>>57226402>>57232369Here's an updated version with the latest one and another one I saved earlier. I seem to be the only one compiling these, I might miss some, also, in the past I think I skipped one that I thought wasn't good. The second last of this one I considered skipping as well, but it's in now (it brings some animalistic high-energy for variety), what do you think, Ruffians? Can I be trusted with such responsibility of quality assurance? I mean anyone could write something that's too low quality, so you got to have a standard.
