This and That (Where Great Conversations Are Happening)

[Veum]

🥤☕ 🎬 Top of the day to ya, going to be  ☁️🌧️ here my friends… good day there Veum here❣️🙏🤠 🍵🧋

Day

3/12

43°Hi

RealFeel® 41°

RealFeel Shade™ 40°

Cloudy and chilly with a passing shower

SNOW ACCUMULATION UP TO AN INCH WITH LOCALLY HIGHER AMOUNTS THIS MORNING.. The snow will move off to the east toward daybreak. An inch and locally higher amounts in bands are possible. The snow will mainly accumulate on on grassy and elevated surfaces. Warm ground temperatures will limit the overall impact of the snow. However, localized slick spots on roads, bridges, and other surfaces may cause travel issues into the morning hours. Use caution if traveling tonight. Slow down, drive carefully, and allow extra time to reach your destination.

[Veum]

🌚 goodnight to my fellow Psychos who need their rest now … ❣️😴🛌 🥱 💤

 

  

 

[Manticore4]

A very early good morning, Psychschenukies!

 

Monday, Monday......

 

Nooooooo!!!!!!!

 

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Manticore4

[Casiusco]

Good morning, dear Psychos!

 

Still sleeping after the Oscars evening?  

I hope not.

 

Here are my subjective notes. Full of honesty, even if they don't follow the majority line. 

 

About the awards:

• "Everything Everywhere All at Once" entertained me, in fact I hope to see it again soon in the theatre now that I suppose it will be re-released, but I think that even if it is entertaining, it is not "so" entertaining; nor "so" good a film. There is a lot of exaggeration around it, and a lot of trying to connect with an audience that is not very interested in cinema. And in my opinion, that's a mistake.
• The Oscar for Best Leading Actress: it had to go to Cate Blanchett, or even to the fabulous work of Michelle Williams. And I like Michelle Yeoh, and she did a very good job; but I honestly think her award is part of the package of the moment. No more. 
• The Oscar for Best Actor: I think there are a lot of us who are happy for Brendan Fraser, he's a nice guy, and he did a brilliant job in The Whale. Hopefully we can enjoy him in more films more often. However, that's not comparable to being Elvis, looking like Elvis, moving like Elvis, and even singing like Elvis. It's much more complete, much more difficult; it requires much more talent. But... Elvis zero awards.
• That Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert have an Oscar for Best Director that took Scorsese decades to win, that neither Hitchcock nor Kubrick won, or that current directors like Ridley Scott or David Lynch have never won, I think is obscene. Definitively obscene. And I think it degrades the credibility of these awards. If they are supposed to have credibility.
• I like Ke Huy Quan as much as I like Michelle Yeoh: I like her, who doesn't like Short Round!!!, but... her Oscar came in the package of the trendy movie. The work of Brendan Gleeson or Judd Hirsch is much more deserving, IMO. 
• And what I've just written makes me reflect on how Oscars are being given out cheaper than ever.
• I was very happy for A24's historic result and awards. Their films even won all the acting awards, first time in history. They deserve it. They make good films, they take a lot of risks, they are not afraid, and they give us very careful editions. Hopefully this will help them to go even further.
• Best international film: my favourite was "A quiet girl", a little gem, an object of goldsmithing. It tells a story told a thousand times, clichéd, repeated, but with a talent that makes it special, entertaining; making a story that should be boring end up being admirable. The talent shown by the director is unusual. But I have to admit that there were other interesting options. 
• Oscar for best original song: I'm happy for Naatu Naatu (RRR). Too many vulgar and boring songs are usually nominated, which fortunately are quickly forgotten. At least this one was fun.
• The Fabelmans: obviously Spielberg has made better films, but obviously he didn't deserve not to win anything. Even more so when the standard has been generally low.
• Elvis: someone should explain one day why Baz Luhrmann's films are always punished. 
• The Triangle of Sadness: I had a lot of fun watching it, it's the current winner of the Cannes Film Festival, and I was surprised that it didn't win anything. 

And in general, I think that artificially distributing prizes for political correctness is a mistake.

 

On the ceremony:

• The red carpet was a boring time than usual; I got the impression that there were too many people happy to be there, and not too many people who know the business. What to do there. And I missed the big names, the excitement of seeing the big totems live. It was like the MTV awards, not the Oscars.
• The anecdote of Ashley Graham's interview with Hugh Grant: at the beginning he makes a comment referring to Tom Wolfe's book "The Bonfire of the Vanities", and she reacts thinking that he's talking about Vanity Fair magazine, and from then on, he's distant and gives brief, awkward answers. He shouldn't have done it, but the striking thing is that he does it as if he wasn't aware that we were all watching, that there was a general shot of the two of them at all time; to the point that when he leaves he looks at her with the same look Leo DiCaprio gave Lady Gaga; clearly showing his position in relation to her. 
• Jimmy Kimmel: he had some nice touches, but in such a politically correct gala, so calm, quiet, with no big moments, he should have contributed more. It was all too monotonous. They'll never hire him here, but in my opinion the only one who could lift this was Ricky Gervais.
• The ceremony overall had a good pace, because even though it was long there was a lot going on, and everything was short, even the songs; but, at the same time, it lacked intensity, memorable moments, life. It's as if everything is too controlled for fear of Will Smith.

All in all, I'm glad for the victory of "Everything Everywhere All at Once", even if it was overblown; otherwise, IMO, another missed opportunity for the academy to regain personal credibility, and a ceremony with no real highlights. 

[Veum]

🥤☕ 🎬 Top of the day to ya, going to be ☁️ 🌬 🌧️ 🥶  here my friends… good day there Veum here❣️🙏🤠 🍵🧋

3/13

37°Hi

RealFeel® 25°

RealFeel Shade™ 25°

Mostly cloudy, breezy and cold with a passing shower

...Scattered to Numerous Snow Showers Today into this Evening, Snow Squalls Possible... Scattered to numerous snow showers are expected to develop today. A few of these snow showers may be briefly intense, and a few snow squalls will be possible. Minor spotty accumulations of an inch or less will be possible in some locations, although accumulations will be variable and will likely begin to melt quickly. Accumulations will generally be limited to grassy surfaces, except in locations where briefly intense snowfall rates are able to overwhelm the warmth of paved surfaces. Briefly poor or variable visibilities are likely at times today, and localized slick spots may develop on roadways, bridges, and other surfaces. Use caution if traveling across central Indiana today into this evening.

[nathan_s82]

Good Monday Morning MP Psychotics! Hope you had an amazing weekend. 

 

74 Days until Texas Frightmare Weekend

232 Days Until Halloween

255 Days Until Thanksgiving

287 Days Until Christmas

[R1s1ngs0n]

6 hours ago, Casiusco said:

Good morning, dear Psychos!

 

Still sleeping after the Oscars evening?  

I hope not.

 

Here are my subjective notes. Full of honesty, even if they don't follow the majority line. 

 

About the awards:

• "Everything Everywhere All at Once" entertained me, in fact I hope to see it again soon in the theatre now that I suppose it will be re-released, but I think that even if it is entertaining, it is not "so" entertaining; nor "so" good a film. There is a lot of exaggeration around it, and a lot of trying to connect with an audience that is not very interested in cinema. And in my opinion, that's a mistake.
• The Oscar for Best Leading Actress: it had to go to Cate Blanchett, or even to the fabulous work of Michelle Williams. And I like Michelle Yeoh, and she did a very good job; but I honestly think her award is part of the package of the moment. No more. 
• The Oscar for Best Actor: I think there are a lot of us who are happy for Brendan Fraser, he's a nice guy, and he did a brilliant job in The Whale. Hopefully we can enjoy him in more films more often. However, that's not comparable to being Elvis, looking like Elvis, moving like Elvis, and even singing like Elvis. It's much more complete, much more difficult; it requires much more talent. But... Elvis zero awards.
• That Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert have an Oscar for Best Director that took Scorsese decades to win, that neither Hitchcock nor Kubrick won, or that current directors like Ridley Scott or David Lynch have never won, I think is obscene. Definitively obscene. And I think it degrades the credibility of these awards. If they are supposed to have credibility.
• I like Ke Huy Quan as much as I like Michelle Yeoh: I like her, who doesn't like Short Round!!!, but... her Oscar came in the package of the trendy movie. The work of Brendan Gleeson or Judd Hirsch is much more deserving, IMO. 
• And what I've just written makes me reflect on how Oscars are being given out cheaper than ever.
• I was very happy for A24's historic result and awards. Their films even won all the acting awards, first time in history. They deserve it. They make good films, they take a lot of risks, they are not afraid, and they give us very careful editions. Hopefully this will help them to go even further.
• Best international film: my favourite was "A quiet girl", a little gem, an object of goldsmithing. It tells a story told a thousand times, clichéd, repeated, but with a talent that makes it special, entertaining; making a story that should be boring end up being admirable. The talent shown by the director is unusual. But I have to admit that there were other interesting options. 
• Oscar for best original song: I'm happy for Naatu Naatu (RRR). Too many vulgar and boring songs are usually nominated, which fortunately are quickly forgotten. At least this one was fun.
• The Fabelmans: obviously Spielberg has made better films, but obviously he didn't deserve not to win anything. Even more so when the standard has been generally low.
• Elvis: someone should explain one day why Baz Luhrmann's films are always punished. 
• The Triangle of Sadness: I had a lot of fun watching it, it's the current winner of the Cannes Film Festival, and I was surprised that it didn't win anything. 

And in general, I think that artificially distributing prizes for political correctness is a mistake.

 

On the ceremony:

• The red carpet was a boring time than usual; I got the impression that there were too many people happy to be there, and not too many people who know the business. What to do there. And I missed the big names, the excitement of seeing the big totems live. It was like the MTV awards, not the Oscars.
• The anecdote of Ashley Graham's interview with Hugh Grant: at the beginning he makes a comment referring to Tom Wolfe's book "The Bonfire of the Vanities", and she reacts thinking that he's talking about Vanity Fair magazine, and from then on, he's distant and gives brief, awkward answers. He shouldn't have done it, but the striking thing is that he does it as if he wasn't aware that we were all watching, that there was a general shot of the two of them at all time; to the point that when he leaves he looks at her with the same look Leo DiCaprio gave Lady Gaga; clearly showing his position in relation to her. 
• Jimmy Kimmel: he had some nice touches, but in such a politically correct gala, so calm, quiet, with no big moments, he should have contributed more. It was all too monotonous. They'll never hire him here, but in my opinion the only one who could lift this was Ricky Gervais.
• The ceremony overall had a good pace, because even though it was long there was a lot going on, and everything was short, even the songs; but, at the same time, it lacked intensity, memorable moments, life. It's as if everything is too controlled for fear of Will Smith.

All in all, I'm glad for the victory of "Everything Everywhere All at Once", even if it was overblown; otherwise, IMO, another missed opportunity for the academy to regain personal credibility, and a ceremony with no real highlights. 

Stopped watching this ceremony a long time ago and as I have yet to see EEAAO, I will reserve judgement on it until after I see it. But otherwise, pretty much everything you wrote is spot on 👍

[Fortis93]

7 hours ago, Casiusco said:

Good morning, dear Psychos!

 

Still sleeping after the Oscars evening?  

I hope not.

 

Here are my subjective notes. Full of honesty, even if they don't follow the majority line. 

 

About the awards:

• "Everything Everywhere All at Once" entertained me, in fact I hope to see it again soon in the theatre now that I suppose it will be re-released, but I think that even if it is entertaining, it is not "so" entertaining; nor "so" good a film. There is a lot of exaggeration around it, and a lot of trying to connect with an audience that is not very interested in cinema. And in my opinion, that's a mistake.
• The Oscar for Best Leading Actress: it had to go to Cate Blanchett, or even to the fabulous work of Michelle Williams. And I like Michelle Yeoh, and she did a very good job; but I honestly think her award is part of the package of the moment. No more. 
• The Oscar for Best Actor: I think there are a lot of us who are happy for Brendan Fraser, he's a nice guy, and he did a brilliant job in The Whale. Hopefully we can enjoy him in more films more often. However, that's not comparable to being Elvis, looking like Elvis, moving like Elvis, and even singing like Elvis. It's much more complete, much more difficult; it requires much more talent. But... Elvis zero awards.
• That Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert have an Oscar for Best Director that took Scorsese decades to win, that neither Hitchcock nor Kubrick won, or that current directors like Ridley Scott or David Lynch have never won, I think is obscene. Definitively obscene. And I think it degrades the credibility of these awards. If they are supposed to have credibility.
• I like Ke Huy Quan as much as I like Michelle Yeoh: I like her, who doesn't like Short Round!!!, but... her Oscar came in the package of the trendy movie. The work of Brendan Gleeson or Judd Hirsch is much more deserving, IMO. 
• And what I've just written makes me reflect on how Oscars are being given out cheaper than ever.
• I was very happy for A24's historic result and awards. Their films even won all the acting awards, first time in history. They deserve it. They make good films, they take a lot of risks, they are not afraid, and they give us very careful editions. Hopefully this will help them to go even further.
• Best international film: my favourite was "A quiet girl", a little gem, an object of goldsmithing. It tells a story told a thousand times, clichéd, repeated, but with a talent that makes it special, entertaining; making a story that should be boring end up being admirable. The talent shown by the director is unusual. But I have to admit that there were other interesting options. 
• Oscar for best original song: I'm happy for Naatu Naatu (RRR). Too many vulgar and boring songs are usually nominated, which fortunately are quickly forgotten. At least this one was fun.
• The Fabelmans: obviously Spielberg has made better films, but obviously he didn't deserve not to win anything. Even more so when the standard has been generally low.
• Elvis: someone should explain one day why Baz Luhrmann's films are always punished. 
• The Triangle of Sadness: I had a lot of fun watching it, it's the current winner of the Cannes Film Festival, and I was surprised that it didn't win anything. 

And in general, I think that artificially distributing prizes for political correctness is a mistake.

 

On the ceremony:

• The red carpet was a boring time than usual; I got the impression that there were too many people happy to be there, and not too many people who know the business. What to do there. And I missed the big names, the excitement of seeing the big totems live. It was like the MTV awards, not the Oscars.
• The anecdote of Ashley Graham's interview with Hugh Grant: at the beginning he makes a comment referring to Tom Wolfe's book "The Bonfire of the Vanities", and she reacts thinking that he's talking about Vanity Fair magazine, and from then on, he's distant and gives brief, awkward answers. He shouldn't have done it, but the striking thing is that he does it as if he wasn't aware that we were all watching, that there was a general shot of the two of them at all time; to the point that when he leaves he looks at her with the same look Leo DiCaprio gave Lady Gaga; clearly showing his position in relation to her. 
• Jimmy Kimmel: he had some nice touches, but in such a politically correct gala, so calm, quiet, with no big moments, he should have contributed more. It was all too monotonous. They'll never hire him here, but in my opinion the only one who could lift this was Ricky Gervais.
• The ceremony overall had a good pace, because even though it was long there was a lot going on, and everything was short, even the songs; but, at the same time, it lacked intensity, memorable moments, life. It's as if everything is too controlled for fear of Will Smith.

All in all, I'm glad for the victory of "Everything Everywhere All at Once", even if it was overblown; otherwise, IMO, another missed opportunity for the academy to regain personal credibility, and a ceremony with no real highlights. 

 

I only saw a clip of Ke Huy Quan reuniting with Harrison Ford on stage.

 

I thought that was awesome.

[Veum]

🌚 goodnight to my fellow Psychos who need their rest now … ❣️😴🛌 🥱 💤

 

[Casiusco]

3 hours ago, Fortis93 said:

 

I only saw a clip of Ke Huy Quan reuniting with Harrison Ford on stage.

 

I thought that was awesome.

 

And it's awesome, but it's a consequence of nostalgia, we all had that feeling, and we want to see him win. Even if deep down he didn't deserve it, IMO.

 

At least, if we give a not high level Oscar, it should be to him! We all agree on that, I'm sure.  

Edited March 13, 2023 by Casiusco

[Fortis93]

3 hours ago, Casiusco said:

 

And it's awesome, but it's a consequence of nostalgia, we all had that feeling, and we want to see him win. Even if deep down he didn't deserve it, IMO.

 

At least, if we give a not high level Oscar, it should be to him! We all agree on that, I'm sure.  

 

Well, it was great hearing that he'd won. 

 

I think him and Michelle Yeoh were the best parts of that movie and held the whole thing together. Without them, I honestly would've struggled to get into the movie.

 

I still haven't seen all the movies and performances that were nominated, so it's hard for me to come to a conclusion. 

 

At the same time, I've never put much stock into these award shows because I don't think they're the best metrics for quality and for what resonates with people - not just critics or film "buffs" (especially those online), but with everyone. 

[nathan_s82]

Happy Tuesday All! How many tacos can you eat today?

73 Days until Texas Frightmare Weekend

231 Days Until Halloween

254 Days Until Thanksgiving

286 Days Until Christmas

[Casiusco]

9 hours ago, Fortis93 said:

 

Well, it was great hearing that he'd won. 

 

I think him and Michelle Yeoh were the best parts of that movie and held the whole thing together. Without them, I honestly would've struggled to get into the movie.

 

I still haven't seen all the movies and performances that were nominated, so it's hard for me to come to a conclusion. 

 

At the same time, I've never put much stock into these award shows because I don't think they're the best metrics for quality and for what resonates with people - not just critics or film "buffs" (especially those online), but with everyone. 

 

The Oscars have always had something of imposture, of incoherence; of short-term business.

 

Indeed, they have never been -and never will- be a measure of quality. But that does not mean that they should not disguise it, or not incur in excessive contradictions that end up turning the awards into a caricature.

And I'm not talking about this year, nor about "Everything Everywhere All At One", not at all.

 

In fact, I think "Everything Everywhere All At One" has more merit than others that have been awarded in the last decade. And its production company, A24, is giving us some of the best films in recent years.

 

I'm talking about the Oscars, or this way of awarding, as a symptom of an industry that wants to go out and conquer an audience that is not interested in them, and that decides to downgrade its own product. Instead of trying to welcome new generations into the building, destroying the building and taking the remains to where the new generations are.

 

It's a conversation that goes beyond the Oscars, and beyond this year.

 

Everything evolves, as Shakespeare said: "renew or die". But I would add a clause to that: "without ceasing to be yourself".

 

I think this is something that must be applied to everything, everywhere; even to life.

 

And the Oscars will continue to be a sham that amuses us all, and amuses us a lot!; but the next time Scorsese, or Paul Thomas Anderson, or Ridley Scott, presents a film, it can't be that they have to make a historical masterpiece to be nominated, or even to win. And that can be also applied to some actors/actress.

 

It's the balance, oh god.

 

The fact that the market you are interested in is characterized by a new profile that is not able to focus for two hours straight on a screen,  should not make you give up on everything.

 

Of course, this is my opinion, and there are many others.  

 

 

 

[BreakBeatDJ]

The academy awards is an industry awards ceremony, not a fan award.  Academy members are greatly influenced by what happens behind the curtain, and fans only want to judge what is in front of the curtain . . . creating a cognitive dissonance between the two.

 

I've been to many screenings with academy members and they're not thinking about us, the fans, or even "best".  

 

They're thinking about the industry that they have to function in and deal with daily:  films their friends worked on that they want to support, films that were produced by producers/studios they want to work for, directors they like and support, not voting for directors they hate, films that are achievements in scope or technology that feel "different", not another genre film which they are all bored working on over and over and over . . . etc. etc.  Sometimes the winners overlap with what we as fans like, and many times it doesn't.  

 

The best Plummer doesn't always win the Best Plummer at the plummer awards either: people who work in the industry see and know things that the fans don't see, and that influences their votes immensely.  We at MP support Ksosk even though we may not really think his stuff is the best, but because he's our guy.  It's no different for the Oscars.

 

The most authentic moment in all of Oscars history is Sally Field accepting her award in 1985 and saying, "I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me" . . . that is what the academy awards are really about, industry people and who they like and don't like . . . not the best.  

 

I always have and will continue to love the Oscars, it's a fun celebration of the movie industry that supplies some marketing opportunities for the winners, and that's about it, IMO.

[Fortis93]

30 minutes ago, Casiusco said:

 

The Oscars have always had something of imposture, of incoherence; of short-term business.

 

Indeed, they have never been -and never will- be a measure of quality. But that does not mean that they should not disguise it, or not incur in excessive contradictions that end up turning the awards into a caricature.

And I'm not talking about this year, nor about "Everything Everywhere All At One", not at all.

 

In fact, I think "Everything Everywhere All At One" has more merit than others that have been awarded in the last decade. And its production company, A24, is giving us some of the best films in recent years.

 

I'm talking about the Oscars, or this way of awarding, as a symptom of an industry that wants to go out and conquer an audience that is not interested in them, and that decides to downgrade its own product. Instead of trying to welcome new generations into the building, destroying the building and taking the remains to where the new generations are.

 

It's a conversation that goes beyond the Oscars, and beyond this year.

 

Everything evolves, as Shakespeare said: "renew or die". But I would add a clause to that: "without ceasing to be yourself".

 

I think this is something that must be applied to everything, everywhere; even to life.

 

And the Oscars will continue to be a sham that amuses us all, and amuses us a lot!; but the next time Scorsese, or Paul Thomas Anderson, or Ridley Scott, presents a film, it can't be that they have to make a historical masterpiece to be nominated, or even to win. And that can be also applied to some actors/actress.

 

It's the balance, oh god.

 

The fact that the market you are interested in is characterized by a new profile that is not able to focus for two hours straight on a screen,  should not make you give up on everything.

 

Of course, this is my opinion, and there are many others.  

 

 

 

 

I think at the end of the day, it all comes to your own relationship with a movie.

 

It's all so subjective that you can't really allow accolades or critics to act as an intermediary between you and the movie, telling you how you should be feeling or reacting to it (I see that a lot on the internet).

 

A few weeks ago I was listening to a podcast that had Walter Hill on as a guest, and he said something that stuck with me.

 

He said everybody has three lives; the professional or public persona, the private life we share with people that we're close to and then the secret life we're living inside our own heads, that we don't really share with anyone...and that was the part that movies (or stories) tapped into.

 

And I think he's bang on the money there.

 

If a movie speaks to you, it speaks to you. And if it doesn't, it doesn't.

[Veum]

 

🥤☕ 🎬 Top of the day to ya, going to be ⛅ 🌬 🥶 here my friends… good day there Veum here❣️🙏🤠 🍵🧋

USA 🇺🇸…

 

💴 💰 💵 

Day

3/14

42°Hi

RealFeel® 32°

RealFeel Shade™ 30°

Breezy and chilly with times of sun and clouds

 

    🦅  ☕ 🍩 SAY MY NAME VEUM  📺 🎬🥨🍕🥤🍿

         

 

    🪙

 

 " In the dead of night, when the moon is high, and the ill winds blow, and the banshees cry, and the moonlight casts an unearthly glow...arise my love, with tales of woe!

[Fortis93]

8 minutes ago, BreakBeatDJ said:

I always have and will continue to love the Oscars, it's a fun celebration of the movie industry that supplies some marketing opportunities for the winners, and that's about it, IMO.

 

I've heard about the Oscars gift bags they hand out at those ceremonies.

 

https://www.insider.com/whats-inside-everyone-wins-gift-bag-given-to-oscar-nominees-2023-3

 

Man, talk about some rich people sh*t. 😄

[Casiusco]

2 hours ago, Fortis93 said:

 

I think at the end of the day, it all comes to your own relationship with a movie.

 

It's all so subjective that you can't really allow accolades or critics to act as an intermediary between you and the movie, telling you how you should be feeling or reacting to it (I see that a lot on the internet).

 

A few weeks ago I was listening to a podcast that had Walter Hill on as a guest, and he said something that stuck with me.

 

He said everybody has three lives; the professional or public persona, the private life we share with people that we're close to and then the secret life we're living inside our own heads, that we don't really share with anyone...and that was the part that movies (or stories) tapped into.

 

And I think he's bang on the money there.

 

If a movie speaks to you, it speaks to you. And if it doesn't, it doesn't.

 

One.

 

You're right, absolutely.

 

And Walter Hill too.

 

Very interesting idea.

 

Two. 

 

Everything is subjective, even more so in matters of cinematographic preferences.

But, unless we have become nihilists, extrapolating from time to time, perceiving a structure, an order, and that it is balanced, helps a lot.

 

That's why I spoke of balance, not that some are better than others.

 

Three.

 

You can like the movies and the cities, but to have them talk to you is another level. That's true.

 

And that connection is very personal, something deeper than subjectivity.

 

You can appreciate a good movie, but have no connection with it; it's not that you despise it, but that it doesn't connect with you beyond that. And you can appreciate a city, which you find beautiful, or interesting, but you are more passionate about going back to that little village where you love to get lost.

 

And we all have movies that are special to us beyond taste or legitimacy.

 

Four.
 

By the way, dear @Fortis93, which of your lives is the Psycho in you?

Who are we talking about?

 

The professional, the personal, or the secret one?

 

Furthermore, do the three Fortis know each other? 🤔

[Fortis93]

5 minutes ago, Casiusco said:

By the way, dear @Fortis93, which of your lives is the Psycho in you?

Who are we talking about?

 

The professional, the personal, or the secret one?

 

Furthermore, do the three Fortis know each other? 🤔

 

I honestly couldn't say, mate.

 

Maybe the Psycho is all three parts. 😄

[Veum]

32 minutes ago, Fortis93 said:

 

I honestly couldn't say, mate.

 

Maybe the Psycho is all three parts. 😄

 

If I know @Fortis93 Elias he tries to tip the scales a little to often 😂 😆 😛 

 

  

 

 

[Casiusco]

16 minutes ago, Fortis93 said:

 

I honestly couldn't say, mate.

 

Maybe the Psycho is all three parts. 😄

 

 

[Veum]

Who loves pies 🥧 

 

“Who threw those pies?” 😂 😆 😛 

 

 

 

[Manticore4]

 

Happy Tuesday, Psychitos!

 

[hansreinhardt]

3 minutes ago, Manticore4 said:

 

Happy Tuesday, Psychitos!

 

 

[Veum]

🌚 goodnight to my fellow Psychos who need their rest now … ❣️😴🛌 🥱 💤