Where does the term Rules as Tweeted (RAT) come from?












24












$begingroup$


Rule As Tweeted (RAT) is ironically used when a tweet from a the game designers contradicts RAW (rules as written) or (perceived) RAI (rules as intended).



Who used it first? Did it originate here on RPG.SE?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    24












    $begingroup$


    Rule As Tweeted (RAT) is ironically used when a tweet from a the game designers contradicts RAW (rules as written) or (perceived) RAI (rules as intended).



    Who used it first? Did it originate here on RPG.SE?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      24












      24








      24





      $begingroup$


      Rule As Tweeted (RAT) is ironically used when a tweet from a the game designers contradicts RAW (rules as written) or (perceived) RAI (rules as intended).



      Who used it first? Did it originate here on RPG.SE?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Rule As Tweeted (RAT) is ironically used when a tweet from a the game designers contradicts RAW (rules as written) or (perceived) RAI (rules as intended).



      Who used it first? Did it originate here on RPG.SE?







      terminology






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jan 9 at 19:29









      Rubiksmoose

      51.8k7252386




      51.8k7252386










      asked Jan 9 at 14:17









      AndrásAndrás

      27.3k12100192




      27.3k12100192






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          39












          $begingroup$

          It's more like a recurring joke than an actual term and its origin is unclear



          There appear to be smatterings of the term across Giant in the Playground (example) and Reddit (example) around 2015/2016 that arose to categorize in a joking and sometimes derogatory manner the rulings of D&D 5e Lead Rules Developer Jeremy Crawford which he often makes on Twitter.



          The first mention of it on RPG.se that I can find is this answer from 2016. It reemerged in late 2018 in an answer here and a (now-deleted) derisive 2019 comment on this question (which seems to have been the impetus for this question). It is unclear if the later answer was referencing the older answer or came to the same joke/reference independently a few years after the fact.



          In fact, it is unclear if the term actually "originated" anywhere or if people on different forums and communities are simply coming to the same joke independent of each other (or unconscious of the previous usages). After all it is a really easy jump from RAW/RAI and people play around with those terms a lot in joking ways.



          At this point, it doesn't seem to be used enough to even really deserve the honor of being considered a term. More like an occasionally recurring joke.



          RAT is redundant and not useful, and is harmful to answer clarity



          We already have enough "Rules as..." terminology and they already cause quite a bit of confusion both among new and experienced users. The fact is, RAT is not a useful designation. All of Crawford's tweets already fall under either his opinion/interpretation of RAW (rules as written)1 or RAI (rules as intended) and occasionally RAF (rules as fun). Each of these terms have formal definitions and accepted community usage and, more importantly, make useful distinctions between different types of rules analysis.



          Lumping all tweets together as RAT tells us nothing about the type of analysis being done and actively removes all the clarity and meaning of the other terms. It also seems to imply that the tweets are actually rules which is incorrect. The only thing it adds is a joking derisive tone (which a lot of people unaware of the history might miss completely and take literally).



          A much better way to handle critiquing rulings would be to correctly (to the best of one's ability since Crawford often doesn't make it easy to distinguish) identify the type of ruling Crawford was trying to make (RAW/RAI/RAF) and then state how it disagrees with the rules/common sense/is otherwise undesirable or bad in your view (and backing it up with the proper support of course).





          1 - These can be very tricky distinctions, but it is important to note that JC tweets are never considered to be RAW themselves, though they might oftentimes offer up an interpretation of what RAW is (much like answers here do). Crawford's tweets are also not all RAI (by his explicit definition). I recommend reading this Q&A and Q&A for more on this train of thought since it is beyond the scope of this question.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            @Yakk Please don’t start arguments in comments. You had your say, its suggested change been rejected; getting into an argument over it isn’t needed. Now the comment and all following are deleted as no longer needed.
            $endgroup$
            – SevenSidedDie
            Jan 10 at 16:18





















          12












          $begingroup$

          Since I appear to be the first user we can find on RPGSE, I'll just throw in my two cents:




          • I certainly didn't pick it up on other forums, since SE is my primary social network. I occasionally read a GitP guide if I'm linked it (usually from a post here), have asked a question or two on rpg.net, but usually within a day I get frustrated with other spaces' characteristics and I'm back "home," so to say.

          • I may have picked it up in conversation here. Searching main chat's log doesn't reveal a conversation using the term before the posting of that answer, though.

          • I don't believe I used it ironically, but I suppose irony is in the eye of the reader, eh?


          • My thoughts on the utility of rulings being tweeted out by the game's lead designer are well-cataloged in this post on 5e's "official" rules; in short:




            There's no way for one reading even Jeremy's tweets to know whether they've (a) already been contradicted officially or (b) whether they already contradict settled rules.... [A] tweet from Jeremy might be official, and no others could be. I have yet to see a tweet where Jeremy has said "this one's official" and have (personally) adopted a stance of being skeptical of all of them.




          • I express no opinion on whether we "should" be using the term around here; I'll leave that to each user to decide whether they think it clarifies or obscures meaning. When I used it, I meant to call attention to the fact that a ruling was tweeted, and thus should be looked at very closely.







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "122"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f138714%2fwhere-does-the-term-rules-as-tweeted-rat-come-from%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            39












            $begingroup$

            It's more like a recurring joke than an actual term and its origin is unclear



            There appear to be smatterings of the term across Giant in the Playground (example) and Reddit (example) around 2015/2016 that arose to categorize in a joking and sometimes derogatory manner the rulings of D&D 5e Lead Rules Developer Jeremy Crawford which he often makes on Twitter.



            The first mention of it on RPG.se that I can find is this answer from 2016. It reemerged in late 2018 in an answer here and a (now-deleted) derisive 2019 comment on this question (which seems to have been the impetus for this question). It is unclear if the later answer was referencing the older answer or came to the same joke/reference independently a few years after the fact.



            In fact, it is unclear if the term actually "originated" anywhere or if people on different forums and communities are simply coming to the same joke independent of each other (or unconscious of the previous usages). After all it is a really easy jump from RAW/RAI and people play around with those terms a lot in joking ways.



            At this point, it doesn't seem to be used enough to even really deserve the honor of being considered a term. More like an occasionally recurring joke.



            RAT is redundant and not useful, and is harmful to answer clarity



            We already have enough "Rules as..." terminology and they already cause quite a bit of confusion both among new and experienced users. The fact is, RAT is not a useful designation. All of Crawford's tweets already fall under either his opinion/interpretation of RAW (rules as written)1 or RAI (rules as intended) and occasionally RAF (rules as fun). Each of these terms have formal definitions and accepted community usage and, more importantly, make useful distinctions between different types of rules analysis.



            Lumping all tweets together as RAT tells us nothing about the type of analysis being done and actively removes all the clarity and meaning of the other terms. It also seems to imply that the tweets are actually rules which is incorrect. The only thing it adds is a joking derisive tone (which a lot of people unaware of the history might miss completely and take literally).



            A much better way to handle critiquing rulings would be to correctly (to the best of one's ability since Crawford often doesn't make it easy to distinguish) identify the type of ruling Crawford was trying to make (RAW/RAI/RAF) and then state how it disagrees with the rules/common sense/is otherwise undesirable or bad in your view (and backing it up with the proper support of course).





            1 - These can be very tricky distinctions, but it is important to note that JC tweets are never considered to be RAW themselves, though they might oftentimes offer up an interpretation of what RAW is (much like answers here do). Crawford's tweets are also not all RAI (by his explicit definition). I recommend reading this Q&A and Q&A for more on this train of thought since it is beyond the scope of this question.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              @Yakk Please don’t start arguments in comments. You had your say, its suggested change been rejected; getting into an argument over it isn’t needed. Now the comment and all following are deleted as no longer needed.
              $endgroup$
              – SevenSidedDie
              Jan 10 at 16:18


















            39












            $begingroup$

            It's more like a recurring joke than an actual term and its origin is unclear



            There appear to be smatterings of the term across Giant in the Playground (example) and Reddit (example) around 2015/2016 that arose to categorize in a joking and sometimes derogatory manner the rulings of D&D 5e Lead Rules Developer Jeremy Crawford which he often makes on Twitter.



            The first mention of it on RPG.se that I can find is this answer from 2016. It reemerged in late 2018 in an answer here and a (now-deleted) derisive 2019 comment on this question (which seems to have been the impetus for this question). It is unclear if the later answer was referencing the older answer or came to the same joke/reference independently a few years after the fact.



            In fact, it is unclear if the term actually "originated" anywhere or if people on different forums and communities are simply coming to the same joke independent of each other (or unconscious of the previous usages). After all it is a really easy jump from RAW/RAI and people play around with those terms a lot in joking ways.



            At this point, it doesn't seem to be used enough to even really deserve the honor of being considered a term. More like an occasionally recurring joke.



            RAT is redundant and not useful, and is harmful to answer clarity



            We already have enough "Rules as..." terminology and they already cause quite a bit of confusion both among new and experienced users. The fact is, RAT is not a useful designation. All of Crawford's tweets already fall under either his opinion/interpretation of RAW (rules as written)1 or RAI (rules as intended) and occasionally RAF (rules as fun). Each of these terms have formal definitions and accepted community usage and, more importantly, make useful distinctions between different types of rules analysis.



            Lumping all tweets together as RAT tells us nothing about the type of analysis being done and actively removes all the clarity and meaning of the other terms. It also seems to imply that the tweets are actually rules which is incorrect. The only thing it adds is a joking derisive tone (which a lot of people unaware of the history might miss completely and take literally).



            A much better way to handle critiquing rulings would be to correctly (to the best of one's ability since Crawford often doesn't make it easy to distinguish) identify the type of ruling Crawford was trying to make (RAW/RAI/RAF) and then state how it disagrees with the rules/common sense/is otherwise undesirable or bad in your view (and backing it up with the proper support of course).





            1 - These can be very tricky distinctions, but it is important to note that JC tweets are never considered to be RAW themselves, though they might oftentimes offer up an interpretation of what RAW is (much like answers here do). Crawford's tweets are also not all RAI (by his explicit definition). I recommend reading this Q&A and Q&A for more on this train of thought since it is beyond the scope of this question.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              @Yakk Please don’t start arguments in comments. You had your say, its suggested change been rejected; getting into an argument over it isn’t needed. Now the comment and all following are deleted as no longer needed.
              $endgroup$
              – SevenSidedDie
              Jan 10 at 16:18
















            39












            39








            39





            $begingroup$

            It's more like a recurring joke than an actual term and its origin is unclear



            There appear to be smatterings of the term across Giant in the Playground (example) and Reddit (example) around 2015/2016 that arose to categorize in a joking and sometimes derogatory manner the rulings of D&D 5e Lead Rules Developer Jeremy Crawford which he often makes on Twitter.



            The first mention of it on RPG.se that I can find is this answer from 2016. It reemerged in late 2018 in an answer here and a (now-deleted) derisive 2019 comment on this question (which seems to have been the impetus for this question). It is unclear if the later answer was referencing the older answer or came to the same joke/reference independently a few years after the fact.



            In fact, it is unclear if the term actually "originated" anywhere or if people on different forums and communities are simply coming to the same joke independent of each other (or unconscious of the previous usages). After all it is a really easy jump from RAW/RAI and people play around with those terms a lot in joking ways.



            At this point, it doesn't seem to be used enough to even really deserve the honor of being considered a term. More like an occasionally recurring joke.



            RAT is redundant and not useful, and is harmful to answer clarity



            We already have enough "Rules as..." terminology and they already cause quite a bit of confusion both among new and experienced users. The fact is, RAT is not a useful designation. All of Crawford's tweets already fall under either his opinion/interpretation of RAW (rules as written)1 or RAI (rules as intended) and occasionally RAF (rules as fun). Each of these terms have formal definitions and accepted community usage and, more importantly, make useful distinctions between different types of rules analysis.



            Lumping all tweets together as RAT tells us nothing about the type of analysis being done and actively removes all the clarity and meaning of the other terms. It also seems to imply that the tweets are actually rules which is incorrect. The only thing it adds is a joking derisive tone (which a lot of people unaware of the history might miss completely and take literally).



            A much better way to handle critiquing rulings would be to correctly (to the best of one's ability since Crawford often doesn't make it easy to distinguish) identify the type of ruling Crawford was trying to make (RAW/RAI/RAF) and then state how it disagrees with the rules/common sense/is otherwise undesirable or bad in your view (and backing it up with the proper support of course).





            1 - These can be very tricky distinctions, but it is important to note that JC tweets are never considered to be RAW themselves, though they might oftentimes offer up an interpretation of what RAW is (much like answers here do). Crawford's tweets are also not all RAI (by his explicit definition). I recommend reading this Q&A and Q&A for more on this train of thought since it is beyond the scope of this question.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            It's more like a recurring joke than an actual term and its origin is unclear



            There appear to be smatterings of the term across Giant in the Playground (example) and Reddit (example) around 2015/2016 that arose to categorize in a joking and sometimes derogatory manner the rulings of D&D 5e Lead Rules Developer Jeremy Crawford which he often makes on Twitter.



            The first mention of it on RPG.se that I can find is this answer from 2016. It reemerged in late 2018 in an answer here and a (now-deleted) derisive 2019 comment on this question (which seems to have been the impetus for this question). It is unclear if the later answer was referencing the older answer or came to the same joke/reference independently a few years after the fact.



            In fact, it is unclear if the term actually "originated" anywhere or if people on different forums and communities are simply coming to the same joke independent of each other (or unconscious of the previous usages). After all it is a really easy jump from RAW/RAI and people play around with those terms a lot in joking ways.



            At this point, it doesn't seem to be used enough to even really deserve the honor of being considered a term. More like an occasionally recurring joke.



            RAT is redundant and not useful, and is harmful to answer clarity



            We already have enough "Rules as..." terminology and they already cause quite a bit of confusion both among new and experienced users. The fact is, RAT is not a useful designation. All of Crawford's tweets already fall under either his opinion/interpretation of RAW (rules as written)1 or RAI (rules as intended) and occasionally RAF (rules as fun). Each of these terms have formal definitions and accepted community usage and, more importantly, make useful distinctions between different types of rules analysis.



            Lumping all tweets together as RAT tells us nothing about the type of analysis being done and actively removes all the clarity and meaning of the other terms. It also seems to imply that the tweets are actually rules which is incorrect. The only thing it adds is a joking derisive tone (which a lot of people unaware of the history might miss completely and take literally).



            A much better way to handle critiquing rulings would be to correctly (to the best of one's ability since Crawford often doesn't make it easy to distinguish) identify the type of ruling Crawford was trying to make (RAW/RAI/RAF) and then state how it disagrees with the rules/common sense/is otherwise undesirable or bad in your view (and backing it up with the proper support of course).





            1 - These can be very tricky distinctions, but it is important to note that JC tweets are never considered to be RAW themselves, though they might oftentimes offer up an interpretation of what RAW is (much like answers here do). Crawford's tweets are also not all RAI (by his explicit definition). I recommend reading this Q&A and Q&A for more on this train of thought since it is beyond the scope of this question.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Jan 10 at 12:03

























            answered Jan 9 at 14:29









            RubiksmooseRubiksmoose

            51.8k7252386




            51.8k7252386












            • $begingroup$
              @Yakk Please don’t start arguments in comments. You had your say, its suggested change been rejected; getting into an argument over it isn’t needed. Now the comment and all following are deleted as no longer needed.
              $endgroup$
              – SevenSidedDie
              Jan 10 at 16:18




















            • $begingroup$
              @Yakk Please don’t start arguments in comments. You had your say, its suggested change been rejected; getting into an argument over it isn’t needed. Now the comment and all following are deleted as no longer needed.
              $endgroup$
              – SevenSidedDie
              Jan 10 at 16:18


















            $begingroup$
            @Yakk Please don’t start arguments in comments. You had your say, its suggested change been rejected; getting into an argument over it isn’t needed. Now the comment and all following are deleted as no longer needed.
            $endgroup$
            – SevenSidedDie
            Jan 10 at 16:18






            $begingroup$
            @Yakk Please don’t start arguments in comments. You had your say, its suggested change been rejected; getting into an argument over it isn’t needed. Now the comment and all following are deleted as no longer needed.
            $endgroup$
            – SevenSidedDie
            Jan 10 at 16:18















            12












            $begingroup$

            Since I appear to be the first user we can find on RPGSE, I'll just throw in my two cents:




            • I certainly didn't pick it up on other forums, since SE is my primary social network. I occasionally read a GitP guide if I'm linked it (usually from a post here), have asked a question or two on rpg.net, but usually within a day I get frustrated with other spaces' characteristics and I'm back "home," so to say.

            • I may have picked it up in conversation here. Searching main chat's log doesn't reveal a conversation using the term before the posting of that answer, though.

            • I don't believe I used it ironically, but I suppose irony is in the eye of the reader, eh?


            • My thoughts on the utility of rulings being tweeted out by the game's lead designer are well-cataloged in this post on 5e's "official" rules; in short:




              There's no way for one reading even Jeremy's tweets to know whether they've (a) already been contradicted officially or (b) whether they already contradict settled rules.... [A] tweet from Jeremy might be official, and no others could be. I have yet to see a tweet where Jeremy has said "this one's official" and have (personally) adopted a stance of being skeptical of all of them.




            • I express no opinion on whether we "should" be using the term around here; I'll leave that to each user to decide whether they think it clarifies or obscures meaning. When I used it, I meant to call attention to the fact that a ruling was tweeted, and thus should be looked at very closely.







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              12












              $begingroup$

              Since I appear to be the first user we can find on RPGSE, I'll just throw in my two cents:




              • I certainly didn't pick it up on other forums, since SE is my primary social network. I occasionally read a GitP guide if I'm linked it (usually from a post here), have asked a question or two on rpg.net, but usually within a day I get frustrated with other spaces' characteristics and I'm back "home," so to say.

              • I may have picked it up in conversation here. Searching main chat's log doesn't reveal a conversation using the term before the posting of that answer, though.

              • I don't believe I used it ironically, but I suppose irony is in the eye of the reader, eh?


              • My thoughts on the utility of rulings being tweeted out by the game's lead designer are well-cataloged in this post on 5e's "official" rules; in short:




                There's no way for one reading even Jeremy's tweets to know whether they've (a) already been contradicted officially or (b) whether they already contradict settled rules.... [A] tweet from Jeremy might be official, and no others could be. I have yet to see a tweet where Jeremy has said "this one's official" and have (personally) adopted a stance of being skeptical of all of them.




              • I express no opinion on whether we "should" be using the term around here; I'll leave that to each user to decide whether they think it clarifies or obscures meaning. When I used it, I meant to call attention to the fact that a ruling was tweeted, and thus should be looked at very closely.







              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                12












                12








                12





                $begingroup$

                Since I appear to be the first user we can find on RPGSE, I'll just throw in my two cents:




                • I certainly didn't pick it up on other forums, since SE is my primary social network. I occasionally read a GitP guide if I'm linked it (usually from a post here), have asked a question or two on rpg.net, but usually within a day I get frustrated with other spaces' characteristics and I'm back "home," so to say.

                • I may have picked it up in conversation here. Searching main chat's log doesn't reveal a conversation using the term before the posting of that answer, though.

                • I don't believe I used it ironically, but I suppose irony is in the eye of the reader, eh?


                • My thoughts on the utility of rulings being tweeted out by the game's lead designer are well-cataloged in this post on 5e's "official" rules; in short:




                  There's no way for one reading even Jeremy's tweets to know whether they've (a) already been contradicted officially or (b) whether they already contradict settled rules.... [A] tweet from Jeremy might be official, and no others could be. I have yet to see a tweet where Jeremy has said "this one's official" and have (personally) adopted a stance of being skeptical of all of them.




                • I express no opinion on whether we "should" be using the term around here; I'll leave that to each user to decide whether they think it clarifies or obscures meaning. When I used it, I meant to call attention to the fact that a ruling was tweeted, and thus should be looked at very closely.







                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Since I appear to be the first user we can find on RPGSE, I'll just throw in my two cents:




                • I certainly didn't pick it up on other forums, since SE is my primary social network. I occasionally read a GitP guide if I'm linked it (usually from a post here), have asked a question or two on rpg.net, but usually within a day I get frustrated with other spaces' characteristics and I'm back "home," so to say.

                • I may have picked it up in conversation here. Searching main chat's log doesn't reveal a conversation using the term before the posting of that answer, though.

                • I don't believe I used it ironically, but I suppose irony is in the eye of the reader, eh?


                • My thoughts on the utility of rulings being tweeted out by the game's lead designer are well-cataloged in this post on 5e's "official" rules; in short:




                  There's no way for one reading even Jeremy's tweets to know whether they've (a) already been contradicted officially or (b) whether they already contradict settled rules.... [A] tweet from Jeremy might be official, and no others could be. I have yet to see a tweet where Jeremy has said "this one's official" and have (personally) adopted a stance of being skeptical of all of them.




                • I express no opinion on whether we "should" be using the term around here; I'll leave that to each user to decide whether they think it clarifies or obscures meaning. When I used it, I meant to call attention to the fact that a ruling was tweeted, and thus should be looked at very closely.








                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Jan 10 at 1:26









                nitsua60nitsua60

                74k13307428




                74k13307428






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f138714%2fwhere-does-the-term-rules-as-tweeted-rat-come-from%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Human spaceflight

                    Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                    張江高科駅