Do you like being different? Of course, its dependent in what sense and what sort of 'different' I am talking about. But being different, is like a double-edged candy bar which tastes sour at one end and sweet at the other. It might even be poison and estacy for some.

The good side of being different refers to the ones that are exclusive. The elites in society, the highest class in the game, with respect to a capability or a factor that makes you different from the rest. Perhaps your talented in a certain aspect, or have a gift in a certain area. Sure, there are the exceptions, but mostly, being different here means your better then the others. (In that field, of course. But it would be more apt for me to leave the statement at the fullstop) This difference can naturally lead to arrogance and assumption of a know-it-all persona. Snobbery or sympathtical equivalents (emotion) towards the commoners who are the same lot.

A good sort of 'being different thing' also seems to works in the world today. The crap about creativity. As in 'think out of the box'. 'If things don't work, don't try harder. Try a different way'. Being different is respected to some extent there.

Then theres the 'different' that is not desired by the individual. Perception matters here, and the equation is a chemistry of passion, gift/curse, knowledge and stigma. In both ways and all angles, its just a take away of whether people would appreciate your difference. They might do it to a high degree (atmost respect), don't give a damn (don't give a damn) or have negetive feelings towards you (hate you and want to kill you or something) In all aspects, the question of right or wrong gets into a jumbled mess of frayed wires who end up trying to assume its own persona but forgets its lines and get confused when its monologue comes in. And then the obvious, common sensical stuff that follows up from this point that I shall not waste time to elaborate on.

"Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder"
A statement that seemingly depicts encouragement, but it actually pokes itself quite deep into the depths of perceptions. Of course, there are the foundations that have become ready-made and that have evolved into camps that make neutral standing in declaration. Yeah, its true. At least the concept behind it is. The factuality of it has been influenced by the camps that rally up the biggest populations, but in any case, it is up to the beholder to decide.

The second window. Whining misgives, but in actuality...
Humans are well-known strange creatures. A popular concept goes something like we're the only creatures who do things by the most reason but also the ones who do things for no reason at all. Or even, reasons that it doesn't know about. I refer now to the class that is different in some way, and because of that way, execute an expected (negetive)emotion, but, in secret or deep down inside him/her, enjoy being different. Why so? Simple reasons like recognition, attention, symphaty, a take-advantagy position etc. Its a 'use the power of your bankrupcy' law that scales down a bit depending on who the law is applied by. It could be emotional pain that one is going through, the person gets a 'shoikness' from when others show concern about it. It could be a certain knowledge you have that makes it a 'burden' for you, (think Frodo) but not to say you won't boast about the ring... and get a kick out of people's jealousy, symphaty and awe at you. Also, say you carry more experience and therefore have to take up the sword and make the decesion, and from here, let's wonder why kids always like to daydream to be main character-type heroes.

I'd also talk about reasons for those misgives, but thats actually...
A different story.

-------------

A week Zone.
At least manage to bloody keep it for a week.

As in, what is it?
Different people have different concepts to what it means, different classes hold different resistances to the different sorts of elements. Some things seem to hurt others more than themsevles. And things that seem probaly harmless to someone, becomes a big deal to another soul. A emotional break-up equates to a melodrama for a camp, the other house thinks that there is nothing shallow to it.

Once again. Its perception at work. Its differences at play. They work together to promote conflict; they whisper consequence and then demonstrate its wrath.
Beyond the exceptions where pain is acknowledge as definately existant, we can enter a realm to see the thresholes and immunities that we partake, when facing the world. Such on a large scale become a range. Different extents of how much suffering is felt when the pain is executed, takes stage. And then, how the response is returned as well.

The conversation between the man wanting the jump of the cliff and Rhue, from The Way comes to mind. Basically, Rhue is angered when the former comments that to die for the sake of a lost love was something shallow. But he himself, was not in a better situation as well. As much as Rhue was in a constant fit of angoy due to his lost of his girlfriend, this fellow was actually commiting suicide for another cause that might not be a big thing to Rhue in the first place.

"How childish."
We can quote that to anyone. Anyone can say it to anyone. Why cry for the sake of such a stupid reason? Why get vengeful for such a superficial reason? Those who assume awareness of an afterlife or believe in a 'just live and heck with it' theory (well, basically it is that way, when you put aside the mumbo jumbo. Fine, I'm caught in illusion) might just shurg off the death of their same kin and not take it as hard as the others who find them 'cold and emotionless', or perhaps, 'enlightened'. It remains that anyone can mock a 'pain' felt by a person by simply discouting the extent of how bad it is through his own worse experience, or treat the condition with apahty because of a knowledge he assumes. Of course, there would be a degree of respect that he presents to the onlooker or victim, depending on how much a nice guy he is and to what extent he finds the pain pointless.

Maturity doesn't mean you can digest harder pain.(Lets not waste time defining 'hard' again) Many would realise this by now. Perhaps maturity in the sense by which it transcends in specifict fields, but then again, its not a 'get sick once, second time will have better resistance' thing. For some stuff, the picture can repeat itself in many colours. But theres simple logic in that when you've 'been through it' you'd handle it better.

Well.
In eventuality. Poison's poison.

I don't feel like writing much now. Like another blogger had said, whats the point of putting the words down when your just throwing up the stuff while you already know it, and when no one really cares?

No point.

-----------
Yeap. I broke the post hiatus. Don't care.
This time, I announce post hiatus again.....
And will probaly keep it for world-related reasons.

Ahem.

@#$% to the post hiatus for awhile.

Not that I'm having free time or anything, life now is getting like so packed that I miss boredom. (Well, I guess I don't experience boredom much anyway) Its sad to the extent that I don't know whether to feel pressured, fustrated, confused or amused. It is pretty hilarious anyway. And easy to laugh at.

I shall rant about the portal that looms beyond the void of acceptance. 'Acceptance' can be measured within styles and standards relative to the personas controling the circumstances that necessity orders to abide. But that, is not something that everyone desires to meet with. As the matter is objective, arguements to how big the galaxy really is concerns this matter of acceptance. But theres a pretty obvious concensus, and a large pie chart majority drawn with the bell curves and statistical bullshit. Like the previous laughter, this guy is easily a professional joker as well.

Example. In terms of morality, we could just be nice and keep our bearings right. Not insult and live with co-existance around neighbours. Or, we could donate money to charity, speak to our neigbours with earnesty and be a hero to people. A closer to heart example: In school, we could study hard and pass the exam. Or, we could mug, and score a distinction. In our religions, we could just follow suit to its law, or(if the religion supports it) evangelise as well.

Simply, its about expectations. We can't ask whose expecations because its a pretty fuzzy picture that makes your eyes hurt when you look at it. But to focus the angles on the different sort of expectations that concern whether or not you want to fufill it, they dwell on a few general aspects... The fufilment of the expectation is usually the 'extra' for you, in perhapstance, unnecesary, but good to have. Then again, with the jar kept being filled up, the field that you want to run on gets bigger, and so does that desire. A greater mass, would require more force.
Anyway, the aspects...

SELF
-- Beliefs
Self-explanatory. When you believe such, you demonstrate such. Words are pretty storytellers that can't get the decent pay. Action is the one that wins the broadcaster of the year award. So in the same sense, your beliefs would fuel your expectations, and therefore, action.

-- Ideas
The idealistic fall here as well. When considering the scope where things occur, the line is drawn to make sure the correct occurance is demonstrated.

-- Desire
"You want it, you come and take it." - Zlackers

-- Necessity
I think this is rare. It mostly gets strayed of into desire, but for the hopeless, this happens. (Well, for the hopeful too I guess)

OTHERS
Well, I'm not sure about the consensus. But for my part, I find that the expectations fufilment is vaguely-ultimatley for others instead of myself. Not to say I'm not selfish (doing it for the sake of, say your family, can be a selfish thing as well) I do suppose that 'Others' is a very appealing aspect. Afterall, we have peer pressure. We got the loyalty from propaganda people from history. We have the 'you jump, I jump' titanic-wannabes. And deep down, sometimes, one could feel that the reason his living for is that person. It could be a religous factorade. Or a love story devotional. Or even that bond to his/her child.

...........
This concept has probaly been explored a lot. Stepping out of your comfort zone? Going that extra mile? Instilled into modern psychology for aiming and then doing better, to get closer beyond that void of accpetance...

Into...
Another void.

---
I shall proclaim that its 'Post Hiatus' once more.
Yeah, go ahead and bet that I won't keep it.

How long?


Ask the world.

Blogery... as in Blogging.

What I'm driving at, is basically what a blog could tell about you. Well, not exactly. But its a planet that orbit about the same sun.

First of all, we have to agree that there are certain obligations that bloggers may have to meet to, that would restrict the execution of this principle. However, the average blogger would probaly hold onto the trait of being an individual, and the array of blog pieces nowadays show that the point kneels. (Yeah, it doesn't stand. But it still trys to somehow.) What sort of obligations? Well, there could be the idea that as blog = online diary, it would require you to talk about your day, and elsewhat and therefore one would follow the flow, although admiting to instances whereby he/she breaks away from the contact to alternatives, only until the bar is induced, and attracted back to the contacts. Of course, these alternatives might be rules that vary along the lines of 'whaterver-ment' where it is not uncommon to witness for the blog readers. (Like listing of friends and praising them.) But as always, there are the splinter groups that have their own exceptions and the followers that by the herd mentality and those that just 'wanna get the heck out'. But with those... points, respected, lets move on.

To blog, is to demonstrate a preference. Theres choice invovled in the colours, blogskin, font type, tagboard type, photos-attached type, music attached type, and all the variations invovle the blogger in making an individual stand with his or her own reasons or 'whatervery' decesions. And anyone can come up with pop psychological attachements to equate those variables onto personaltiy types and classifications, so I'll pass with that crap. Instead, I'll consider the meat. The entries. There is much preference invovled here too. Well, duh. But seriously speaking, and pardon my elementarical explanations, what you write roughly makes out to what you are. Or rather, what you perceive about matters. What your world view is like. What you appreciate about things... and: Who the heck you are.
Do you prefer to express yourself out loud? Or do you like to talk about your day, with interesting matters involved? Do you like to narrate your feelings and irritations? Or do you adjust to instead, ranting and raving? Is it comfortable for you to write about concepts and theories, rather than discuss matters happening on earth and compose apologies to signal your earlier behaviour? Do you have firm views that you punch into the keyboard with gusto, or do you hide up those worries by playing neutral? Do you like talking about life experiences, or instead speak fables and give morals? (A nice bunch of questions. Well, I felt it was getting kinda cheesy) As always, the exceptions apply; a tell-about-my-day-guy might sometime get whacked hard by a matter and suddenly post up a "Life is like a race on the beach. Everybody wants to makes the most footsteps there, but in the end, the winds of time destroy all traces... And rustle your hair as it flies in it..." (Okay, I know that example sucked.)

You are what you write -- The Reflective ablity of your blog post
Words are dangerous, in the sense that they reveal. Revelations are contreversial things and everybody would desire permission first before a piece of infomation is given out. A layman analogy of the blog - a mirror. Vaguely, you words show the persona you have. As feelings pour out when you tell your stories, as emotion rages strongly when you vent our your thoughts. Even when you talk about concepts and ideas, your world view is plagued within the writings. It is hard to be impartial and objective. Objectivity would only be easy for those that have nothing to do with the something, but such third parties would be weak warriors in trying to prove points. Even when you say you are trying to do a neutral arguement, it is usually the one arguing in power of the arguement and it would be him/her would fits the arguement nicely with his ideas so that it structures towards a sound conclusion that deems him right. Blogs are a very good example. Which makes me wonder if the 'B' is blog really stands for 'Biased'. An example to illustrate would be say, an arguement about the existance of God. To deny a God would mean you have to have a concept of a God first, and his would imply that no one is really an athetist as the idea of the God is existant. Yet, this is valid only when the arguement on both sides is with respect to that same 'God', rather then the substance of 'God' that is the empirical vision. But such a matter of 'God' is hard to be a definite substance, and usually tends to the faith that the arguer is holding. I.e. One structures his arguement to fit the image of 'God' he sees. In itself, the arguement would be useless to debate unless the validity of 'God' is held by both parties within the same scope of agreement in the first place, whereby each attribute requires the agreement or diagreement on both sides. As such, arguements would be unfair, and injust. And I lost the topic. Ah damn. Let me run back.

A 2nd Level Window -- To see the colours that you use to do it
A very simple example would be that if a guy goes: "I guess it would be hard to do it. But well, I KNOW I can." He is vaguely, an actualist. You could go rant about an allness and therefore oneness principle and I could call you having perceptions of a puralist. And I could go on and talk about dogmatics, slackers etc. and you could call me someone who is obessed with giving labels. Simple, primary colours stuff. A repeat of the idea would show his/her interest/rooted belief/respect of the concept. And the instances that have the person taking assumptions to matters (but this should be forgiven, as it is very hard to be impartial) by giving an affirmation to a view immediately as if its an absolute or a sad fact of life. Sometimes its very easy to tell. The telling part can, transcend to a deeper level of understanding his/her gist in the topic. For instance, its easy to infer a guy is suicidal from his blog, but you can take more fresh air in and appreciate how suicidal he is and what he is suicidal about. As much as your faith (in whatever) would colour your personality, it would also colour your words.


Implicit Nods towards -- How you rip out the core from the earth and put it back
The final statement of my previous paragraph is an example of a assumed view. An implict confirmation, and respect to a matter that might not actually be pure truth. But I just took it in stride and blabbelered it out. As such, when one does entries, he would leave traces of his bread crumbs. Solid pickings that are the frontal army in provoking and attacking. But an insult is an insult, and a misconception is a misconcpetion. But sadly, a perception can be argued over countless times before everyone makes an agreement (that they can never agree that a perception is a perception) And this would come with its footmen to yell loudly at the door, leaving others curious or emotion-ful. And the outcomes are anticipated. Nothing happens usually.
Another different type of nod are the ones hidden that try not to show altough they are page's dog ears for strict teachers. For instance, you could be one who is writing about your day, but within the post, you littered it with complains and rantings about a teacher. Or you could be talking about a concept, and while at it, keep citing your own life experiences and situational what-I-would-dos. This one might be rare, since it involes a slight bit of hypocriasy and hidden motives. (I mean, who the heck cares?)

And thus, I conclude my blog post.

"At least his brave."
"The only bravery he has, is foolish bravery."

------
Two lines I came out with while daydreaming... (It was two guys on a quest for some magic herb and I kept switching perspectives... ah heck. We don't need to know how we daydream.)

Foolish Bravery, has been branded across many when a reality that is spoken across to the other side is seemingly ridiculous to stomach. As in, 'they don't understand'. Which side? Well, it obviously works at both ends. The tale of bravery can be told by many... lets begin at the eyes of sincerity.

People who are sincere are the respected. Well, no. Not totally true. Its dependent on what you are sincere about, and that refers to beliefs and values. If you are really sincere that killing someone isn't wrong, every other person would label you as a madman, but that would be of no meaning to you (depending on how sincere you are) And therefore, sincerity doesn't mean truth. The divisions in the areas of life all prove such, all people are sincere in their beliefs at certain areas and they other side are the fools when you gaze across through the looking glass. When you see with sincerity, everything else on the other side would be foggy in circumspect. To quote an element from 'The Way', covered with the rolling mists...

We descend, to the jaws of opinion. This age seemingly demands verifications and factual evidences. To believe, means to see. In the several instances whereby sight invovles a little more than just concerete facts and figures, and insteand fizz towards a more brittle blend. We could fault items and literatures without having a call for our own considerment. Note that these are jaws. Not the tongue, so it can't taste. Not the teeth, so it can't chew. And well, it can't digest. Through opinion, its mostly a gun that demands to be ralied rather than displayed, no matter how aestistically appealing it may be. And when there is pause to listen, most of the time, the don't want it to seem right and therefore deny the existance of any part of the thing 'making sense'.

We now feel the hot-and-yet-cold touch of the amour of ignorance. It was polished with the cloths of biasness and self-assumptions, and so, its pretty much a solid piece of amour. It shields the warrior from the hailstones of awakening and tightens itself to shun the contradictions that may erupt. It protects when uneasiness seems to come. It rejects, when sense seems to protrude. The strength in it, endures to levels dependent on how tightly you want to wear the amour. And... pretty much, how much you want to rely on it.

The pride of the warrior can be seen now, in the invisible aura of yelling -- his book of knowledge. To judge by its cover, it is gold plated, attractive with the most expensive gems engraved carefully onto it. This demonstrates how valuable the book is, and how precious it really is to him. The pages might also be worn out, showing how much he absorbed its content and infused its elements. (Note: I refer not to references that are scared and religious, like the Bible, but rather an object that demostrates the knowledge of that warrior with other self-infused elements.) It is often shown off, and pages of the content are yelled onto his victims, implictly, with... arrogance. Perhapstance applys.

We can recall, the once spoken about (previous blog entry...) , blade of apology, in his right hand. It is gripped onto tightly and swung with force at every attempt of attack (or defense?). To yell a battle cry and raise the sword in full frontal offense - a common story of opinion and apology. As I said before, everybody loves to use, his/her sword.

We can observe the boots of affirmation. They root strongly onto the ground and raise, only to fall again with a loud clash. We affirm and agree we know, and to potray, we conduct and march on. To quote a teacher-student-class-joke as told by a friend of mine (she was probaly the victim) "I can always find my way back." , "Ya, a dog always does..." Un-huh? Well.

It gazed towards the vehicle in sour perception, allowing its mists of distortions to fog his retrospections. The blissful acknowledgements towered in a fuzzy recollection to the thoughts that dwelled within the cage it locked itself in. That it clung onto the bars, stupidly for.
Its faith in the leap was supported only by its knowledge of circumstance. And also his fear. Yes, perhaps his fear played a role as well. It was vital enough for him to act. For him to demonstrate an ablity that was considered worthy of it. The very existence of the presence allowed him the bravery to run the race. To live. To fight. To accept. To achieve.
By faith.

_____________Zoneseekers..::
by a perspective that relies on the author of Truth... 10:04 PM

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Failure

When you have lived in the world long enough, its not that hard to think about failure, and what it is. It has the labels of being a great teacher, and has the pride of giving humans their most heaviest emotions, and the prime of its championship is that all in life are working hard at it so they won't fail.
Fail, in a certain aspect of what they desire of course. I mean, they don't want to fail. And because of the slippery platform that all has to go through to get to the other side, we try to find the shoes with the best friction and learn stratergies on how to mantain balance, just so as to be able to heave that sigh of relief and punch that fist in the air while looking onto the others falling down into the lava pits and going, "Hey. You okay anot?" Okay, well, that is a very narrow instance of the gist of failure, but it does well enough to explain its.... way.

What is failure? There are now, those that assume it to be a perception. As in, you define failure. You set the standards. Within what scope? Expectaions perhaps. And surrounding influence. But ultimately, you control what failure is and what failure is not, and to say that you have 'failed' is but a perception. Logically sufficient, but I don't think many buy its case.( Simply because no one is slowing down, and everyone is still in a competitive form.) Of course, as any average competitor would know (let me use 'student', as thats the situation I'm in) there is the boundaries of what success really is and what failure really is. It is ambigously defined, only not speaked about. It depends on who you are (identity) and what you can do (capability). For students (and I guess most other cases), the gauage is on the basis of what you have done during a certain period. -- A Test. And yeah, the 'Test' word is a regular in the vision of failure. Nobody wants to fail their 'big test'. (It just so happens that, for students, its literal) So in that case, the standards that would determine the failure are an absoulute. Its just that its pretty vague. If we do not consider the official guidelines, the personal expectations and the 'mist that surrounds the falls', its hard to tell (from a third party viewpoint) when you have failed. In the most basic sense, 'you screw up' = 'you fail'.

And as its the big thing in that failure concerns everyone, everyone would then have a great emotion to it... and that is, fear. We fear failure. (Unless someone is trying to kill you or something, but lets be reasonable with the exceptions) There are those who tell us that its okay to fail, but you must always try again till you get it, and well, thats logical bullshit. But in actuality, there are the biggies that we must not fail. Because of the simple matter of consequences. If we fail to meet up to a standard, we got to face those big guns and before they rail at us we have much to do...
We can put the blame on others and circumstance.
We can deny the existance of the failure and try to be distracted from it.
We can play down the impact.
Etc.

Oh yeah, we can accept it and move on.
And the thing that transcends all this is... REGRET. We can regret about stuff. Many idiots, including myself, have spent time living in the zone of retrospection and its not a nice place. The food sucks, the service is bad. Even the air is polluted.

Anyway, the main things of failure that humans dislike are things involving goals. Subjects that revolve around life and the laws that seem to run it. (Money, relationships, status etc.) You know, the usual preachy bullshit that everyday 'wanna-make-a-world-a-better-place-people' go ranting about.

So, if we're so afriad to fail for such matters, but totally ignorant and self-assuming for matters involving missing the mark for heaven and hell and related spirtuality matters, even if there is a way allowed for us to walk on rather than that slippery path; what does that make us?



A bunch of morons that walk around the place and going 'Yes! I can do it!'.

Point proven. (What point? Look. At the title.)

_____________Zoneseekers..::
by a perspective that relies on the author of Truth... 7:53 PM

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Sincerity works both ways

(This Post was meant to be for yesterday, but blogger was seemingly in lag state then. And the practical usage of the ctrl A + ctrl C, didnt lose me my post.)
I just completed another RPG, 'The Frozen World'. Its by Lysander86, the same guy that did 'A Blurred Line' and as much as I enjoyed the latter, TFW was a blast. It had a compelling storyline which did enough to attract although it was seemingly simple at first, and then it had a plot twist that never cross my mind a bit at all... One of those rare RPG times where one could actually go 'woah' in the moment of the revelation. The game's battle system was good as well, simplistically interesting and it actually invovled a bit of stratergy. All in all, great game.
But the catch is... I wasted my whole day today playing it. Ah Damn.

Anyway, there is relevance of the game to the title. Subtle relevance perhaps.

To elaborate without a pain of trying to have direct linkage, sincerity is something debatable over. Its hard to tell if someone is sincere. And its hard to get over it sometimes when you realised someone is not.
Example. Talking -'shooting'- people, as in either praising the guy or insulting him. When someone go 'You are an arrogant asshole.' --- detection of the tone, expression, actions etc. could illustrate what the shooter means. (But I'm not going into those human signal pick-ups anyway) The recieved feedback could be sincere or it could be insincere, and it could be sincere insult or the reverse. Say if it was said in jest, the guy would just shake it off, although instances exist whereby it seems to hurt-- suspicion or feeling that way just because. In the same way, a praise could be sincere or insincere(sarcasm and its bandits)
When you praise someone with sincerity, he would feel better than if you did it with none. And when you insult someone with sincerity, he would feel more hurt if you did it with none. (I'm talking about normal humans) Of course, people would love to sit behind delusions and assume the other way for either protection or self-degrading.
Say, real fire will hurt. And real gold can sell. But impurities added into solutions make the melting point lower. The dependative nature of the sincereity would then depend on the character and worth the sincerity demonstrates to him in that particular field.

Then theres the thing of true sincerity difficult to detect. Its not a litmus test all the time, and does deal with a few sensitive matters, which are rather akward to mention in most situations. There are tests that the humans have decided to work, but those tests would invovle a side effect of pain, if the want for that sincerity is strong. Theres the test of time. Also, the test of inflicting pain to confirm a amoured treshole. Then, theres the somewhat unreliable gague by one's own's standard (fuzzy testpens with biased batteries included) To be sure of a sincerity would of course, be the greatest test of sincerity ever. If there is no doubt, and there is no speculation at all, the roots would be pretty deep. But what tree doesn't scatter its leaves in the wind? (A tree with no leaves, of course) Which takes me to the area of exterior factors..

Circumstances.
As in, if its a nice place with nice people and you keep facing that nice place, you would probaly root yourself upon the belief, with higher sincerity, compared to someone getting kicked in the face everytime he mentions a verse out of the case. Similarly, propaganda and constant drilling of a notion would ensure a healthier workforce compared to a 'what the heck are you waiting for? Work lar.' But circumstances sometimes are the ones that strengten our sincerity with us reasoning that its valid. Like BGR matters, and contract situations. Then, another house says that the bondage to the belief is because of the circumstances it brings about.


Pain is Temporary. Glory is Permanent.
The only pain that is temporary is done unto the weak.
The only glory that is permanent is useless for the strong.

Sincerity counts. Does it?

_____________Zoneseekers..::
by a perspective that relies on the author of Truth... 8:31 PM

---

_Past

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

---