h a l f b a k e r yEureka! Keeping naked people off the streets since 1999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
People don't like history for one reason: powdered wigs.
That
and subjects that pose like the one shown in the first
link.
I know stories are often lifted from history and retold in
modern settings but this is a bit different. These are
dramatized
documentaries that simply remove the distracting,
un-
important time specific elements from the story and put
them in a more relatable modern atmosphere.
The title
of the episode would be the name of the historical figure
being dramatized and modernized. "Voltaire", "Galileo",
"Da Vinci" etc. Yes, it would be challenging to tell Da
Vinci's story with modern technology so this would take a
little bit of creativity but it could be done.
It's the stories of some of these figures from history that
are
timeless. Isolate them, focus on them. Besides, don't we
study history to apply the lessons to our own times?
Lose the goofy wigs and puffy pants and get to the point.
Replace this...
https://en.wikipedi...Voltaire-Baquoy.gif
[doctorremulac3, Nov 29 2019]
...with this.
https://images.app....l/xRRb1ubX2AKVHc5n9
[doctorremulac3, Nov 29 2019]
The Wig Interpretation
https://www.histori...retation-of-history
and Butterfield [pertinax, Nov 29 2019]
Stupid Deaths
https://www.youtube...watch?v=LlIe1Ixtgo0
learn about history / develop a taste for the blackly comic [calum, Nov 29 2019]
Sex up history
sex_20up_20history
[Voice, Dec 01 2019]
[link]
|
| |
A hair-brained scheme indeed ... [+] |
|
| |
Some people *do* like history, and those who don't, don't
because it makes them think outside the environment they're
familiar with. Showing history without its strangeness is like
showing physics without the maths; you may create a brief
entertainment, but you will be promoting the opposite of
understanding. |
|
| |
As Herbert Butterfield wrote*, 'The central question of history is
"What the fuck were they thinking?"' (See link.) |
|
| |
You have no chance of answering this if you think the only
difference between then and now was wigs. |
|
| |
*or rather, as he would have written if he had lived a hundred
years later and had a completely different personality. |
|
| |
//You have no chance of answering this if you
think the only difference between then and now was
wigs.// |
|
| |
Respectfully, I think if somebody thinks wigs have
anything to do with history they have no chance of
understanding the main points of the stories. |
|
| |
those clever people would just look stuff up on google. |
|
| |
not Da Vinci, he was a genius. don't you think that wigs are part of the history? |
|
| |
//don't you think that wigs are part of the history?// |
|
| |
Well, just as much as shoes and belts but I think they
aren't the interesting part of the story. |
|
| |
You know, I'll take this a step further. |
|
| |
A cartoon version based in school where these
historical figures are re-created in a setting that
kids can relate to. That might be the better way to
approach this. |
|
| |
And nobody, I mean NOBODY can say kids are into
history. I know, I went to school for a few years
and saw that it's taught in this fashion: |
|
| |
"In (some year) a group of (some people) did (some
stuff) in response to (some other stuff that some
other people did) that resulted in (a piece of
paper) that led to some other crap that led to a
bunch of people killing the first group. Now class,
can anybody tell me what year that piece of paper
was nailed to the forehead of (some person)???
Anybody? The year this happened.. anybody at all?
I'll give you a hint, it was titled the (some weird
Frenchy sounding thing) or Du vasquat le monaje
que fate'. The du vasquat le monage que fate' was
nailed to what forehead? Anybody? Anybody at all?
Ok, that's enough for today's lesson." |
|
| |
As far as removing the wig, it will keep kids from
seeing a picture of Voltaire and saying "Who's this
douchbag? And what's with the goofy pantaloons?". |
|
| |
The BBC children's television programme - and the book
series from whence it came - called Horrible Histories are very
popular with kids in the UK because, although they keep the
wigs and the costumes and so on, they tell the stories and
impart the facts in an engaging (usually funny) way. It has a
segment called "Stupid deaths" which is *chef's kiss*. |
|
| |
That's absolutely brilliant. |
|
| |
See? History can be entertaining, not just a list of zero
context meaningless events and dates. |
|
| |
The guy playing death is my hero. Philosopher and
academic = work shy layabout. |
|
| |
Plus the way he patiently waits for the point of the story
while fighting back his clear disdain for the story teller. |
|
| |
Might be one of my favorite fictional characters of all
time. |
|
| |
Death is well known to be an ANTHROPOMORPHIC PERSONIFICATION, as he describes himself in Terry Pratchett's works. |
|
| |
There's nothing //timeless// about the second photo linked. |
|
| |
Its very late-twenty-teens. |
|
| |
The mere mention of hair brings Trump to mind. Just be glad
those historical figures in whigs didn't have hair-dont's like
The Donald. Be very glad indeed. |
|
| |
// Showing history without its strangeness is like showing
physics without the maths; you may create a brief
entertainment, but you will be promoting the opposite of
understanding.// |
|
| |
I couldn't possibly agree less. There are many vitally
important lessons in history that are extremely relatable and
relevant regardless of the immediate social contexts. The
hubris of an number of kings, the rebellions of peoples,
slavery in its ancient contexts, the discovery of new metals
and how it changed societies... Whether they were wearing
puffy collars or monks robes is completely irrelevant to the
important parts of these stories. And so is whether the metal
was copper, bronze, or germanium. |
|
| |
// many vitally important lessons in history // |
|
| |
Actually, just one; "Never trust the french". |
|
| |
... but hubris, to take one example, is not invariant over time and,
though continual, is not continuous. To suppose that cultural
change is purely a function of material change, and never the
other way around, is one of the errors of Marxism, [doc], so I'm a
little surprised to see you and [Voice] falling into it. |
|
| |
Well, I think you might be overthinking this a bit. |
|
| |
Stories get retold with changes in characters,
situations, timeframes all the time. This is nothing
more than a costume and set change. Romeo and
Juliet was probably the inspiration behind West
Side Story for instance. The didn't have the gal
stab herself because they
wanted to get credit for writing something new,
but I'm sure West Side Story was a progeny of
Romeo and Juliet. |
|
| |
The thing that's intriquing about the example I
used, Voltaire, isn't his dress, the food he ate or
the specific groups he interacted with, it was the
original thinking he applied to the challenges of his
time. That original thinking can be clearly
illustrated with different clothing, a different
setting in a different era. He doesn't have to be
dealing with the church of his time with his
writings, it could be a modern church with the
same issues. In fact, lifting the main facts from
one story and putting them in another might help
to clarify them. |
|
| |
This is so common in story telling that I need to
point out again, the main thing this would do is
tell the history without the un-important clothing
and settings of the time. |
|
| |
In fact, if done well, a person seeing the story of
Capernicus who never heard of the actual
astronomer would be able to recount the trials,
tribulations and victories he went through and
probably relate to them more because they're put
in a setting familiar to the viewer. |
|
| |
I think there could be some merit to that. |
|
| |
^ The song remains the same. |
|
| |
//Showing history without its strangeness is like showing physics without the maths; you may create a brief entertainment, but you will be promoting the opposite of understanding.// |
|
| |
I also totally disagree. Knowledge itself should be taught in whatever form an individual mind learns.
Yes.
But without the weirdness involved you've painted an antiseptic picture or unattainable ideal that does not exist.
Those ancient folks went through the same shit our teens are dealing with, and the truth itself has been actively un-written by those who can not do.
The un-known is fearful. "They" attack what they fear. |
|
| |
"They"... need not stay "they", but can become "us". |
|
| |
//To suppose that cultural change is purely a function of
material change, and never the other way around, is one of
the errors// |
|
| |
I can see how it's an error. |
|
| |
so irrelevant to the argument it's not even wrong. |
|
| |
My point is that which precise technology was in play at the
time doesn't change the lessons we can learn, except as
relates to that specific technology. The fall of Sparta is
interesting not because of the intricacies of and
advancements in phalanx combat or the kind of sandals they
wore. (unless you're a military historian or trying to wring
every last possible lesson out of it, in which case you care
about every detail regardless) It's most useful as a study in
how military power can be over-emphasized to its own
detriment. That second lesson is useful to this day, as are
many other possible lessons from that series of events. |
|
| |
Lessons directly related to the fashions of the day, or the
food, or the language are interesting and useful for their
purposes, but the more intense your focus on any one aspect
the more distant you get from the lessons that are the most
useful. |
|
| |
//Those ancient folks went through the same shit our
teens are dealing with// |
|
| |
Nope. Substantially different shit. |
|
| |
I know many people will find this difficult to believe, but
the concept of "teenager" didn't really exist before the
twentieth century and, even in the twentieth century,
there were some people old enough to remember when it
wasn't a thing. |
|
| |
Somewhere on YouTube, there's a video of Michael
Parkinson making this point in one of his interviews of
celebrities. |
|
| |
Also, celebrities weren't a thing before the twentieth
century either, and some of the crassest popularisations
of history I've seen have been where people narrated as if
they were. For details on this, see Clive James on
"Twentieth Century Fame". |
|
| |
//Nope. Substantially different shit.// |
|
| |
Okay... so some radically new shit too, but what I meant is all of the mental issues dealt with today were experienced by others throughout history they just hadn't been named yet. |
|
| |
Things like autism, anxiety, tourettes, aspergers, etc. etc. |
|
| |
That kids were considered adult at much younger ages back then doesn't detract from the fact that our minds themselves haven't changed a whole lot other than learned behavior.
If you went back in time, scooped up one of those kids at birth and raised them modern I doubt that they would differ much from modern teens. |
|
| |
Regrettably, the manufacturers have done little or nothing to upgrade the Mk. I Human recently. Frequent complaints have been unavailing; indeed, not only are their no upgrades, but no product documentation or spare parts either. Vociferous complaints are either ignored, or the suppliers have gone out of business, or "That model is no longer produced and support has been discontinued. Thankyou for your enquiry". |
|
| |
Are you kidding?? There are two girls in China who have been genetically modified. There are many companies openly working on direct brain augmentation. The US military (along with other militaries) has augmented soldiers explicitly in its long-term plans. Wearables are more popular than ever. |
|
| |
I know we're not up to the standards of the Collective yet, but at this rate we'll BE a collective by 2381 |
|
| |
Why wait? Today's Cyber Monday... come on, you know you want it... |
|
| |
I think once we get over the whole "oh no, we mustn't tinker"
idea, things will progress quite quickly. We already have a
good idea of which genetic variants offer protection against
Alzheimer's, heart disease and a host of other things - and
these are all existing variants that play nicely with the rest of
the genome. |
|
| |
So, the first widely-available upgrades will be based on the
"best" naturally-occurring alleles. Designing new firmware is a
harder call. |
|
| |
Like any science, it can take us in good or bad directions.
I think the whole fear of genetically lab enhanced people
comes from the question "Will they be nice to the rest of
us?". |
|
| |
If all of them have 200 IQs, are better looking than any
off-the-shelf human supermodel and on top of that can
destroy us in any physical endeavor, well, when we go to
them for a job interview would they just look at us and
say "We've got rubber doorstops now, we don't need a
"human" to do it." |
|
| |
And I bet they'd use air-quotes when referring to us as
"hu"-"mans". I hate these bastards already! Where's my
pitchfork and torch? I'm pissed! |
|
| |
For instance, you probably have an elderly relative who has
kept their mental faculties into their 80s or 90s. Had the
genetic lottery turned out different, you could have
inherited those alleles and kept all your marbles to the end.
Or maybe great uncle Joe chain-smoked unfiltered
cigarettes from the age of 12, and died from being hit by a
bus whilst running a marathon at the age of 83. You could
be him*. |
|
| |
Alternatively, there's your cousin Mikey who never smoked
but still died of lung cancer at 48; and your aunt Joan who
suffered from early-onset Alzheimers from the age of 52.
Maybe you'd like to be a little less like them? |
|
| |
Serious enhancements will take a good few decades to
become available, because right now we know squat about
how to make them. But, in the meantime, wouldn't you like
to be able to ditch the worst gene variants that are
swimming in your gene pool, and maybe acquire a few of
the best traits of your ancestors? |
|
| |
(*I'm pretty sure [8th] can drive a bus.) |
|
| |
We can. Right over you, Laughing Boy... |
|
| |
// "Will they be nice to the rest of us?". // |
|
| |
No. Any more easy questions ? |
|
| |
// And I bet they'd use air-quotes when referring to us as "hu"-"mans". I hate these bastards already! Where's my pitchfork and torch? // |
|
| |
Oh dear ... no, it's flaming torch OR agricultural implement. Why do they always get it wrong. Look, this is how it works. You gather a mob of mouth-breathing dolts, and separate out the slightly less stupid ones. Tyo these, you issue the torches, with instructions to (a) ony light one* at a time, and (b) light another when the first one is about to burn out.
The rest get a pitchfork, scythe, rake, hoe or billhook. These share the common property that they require the use of both hands for proper operation, particularly as a weapon. |
|
| |
Then, and only then, do you climb on to a convenient** table, strike a suitably dramatic pose, and (making sure you are pointing in the right direction) declaim "What are we wating for, friends? To the {Castle/Manor/Smuggler's Cave/Docks/Abbey}*** !" |
|
| |
If you've done it right, they'll all rush off shouting "Rhubarb ! Rhubarb! " to attack the designated target, and you can sit and have a quiet pint and then stroll along later (when most of the hard work and rushing about has been done, and the villain has been cornered) for the denoument and generally All Living Happily Ever After. |
|
| |
We presume you mean that in the U.S. sense of "I'm a trifle miffed, old boy". |
|
| |
*The intellectual ones can usually count up to one. |
|
| |
** Convenient, not convent. It's not that sort of movie (unfortunately). |
|
| |
***Delete where not applicable. |
|
| |
Well Max, we're arguing about whether fire can heat a
house or burn it down. |
|
| |
I'm all for research and application of this science of
course. I also understand that it's a branch of medicine
that could change the lives of countess millions for the
better. |
|
| |
I also understand that there's no real impediment to the
science fiction "super man" that might have some issues
too. Are supermen good? Well, OK I guess. Will they keep
us as pets? Will they decide the dummies who made them
are polluting the environment too much to keep alive? |
|
| |
That's the question: will they be nice? If so, why? |
|
| |
I'm an off the shelf model, so I have no clue. |
|
| |
But know what? THEY probably do. (taps forehead) |
|
| |
If I were forced to guess, like strapped to one of these
horrible replicant's brain scan tables and forced to talk,
I'd
say "There seems to be a trend to be nicer if you're
smarter, empathy seems to correlate with higher IQ
GENERALLY but that's the natural progression of things."
But what if somebody decides to make some super IQ /
mega high
testosterone level hybrid? Like half jock / half math nerd?
Not even a little scared of that? |
|
| |
He'd walk up to some latter day Einstein's desk, laugh at
his comparatively weak scientific paper and give him a
wedgie. |
|
| |
Well, yes. At some point (very soon, in the great scheme of
things) humans will become very, very different from what
we are now - we're talking several million years of evolution
in a few centuries, to begin with. Then things will start to
really take off. |
|
| |
However, it's safe to say that 99.9% of humans will be base
models for the next few decades at least; and the 0.1% will
just be ordinary people who are as healthy as the healthiest
people around today. |
|
| |
One of my company's long-term goals is "prophylactic
genome editing" - making edits to prevent disease rather
than to treat it. I figure the odds of this being implemented
within my lifetime are about 20%, even if the tech works
out OK. For now, I can make you fluorescent green if you
really want. |
|
| |
// But what if somebody decides to make some super IQ / mega high testosterone level hybrid? Like half jock / half math nerd? Not even a little scared of that? // |
|
| |
He's called Professor Brian Cox, and he's more deserving of pity than condemnation. |
|
| |
I trust you guys, I don't trust certain governments and
what they might do with this. There I said it. |
|
| |
You know how we'd get a superman that can destroy us
all? If a nasty but powerful nation said "Hey scientists, get
to work on a superman that can destroy us all.". |
|
| |
That being said, sounds like you guys are at the forefront
of the battle against disease and suffering so good for
you. Very cool. |
|
| |
<Takes pity on [doc] due to elaborate virtuosity of special pleading/> |
|
| |
Here, you can have these torches, and this small and rather blunt sickle to carry too, if it means so much to you. But no matches. Matches are only for Grown-Ups. That's one of the Rules. Now, have you got a clean hanky ? Are your shoe laces tied ? No, you can't riot properly if your laces aren't done up. It's another one of the Rules. |
|
| |
Just stand there and shuffle your feet and mutter "Rhubarb, rhubarb" until [MB] gets up on the table to do the speech. |
|
| |
We're still speaking English right? Did I miss a memo? |
|
| |
//That's the question: will they be nice? If so, why?// |
|
| |
Because you are our parents, grandparents, siblings and children still for many generations during the change, while love itself doesn't change one whit. |
|
| |
What about the impact on sports? |
|
| |
Here's why we love sports: They're the antithesis of
something
horrible we all need to contend with. Every day
mediocre
people in positions of power due to autocratic
systems,
elitist connections and rich parents make us shake
our
heads with how incredibly stupid they can be and
how
adversely they effect our society, but it's a fact of
life.
Like cancer or sitcom laugh-tracks, we just deal
with it. |
|
| |
But then there's the great nobility of the sports
star. The
guy whose parents were teachers or plumbers,
truck
drivers or construction workers who would wake
up early
every weekend to take their little kid to practice
or to the
park to work on his throwing arm. Hard working
folks who'd scrape up what little
money they had to put him into Little League or
Pee Wee
Football just so their child could have a chance at
reaching
for the big dream. And although the odds are
extremely
low, those young people from all walks of life,
from the
suburbs, from the ghettos, from farms and factory
towns
rise to the top to become the people's royalty
every day.
Actual
heroes who earned their status, not inbred
autocrats
whose great great grandfather did something in
1860
whatever. |
|
| |
Want proof that this is the great people's
meritocracy? Name one instance where the rich
and powerful owner of a football team put his kid
in as quarterback of the team he owns. You won't
find one because it doesn't work that way. Let that
sink in for a second. |
|
| |
Now enter the genetically modified athlete. Game
over.
We
get to watch a bunch of test tube animals who
never
earned their excellence, they just had a cell
jabbed with
the right allele. |
|
| |
So Max, again with the fire analogy, you're heating
homes
in the winter and doing great things for the human
family,
your work has nothing to to with my complaints
about
somebody possibly throwing molotov cocktails
through
people's windows. Fire good... unless bad people are in
charge of it. Any big step in evolution (and
that's
what this is) bears some critical review. Un-
intended
consequences are a big factor in life. |
|
| |
How about some review and regulation? For
instance, I'm
not crazy about crossing some other species with a
human. I believe that's already been addressed but
there
seems to be an agreed upon line there no? |
|
| |
No. For example, lawyers appear to be the result of cross-breeding humans with some species of arachnid (venomous, dissolve their prey from the inside ) or possibly constricting snakes (cold blooded ambush predators which slowly crush their victims before swallowing them whole). |
|
| |
And most career politicians have many of the same genes as baboons, or howler monkeys. |
|
| |
No matter what legal checks and balances are put in place, if someone sees the opportunity to gain money or power by doing it, it will be done. The technology is ubiquitous, small-scale, and uncontrollable. It only takes one deranged maniac in a backroom lab to mutter "The fools ! I'll kill them all !! " and cross Ebola with the common cold, then make themselves ibto an asymptomatic carrier and go on a tour of the planet's air terminsls to end it all for your species. |
|
| |
Yea, but lawyers provide a valuable... uh... hmm. Oh! They
do
help society by.... uhhhh... |
|
| |
No, go on ... it was just getting really interesting. |
|
| |
OK, "The Cannibal Lawyers" would make a great punk rock
band name. |
|
| |
We were hoping for something more along the lines of "If xenotransplantation could be perfected, lawyers could be a useful source of spare parts both for humans, and for animal species endangered in their wild environment" but realistically a band name is probably the best that's achievable. |
|
| |
See? I like to think everybody can contribute something to
society, be it spare parts or a funny name for a band. |
|
| |
//I don't trust certain governments and what they might do
with this.// I'm shocked and horrified, [doc]. Fortunately,
I can confidently say that governments are sufficiently
nonept for this not to be a big problem - by the time they
have (a) figured out that you could create an army of
superhuman human-dogs with laser eyes, (b) assigned a
budget to do it (c) recruited the necessary people, who will
want eye-watering salaries and (d) redesigned their super-
secret gubment facility several times until they get it right,
the world will have moved on and companies like Microsoft
and Google will have created armies of human-dog laser-
eye-resistant warriors. |
|
| |
Even when it comes to good old-fashioned biological
warfare, gubments are usually quite a few decades behind
the curve. |
|
| |
There are hopes that the Royal Aircraft Establishment's report on the possible military applications of the horse-drawn Montgolfier aerostat may be available very soon. |
|
| |
But they are just hopes, not prospects. |
|
| |
In the meantime, [doc], I can get you a good price for a
kidney. |
|
| |
Depends - how many you got at the moment? |
|
| |
I've only got legal ownership of two currently but I'm using
them. |
|
| |
But hey, make me an offer. |
|
| |
Well, if you've already got two I sure wouldn't try to sell you
third. Obviously, a matched pair will command a higher price
than a singleton, especially if they're in good condition. Your
best option, really, is to sell them as a pair and then buy
yourself a cheap singleton for a good price. |
|
| |
Roughly how many gallons have you put on them from new? |
|
| |
// I sure wouldn't try to sell you third. // |
|
| |
No, you leave that sort of shabby mountebankery to your relatives, don't you, Mister Squeaky Clean ? Yes, we've had a look in that old freezer hidden behind the stuffed hippopotamous collection in the Fourth Reserve Rhubarb Shed, so we know whereof we speak. Your family have raised "unprincipled" to a whole new level. |
|
| |
Offer to trade him his two used ones for one of [xenzag]'s - vegan teeetotaller, excellent condition ... |
|
| |
//shabby mountebankery// Come come - I won't stand for
"shabby". "Underhand" is a little more acceptable, implying as
it does a certain degree of cunning. I'm also quite happy with
"Skullduggery", which has a sort of romantic charm. |
|
| |
//Roughly how many gallons have you put on them
from new?// |
|
| |
Although I haven't drank for many years now, I started
drinking when I was about 12 or 13 and was a very heavy
drinker by
about 15 or 16. In other words, a lot. |
|
| |
At a party many years ago I just didn't finish my 3rd
beer of the night. Halfway through I looked at it and
thought "I don't want this anymore." and poured it out.
Haven't had one since. Crazy eh? |
|
| |
That is, indeed, crazy. Well, with that history, I think we
might be able to market yours as a "barn find", or possibly a
"with character" or "pre-loved" tag. |
|
| |
"Suit enthusiastic restorer" ? |
|
| |
// I'm also quite happy with "Skullduggery", which has a sort of romantic charm. // |
|
| |
Considering the reputation for privateering (going back many centuries) and the well- substantiated accusations of downright piracy (starting in the 16th century and continuing up to, well, about yesterday afternoon) that your family has, "romantic charm" is a bit like a bijou trellis of briar roses around the doorway of an abbatoir. |
|
| |
// reputation for privateering// It's not a "reputation", it's
a profession. It's hardly our fault that the political climate
has changed underneath our feet, nor that modern
legislation has placed so many of our family traditions
outside the law. |
|
| |
There was a time when capturing a few Spanish ships,
occupying a large part of South America or converting a
couple of archipelagos into rubber plantations would have
earned us nothing but praise (and money, obvs). But
nowadays the world is run by vegetarians and box-tickers.
Fortunately, this is only a temporary aberration and the
Buchanans are ready to ride it out. We came through the
last ice age, which was longer and tougher. |
|
| |
How about just having the wigs with voiceover,
then people try to guess who the person/people
are? |
|
| |
OK - what did I miss? My rant was interrupted by having to
spend as week on a project in death-march mode, and I'm
squeezing this in just before boarding a flight for somewhere
remote, unsanitary and potentially violent. |
|
| |
[2 fries], good point, maybe physics/maths made a bad analogy. |
|
| |
But, [dr3], simplifying history to convey "the important lessons"
is a short, straight route to confirmation bias. For example ...
damn: my flight! |
|
| |
But the wigs have nothing to do with the US breaking off
from the UK so for instance, tell the story with no wigs.
Hell, have them all wearing 1950s slick back Elvis hairdos
on both sides. |
|
| |
Have Brylcreem sponsor it. |
|
| |
Has the story lost anything? Good, let's move on to the
pants. Levis. Horse drawn carriages = the new Ford
Mustang. Think Washington would have driven a Japanese
import? Think again. |
|
| |
OK, let's compromise. Everything can be all old timey but
every once in a while you see a modern product stuck in
there to finance these boring history lessons. Kids would
pay attention just to be able to say "Hey! Lincoln is using
the new Schick Hydro 5 Sensitive Skin Razor system to
shave off his beard!" |
|
| |