Cobol - Mainframes requirement

Author

Mainframes requirement

vprosper

2007-11-02, 7:55 am

Hi,
A top CMM-Level5 company requires candidates who have 2+ yrs of
experience in Mainframes MVS System programmer-

Administrator/Security.
Key skills: COBOL, ENDEVOUR, CA-VIEW, Certified DB2

Interested candidates can forward the resumes to
vprosper@yahoo.co.in with Subject as Mainframe requirement.

2007-11-02, 7:55 am

In article <1193994831.584788.16520@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
vprosper <vprosper2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>A top CMM-Level5 company requires candidates

When posting to comp.lang.cobol please include a rate, or range of rates,
associated with the position(s) offered; doing otherwise leads many to
conclude that you are either trolling for resumes or running a blind ad to
determine rates.

DD

Robert

2007-11-02, 9:55 pm

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 02:13:51 -0700, vprosper <vprosper2007@gmail.com> wrote:

>A top CMM-Level5 company requires candidates who have 2+ yrs of
>experience in Mainframes MVS System programmer-

CMM Level 5 tells us it's an Indian contracting company. They are *all* CMM Level 5
certified, which is irrelevant because the worker will follow the client's process.

>Administrator/Security.
>Key skills: COBOL, ENDEVOUR, CA-VIEW, Certified DB2

Translation: production support. It they wanted Administrator/Security, they'd ask for
z/OS internals, LPAR setup and RACF.

Production support is the domain of failed programmers.

>Interested candidates can forward the resumes to
>vprosper@yahoo.co.in with Subject as Mainframe requirement.

Yep, India.

Michael Mattias

2007-11-03, 7:55 am

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:qdhni3dfnud1jv4qr40rlgi6t3pp391jmn@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 02:13:51 -0700, vprosper <vprosper2007@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Translation: production support. It they wanted Administrator/Security,
> they'd ask for
> z/OS internals, LPAR setup and RACF.
>
> Production support is the domain of failed programmers.

Ahem, ahem.

z/OS internals, LPAR and RACF, Utilities, JCL and DB administration are the
domain of those who can't cut it in *applications* programming.

MCM
Real Applications Programmer

2007-11-03, 6:55 pm

In article <46_Wi.5$RR6.3@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
Michael Mattias <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
>"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
> news:qdhni3dfnud1jv4qr40rlgi6t3pp391jmn@
4ax.com...
>
>Ahem, ahem.
>
>z/OS internals, LPAR and RACF, Utilities, JCL and DB administration are the
>domain of those who can't cut it in *applications* programming.

Hmmmmm... sounds like the classic difference in fundamental assumptions
used by stereotypical Applications Programmers and Systems Programmers.

The stereotypical Systems Programmer is most highly pleased by a computer
system that runs infinitely efficiently and infinitely fast on an
infinitely small load.

The stereotypical Applications Programmer wants the machine to do actual
work for people.

DD

Michael Mattias

2007-11-03, 6:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fgi02t$8qs$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <46_Wi.5$RR6.3@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> Michael Mattias <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Hmmmmm... sounds like the classic difference in fundamental assumptions
> used by stereotypical Applications Programmers and Systems Programmers.
>
> The stereotypical Systems Programmer is most highly pleased by a computer
> system that runs infinitely efficiently and infinitely fast on an
> infinitely small load.
>
> The stereotypical Applications Programmer wants the machine to do actual
> work for people.

True, it was -and was intended to be - a stereotype. However, it is in my
experience quite true that there are these Two Different Worlds of
Programming. And far too often, an "applications guy" is asked to do
something more suited to a "systems guy" and vice versa. This is one of my
'hot button' things.. the total misapplication of programming resources,
that is.

Unfortunately, it starts at the top. Management - and even worse, "the
Human Resources Department" - does not seem to grasp this concept when
s

ing employees and/or contractors.

Strangely enough, the best "Applications Programmers" are those *who
actually understand the applications* - that is, the have Real Experience
creating software *in the same industry or type of business*. Shop-specific
"tools" and "language products" can be easily learned .. but there is no
fast track to understanding the business needs of Real Users.

Those who claim to be both an 'applications programmer' and a 'systems
programmer' are advised to remember that the Jack (Jill) of all trades is
the master of none.

--
Michael C. Mattias
Tal Systems Inc.
Racine WI
mmattias@talsystems.com

Judson McClendon

2007-11-03, 6:55 pm

"Michael Mattias" <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
>
> Those who claim to be both an 'applications programmer' and a 'systems programmer' are advised to remember that the Jack (Jill) of
> all trades is the master of none.

That depends on the talents of the particular person (e.g. Isaac Newton). :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

SkippyPB

2007-11-03, 6:55 pm

On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 10:29:08 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>"Michael Mattias" <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
>
>That depends on the talents of the particular person (e.g. Isaac Newton). :-)

Aye! I started out as an applications programmer (IBM Assembler and
COBOL), went to VM/VSE systems programming, took on CICS systems
programming, gravitated back to development, conversion and
application support programming. Now I do whatever they throw at me
so long as they sign the check.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"Always be yourself. Otherwise, who are you?"
-- Patrick Bryson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

Michael Mattias

2007-11-03, 6:55 pm

tlmfru

2007-11-03, 6:55 pm

Michael Mattias <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote in message news:yl1Xi.24> >>
is[color=darkred]
Newton).[color=darkred]
>
> Were Mr. Newton engaged to create a nice, clean simple application for
Susie
> User, do you really think it would come out the can easy to use?
>
> Sure. But only if Susie were a rocket scientist in her spare time.
>
> MCM
>

I don't know if that's strictly accurate. The "Principia", remember,
explained a bunch of concepts which no-one else had formulated, and did so
using a new branch of mathematics - the calculus; worse, he did it using
methods and notations which were his own and which didn't last. At the time
very few people could understand him. Nowadays, all his principles are
pretty straightforward, as long as one understands calculus (which I agree
isn't everyone). But everyone understands his laws of gravitation, inertia,
and equal&opposite reactions.

PL

Michael Mattias

2007-11-03, 6:55 pm

"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:Zt6Xi.3026$gD4.1666@newsfe23.lga...
> Michael Mattias <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote in message news:yl1Xi.24>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> But everyone understands [Newton's] laws of gravitation, inertia, and
> equal&opposite reactions.

If you knew Susie like I know Susie....

MCM

2007-11-03, 9:56 pm

In article <TK%Wi.11$sm1.5@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
Michael Mattias <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fgi02t$8qs$1@reader1.panix.com...

[snip]

>
>True, it was -and was intended to be - a stereotype.

How modern and high fidelity... seems like only yesterday I was dealing
with monauraltypes.

[snip]

>Unfortunately, it starts at the top. Management - and even worse, "the
>Human Resources Department" - does not seem to grasp this concept when
>s

ing employees and/or contractors.

Nothing new here, I believe I'm commented on (presumably HR-generated)
want-ads which ask for six-to-eight years' worth of experience in a
technology that's only existed for four.

>
>Strangely enough, the best "Applications Programmers" are those *who
>actually understand the applications* - that is, the have Real Experience
>creating software *in the same industry or type of business*. Shop-specific
>"tools" and "language products" can be easily learned .. but there is no
>fast track to understanding the business needs of Real Users.

To muse on this... I've seen resistance based on 'must have (n) years'
experience on (stuff)' from both those who don't know the technology
(HR)... and those who are supposed to (project leads and the like). The
former usually operate from a position of ignorance - and rightfully so,
I'd say - and the latter from... I'm not sure, I think I'd call it
incredulity.

Interviewer: 'Well, in this shop we use a lot of (Tool-A)... I see on your
resume some (Tool-B) experience but no (Tool-A).'

Interviewee: 'It's a standard piece of software, learning it shouldn't be
a problem. With (Tool-B) they gave me a cheat-sheet and I was up and
productive on it by the end of the w

.'

Interviewer: (silence) (facial expression seems to indicate 'What is this
guy talking about... *nobody* can do that, it took me *months* to get up
to speed with (Tool-A) and I'm the guy sitting in the Corner Cubicle... he
must be telling a lie or exaggerating.') (spoken) 'I see... well, thanks
for your time, there are a few more folks we need to interview and I'll
let your headhunter know by the end of the w

.'

DD

2007-11-03, 9:56 pm

In article <9t0Xi.48928$b9.17629@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Michael Mattias" <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
>programmer' are advised to remember that the Jack (Jill) of
>
>That depends on the talents of the particular person (e.g. Isaac Newton). :-)

With all due respect, Mr McClendon... I don't believe that everyone should
be expected to keep their balance whilst standing on the shoulder of
giants.

'Hey, Einstein managed to see a way to relate space, time and energy in a
way that changed how the rest of the world sees such things... why can't
*you*?'

DD

2007-11-03, 9:56 pm

In article <yl1Xi.24$852.13@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
Michael Mattias <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Were Mr. Newton engaged to create a nice, clean simple application for Susie
>User, do you really think it would come out the can easy to use?

It has been a while since I read it and my memory is, admittedly,
porous... but I believe that in the preface to the second volume of
Principia Mathematica Sir Isaac mentioned that he made a few parts of
Volume One a bit more difficult than they needed to be... in order to keep
the unworthy from progressing.

DD

2007-11-03, 9:56 pm

In article <Zt6Xi.3026$gD4.1666@newsfe23.lga>, tlmfru <lacey@mts.net> wrote:

[snip]

>But everyone understands his laws of gravitation, inertia,
>and equal&opposite reactions.

I'm not sure what you're calling 'understanding', Mr Lacey. Many's the
schoolchild who can rote out 'a-squared plus b-squared equals c-squared'
and scribble the numerals associated with a 3-4-5 right-triangle to
'prove' this... but does that indicate an 'understanding' about summing
squares?

DD

tlmfru

2007-11-03, 9:56 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fgj5cd$2i0$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <Zt6Xi.3026$gD4.1666@newsfe23.lga>, tlmfru <lacey@mts.net>
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're calling 'understanding', Mr Lacey. Many's the
> schoolchild who can rote out 'a-squared plus b-squared equals c-squared'
> and scribble the numerals associated with a 3-4-5 right-triangle to
> 'prove' this... but does that indicate an 'understanding' about summing
> squares?
>
> DD
>

OK. Everybody understands:

"Objects attract each other depending on their masses and how far away they
are from each other".
"If an object is moving (or is not) it'll continue to do so unless a force
is applied to it".
"For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction".

Although most people have initial difficulty with the second & third
statements, very little explanation is necessary.

Whether or not the schoolchild understands the summing of squares depends on
his teaching, and, to a lesser extent, his ability to understand.

PL

Pete Dashwood

2007-11-04, 7:55 am

"Michael Mattias" <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote in message
news:TK%Wi.11$sm1.5@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:fgi02t$8qs$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
> True, it was -and was intended to be - a stereotype. However, it is in
> my experience quite true that there are these Two Different Worlds of
> Programming. And far too often, an "applications guy" is asked to do
> something more suited to a "systems guy" and vice versa. This is one of
> my 'hot button' things.. the total misapplication of programming
> resources, that is.
>
> Unfortunately, it starts at the top. Management - and even worse, "the
> Human Resources Department" - does not seem to grasp this concept when
> s

ing employees and/or contractors.
>
> Strangely enough, the best "Applications Programmers" are those *who
> actually understand the applications* - that is, the have Real Experience
> creating software *in the same industry or type of business*.
> Shop-specific "tools" and "language products" can be easily learned .. but
> there is no fast track to understanding the business needs of Real Users.
>
> Those who claim to be both an 'applications programmer' and a 'systems
> programmer' are advised to remember that the Jack (Jill) of all trades is
> the master of none.
>

It's only an aphorism, Michael... it isn't necessarily always true... :-)

I have been inspired by several people in my career who were able to turn
their hands to many things and were Masters at all of them...

The best one was a person from ICL in Putney who came onto a Burroughs
installation in Auckland (never having used this hardware or worked with it
before), taught himself the Assembler in a w

by reading the manual, then
wrote an Operating System for it in about 8 w

s. That OS NEVER failed in
the several years we ran it...:-) Same man was a dab hand with COBOL, could
interface extremely well with Customers (this was an Accounting Bureau),
understood the Business and could discuss implications and strategy with the
CEO and Senior Accountant, and was a pretty competent classical guitarist in
his spare time... :-)

His people skills were excellent and I consider myself lucky to have had
such a mentor (I was in my early twenties at the time and mentoring wasn't
something that was done formally.) He just "took me under his wing" and made
sure I was stretched and challenged.
(He was very good with the whole programming team but had pegged me for
Lead. I learned more in those few years than I did in the following
decade...)

Some people just seem to be outstanding at whatever they turn their hand to.

Most of us can learn from them, or, at the very least, be inspired to
greater effort by them.

I have tried to do the same for promising youngsters in the places I work,
and the fact that they keep in touch makes me think I must have had some
degree of success :-)

I have worked as a Systems Programmer and as an Application Programmer, and
I'm not ashamed of my efforts in either field.

I completely agree with your point that people who know the Business make
better Application programmers, or maybe, more useful ones...

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2007-11-04, 7:55 am

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:9t0Xi.48928$b9.17629@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "Michael Mattias" <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
>
> That depends on the talents of the particular person (e.g. Isaac Newton).
> :-)

Who, while being a great talent and demonstrating incredible tenacity and
capability in his field, wasn't really such a success as a Human Being,
being almost universally disliked (he had cronies rather than friends), and
gleefully watching people being hanged, on his order, as Head of the Royal
Mint.

The sort of man whose help you'd be sorry you needed...:-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2007-11-04, 7:55 am

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fgj5cd$2i0$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <Zt6Xi.3026$gD4.1666@newsfe23.lga>, tlmfru <lacey@mts.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're calling 'understanding', Mr Lacey. Many's the
> schoolchild who can rote out 'a-squared plus b-squared equals c-squared'
> and scribble the numerals associated with a 3-4-5 right-triangle to
> 'prove' this... but does that indicate an 'understanding' about summing
> squares?
>
> DD
>

It indicates summing... But "understanding" may be summing entirely
different. :-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Michael Mattias

2007-11-04, 6:55 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5p606fFpana7U1@mid.individual.net...
> MCM wrote
>
> It's only an aphorism, Michael... it isn't necessarily always true... :-)
>
> I have been inspired by several people in my career who were able to turn
> their hands to many things and were Masters at all of them...
>
> The best one was a person from ICL in Putney who came onto a Burroughs
> installation in Auckland (never having used this hardware or worked with
> it before), taught himself the Assembler in a w

.. [multiple additional
> talents}

So?

I can fart and chew gum at the same time.

MCM

The Magick Chickin

2007-11-04, 6:55 pm

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:45:22 +0000, docdwarf skrawled the following chikin
skratch in the barnyard dust:

>
> Interviewer: (silence) (facial expression seems to indicate 'What is this
> guy talking about... *nobody* can do that, it took me *months* to get up
> to speed with (Tool-A) and I'm the guy sitting in the Corner Cubicle... he
> must be telling a lie or exaggerating.') (spoken) 'I see... well, thanks

-- thats usually they are sitting in the corner office, the could not
hack it as a worker bee.

Alistair

2007-11-04, 6:55 pm

On 4 Nov, 03:36, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> <docdw...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:fgj5cd$2i0$1@reader1.panix.com...

> "For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction".
>
Let me just say: CENTRIPETAL force.

And don't come back with CENTRIFUGAL.

Alistair

2007-11-04, 6:55 pm

On 4 Nov, 13:48, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9t0Xi.48928$b9.17629@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
> Who, while being a great talent and demonstrating incredible tenacity and
> capability in his field, wasn't really such a success as a Human Being,
> being almost universally disliked (he had cronies rather than friends), and
> gleefully watching people being hanged, on his order, as Head of the Royal
> Mint.
>
> The sort of man whose help you'd be sorry you needed...:-)
>
> Pete.
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

AND....he didn't invent Calculus and wasn't much of an alchemist
either.

Judson McClendon

2007-11-04, 6:55 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> Let me just say: CENTRIPETAL force.
>
> And don't come back with CENTRIFUGAL.

I believe the PC term these days is "centripetal acceleration" because
there is no actual 'force' involved, merely inertia. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Pete Dashwood

2007-11-04, 9:55 pm

"Michael Mattias" <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote in message
news:vxkXi.484$852.378@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:5p606fFpana7U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> So?
>
> I can fart and chew gum at the same time.
>

And you have mastered neither...?

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Clark F Morris

2007-11-04, 9:55 pm

On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 09:39:25 -0500, "Michael Mattias"
<mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:

><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fgi02t$8qs$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
>True, it was -and was intended to be - a stereotype. However, it is in my
>experience quite true that there are these Two Different Worlds of
>Programming. And far too often, an "applications guy" is asked to do
>something more suited to a "systems guy" and vice versa. This is one of my
>'hot button' things.. the total misapplication of programming resources,
>that is.
>
>Unfortunately, it starts at the top. Management - and even worse, "the
>Human Resources Department" - does not seem to grasp this concept when
>s

ing employees and/or contractors.
>
>Strangely enough, the best "Applications Programmers" are those *who
>actually understand the applications* - that is, the have Real Experience
>creating software *in the same industry or type of business*. Shop-specific
>"tools" and "language products" can be easily learned .. but there is no
>fast track to understanding the business needs of Real Users.
>
>Those who claim to be both an 'applications programmer' and a 'systems
>programmer' are advised to remember that the Jack (Jill) of all trades is
>the master of none.

I resembled that and admitted to it for a number of years. I had one
person who inherited some of my COBOL programs claim that I never was
an applications programmer (maybe they were the ones with ALTERs up
the yingyang to save memory on a 360/30 under DOS that moved through 3
operating systems).

Michael Mattias

2007-11-05, 7:55 am

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5p7cjqFpu9qbU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Michael Mattias" <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote in message
[color=darkred]
> And you have mastered neither...?

I'm still working on the gum-chewing, but I *WILL* get there Real Soon
Now.

MCM

2007-11-05, 6:55 pm

In article <SbFXi.202$TR5.1@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
Michael Mattias <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
>"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:5p7cjqFpu9qbU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>I'm still working on the gum-chewing, but I *WILL* get there Real Soon
>Now.

I'd advise not worrying too much... by the time you think you're close the
requirements will, most likely, have been changed.

DD

tlmfru

2007-11-05, 6:55 pm

Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1194204806.023699.195850@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Nov, 03:36, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
messagenews:fgj5cd$2i0$1@reader1.panix.com...[color=darkred]
>
> Let me just say: CENTRIPETAL force.
>
> And don't come back with CENTRIFUGAL.
>

So you're saying Newton was wrong?

Say centripetal all you like. It's a combination of two vectors as you very
well know. It isn't a force in its own right at all.

PL

tlmfru

2007-11-05, 6:55 pm

Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1194204947.047079.142430@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Nov, 13:48, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
'systems[color=darkred]
trades is[color=darkred]
Newton).[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
Royal[color=darkred]
>
> AND....he didn't invent Calculus and wasn't much of an alchemist
> either.
>

He didn't invent THE calculus, as we use it today, but his methods of
"fluxions" was calculus in another disguise. Alchemy may be a useless
pursuit but he was as successful as any other - he didn't discover the
chemical transmutation of the elements or the Philospher's Stone - but then
nobody else ever did. His immense notes and library on the subject may evne
be useful, if anybody knew his vocabulary.

PL

Howard Brazee

2007-11-05, 6:55 pm

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:33:26 -0800, Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Let me just say: CENTRIPETAL force.
>
>And don't come back with CENTRIFUGAL.

As a physics major, I agree with you. Centripetal force works with
the math.

But I'm not going to tell someone trying to get a feel for his golf
swing that the semantics that works for him doesn't compute.

The word still has a useful meaning.

Alistair

2007-11-05, 6:55 pm

On 4 Nov, 23:46, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I believe the PC term these days is "centripetal acceleration" because
> there is no actual 'force' involved, merely inertia. :-)
> --
> Judson McClendon ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Just leave me to cling on to my old-fashioned delusions.

So, PC has reached physics after screwing Dr. Watson (I suppose he
really screwed himself).

Sponsored Links