more physical variation between Mongoloid types than between Caucasoid types. This may explain the different effects of different Mongoloid types on the physical characteristics of Caucasoid groups in the cases of similar levels of total Mongoloid admixture.Maybe. But, again, it's pure presumption. Instead of making the same points again, I'll introduce a fresh one. Check out this spreadsheet (counterpart to the graph you showed me):s://docs.google*http://www.nemokami-zaidimai.lt*/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedERDdFNVVjY1NVMzdE9wTlJ6QlZKSHc#gid=2How Mongoloid are Indians? Barely any percentage. Just looking at the ordering of Burusho and Pathan vs Chuvash, for example, suggests to me that this is no clear-cut process. Indians are highly East Eurasian, but not very Mongoloid. But they attain a high percentage of Karitiana, even exceeding their E. Eurasian component. The point is, we need to start thinking outside of the box to explain these relations, and labelling it all 'Mongoloid' is as within-the-box as can be.I don't see any noticea*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt * difference between the average Briton and the average Hungarian on the level of their Mongoloid traits. It seems to me that only certain sub-groups of Hungarians possess more Mongoloid traits on average than Britons. But they seem to be in the minority in the total Hungarian population.This is of course consistent with a higher average in Hungarians. Let's say features manifest at X, and Hungarians on average are X minus 1. Britons are X minus 2. Obviously, deviation from Hungary's average is more likely to cross the boundary. Dienekes has already done thatI was talking about a statistic for all populations with SSA taken into account. The figures seem very sensitive to SSA ancestry. Observe the CEU's position versus the Britons it usually clusters with. CEU is below all NW European populations features. Why? Presuma*nemokami zaidimai -geriausi*y a 0.2% presence of SSA. And, obviously, the massive negative scores for ~10% SSA-admixed populations (that at K3 also have E. Eurasian admixture too) are worth consideration. Also compare the SSA-admixed Makrani with non-SSA-admixed sister populations.
by You are focusing on some rtaveile differences and mainly on intra-Caucasoid and intra-Mongoloid differences rather than the differences between Caucasoids and Mongoloids and ignoring the big picture. Cro-Magnons group with all other Caucasoids in craniome
2015-10-15 This is the question that's most inteiestrng to me. These Asian-shifted folk mixed later with haplo R Amerindian-connected folk, and the result was descendants significantly shifted away from East Eurasians relative to them. This is precisely the reason I'd refrain from any discrete conclusion on the matter. It's an open mystery.You are ignoring the large-scale migration of the Sardinian-like Neolithic folk to all over Europe between the Mesolithic era and times of the migration of the Y-haplogroup R bearing folk. They apparently had a huge impact on the overall genetic landscape of Europe. Also, you are ignoring that the Y-haplogroup R bearing folk significantly admixed with the West Eurasian Neolithic folk, as they largely took their wives from the locals during their migrations, thus significantly diluted their own original autosomal genetics (more in the south than in the north).Western Europeans have connections with the Pathan people. Only about half of the South Asian component is ASI, so if you halve the amount of South Asian in Pathan at K7 and add the small amounts of Siberian (they have no East Asian), then I generously round it to 20%. But they're 35% Karitiana. This suggests that at least some of the 'Karitiana' in Western Europeans is of the same (unknown) nature as is found in the Pathan.No, ASI is the major element in the makeup of the "South Asian" component, its ANI or Caucasoid part as a whole being the minor element. Anyway, if you are going to calculate the overall Mongoloid or overall ASI ancestry of a population, you should stop using results of ADMIXTURE, which has pro*myliu nemokami-zaidimai.lt *ms in detecting ancient racial admixtures and their effects (see below), as proxy, but should instead use direct measurements such as the ones performed by softwares like ADMIXTOOLS. Pathans possess about 20% ASI admixture and obviously possess more Mongoloid admixture than detected by ADMIXTURE. As I pointed out previously, the East Eurasian shift in South Asians and South Asian-admixed populations in Central and West Asia certainly only partially Mongoloid-related, the rest being ASI related. ASI, because of being genetically closer to Mongoloids than to Caucasoids, have a positive effect on the East Eurasian shift of populations. That is why Indians have such a huge East Eurasian shift. But we know from direct measurements that Europeans possess no or almost no ASI admixture but carry significant levels of ancient Mongoloid and/or an extinct race X admixture, that significantly decreases from the north to the south and less significantly decreases from the east to the west.Ah, I know little about how the PCA analysis was performed. Are you saying these genetic distances aren't absolute, or simply that they mask the nature (and time) of the admixture that might cause the relative positions? (A genuine question.)Non-formal admixture tests such as ADMIXTURE, STRUCTURE, PCA and MDS are prone to the distorting effects of linkage disequilibrium decay and drift and are not good at detecting ancient racial admixtures and their effects. The Pan-European East Eurasian shift is so ancient that its effects are only partially detected, if at all, by non-formal admixture tests. That is why you should use direct admixture measurements such as the ones performed by softwares like ADMIXTOOLS and TreeMix, which are much better at detecting ancient racial admixtures and their effects.
by This is the question that's most inteiestrng to me. These Asian-shifted folk mixed later with haplo R Amerindian-connected folk, and the result was descendants significantly shifted away from East Eurasians relative to them. This is precisely the rea
2012-06-12 viskas atitinka ka raso
by laris
2011-11-10 pritariu su viskuom kas tai pasakyta, tokia ir esu.:)
by Toma
2011-06-26 nesamones vaiku zaidimai visu pirma turi buti seima
by byba
2010-08-24 del draugu tai tiesa manes namie nebuna taj seima man arestus duoda... del draugu... ;DD
by Laura
2010-05-08 del sekso ir seimos tikra nesamone:)
by vandene
2010-04-27 nenusnekekit vandenei netuokie
by ruta
2010-03-29 1-2 sakyčiau labiausiai mane atitinką. ;)
by Odeta
2009-12-17 Man tinka tik 9 :D o jums kaip 9? Sex nekalbu, bet irgi tinka !!!
by brymbrymkamile
2009-07-04 Tikrai taip ir yra su viskuo sutinku :)
by Neringa
2009-03-11 cystai taip :D na tik su seima biski gal nea, bet siaip tip tpo
by naglas
2009-02-26 jo...tiesa.del 7 galima gincitis.mano vandenis is lovos manes nepaleidziai;DD
by katė
2009-01-02 viskas apsioliuciai atitinka
by as
2008-12-19 apie seima tiko pries pora metu bet dabar jau nebe...
by lina
2008-12-08 joa ten su seima suspangta biski, bet seip visai atitinka :)
by Ieva
2008-08-30 gryna tiesa..isskyrus tenaj neasm kur su ta sejma...
by ericoti;*
2008-08-19 ne sexsas man galvoi
by slapta
2008-07-28 Na didzioji dalis tiesa, bet su seima ir draugais tai ne tiesa.
by Vandeniuke
2008-07-19 tikra tiesa:D bent jau apie mane
by pusiukas
2008-06-19 apie sexa sawsiem pro sali
by Duality
2008-05-19 viskas teisingai tik su seima nelabai :)
by Synca
2008-05-17 bfgbdfbgcbnvngf
by Kestas
2008-05-08 Truputi neksamonke dbl o jus tikit bl dx
by by ne jusu reikaslas
2008-04-17 SU KAIKURIAIS DALYKAIS VISISKAI NESUTINKU
by NIKAS
2008-04-15 beveik viskas atitinka,lb patiko 5
by jolacka
2008-03-29 o man 5as patinka kazkuo:p
by gintare
2008-03-21 PIRMA DRAUGAI TADA SEIMA!!! FAKTASSSSS
by vandenis
2008-03-04 man seima buvo ir bus pirmoj vietoj !!!!!!! jos i nieka neiskeisciau!!!!!!! myliu savo seima !!!!! tikriausiai ir jusu seima pirmoj vietoj?o jei ne tai tu nemyli tikriausiai savo seimos nes negalibut kad drauhgai tau pirmoj vietoj :)
by :)) juokutis:))
2008-02-24 seima swarbniau nei draugaj
by .
2008-02-24 netiesa p[irma seima tada draugaio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
by vandenis
2008-02-19 nuobodu =(
by baba
2008-02-19 nekisk arunai sudu !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by sudas
2008-02-13 neskaisciau!!!!!:)
by karooliuks

Tavo komentaras:
Vardas*:
Komentaras*:
(jei negalite perskaityti apsaugos kodo, tiesiog atnaujinkite puslapį F5 pagalba)
Apsaugos kodas*:
* - privalomi laukai !


Naujienos el. paštu
Įvesk savo el. paštą ir gauk informaciją apie naujausius žaidimus.


Draugai