The following vocalization was captured on tape by our friends over at Who Forted blog during a Bigfooting camp-out with Dallas and Wayne of the critically acclaimed documentary, "Dallas and Wayne: The Bigfoot Hunters". The website, Mysterious Universe, was privileged with the world exclusive first look of the vocalization that will be featured in Greg Newkirk's upcoming documentary "Planet Weird":
Greg, the director, writes:
The clip in question is from our day with Wayne Gibson and Dallas Gilbert, two Bigfoot hunters from the border of West Virginia and Ohio. We expected the outing to be a lot like our time with Tim, and while they were certainly a bit eccentric, they managed to get us pretty creeped out when we were in the mountains.
This scene takes place around the time that Wayne teaches us how to call Sasquatch. Dana gives it a shot, and within a handful of minutes.. something in the woods starts calling back to us... loudly.
[Update] The round table discussion has been archived. Watch below:
[via www.weirdhq.com via mysteriousuniverse.org]
Fist haha
ReplyDeleteFirst
DeleteI would have been first but was diverted by the breat reduction for men ad.
DeletePlease oh please help my babies by giving them blueberry bagels and pancakes. Dont let the fat man smeja kill us all please
DeleteNo more falsehoods or derisions.
Delete-the fifth dimension
What's with the woolly hats did there heating go down.
DeleteI have a pet turd hidden under my bed.
ReplyDelete( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
ReplyDelete__̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.___
Delete┏(-_-)┛┗(-_- )┓┗(-_-)┛┏(-_-)┓
DeleteIf u leave a post below ur gay....
ReplyDeleteDo you mean gay as in happy or gay as in homosexual?
DeleteGay as momeymaker's new hairdoo
DeleteMatt has happy hair?
DeleteDammit! How does he know???
ReplyDeleteIf you leave a post below you are fabulous!
ReplyDeleteFabulous as in gay?
DeleteAbsolutely fabulous as in gay.
DeleteFruity fabulous footers
DeleteJust thought I'd leave this here:
ReplyDeleteA Rebuttal to "http://listverse.com/2012/12/30/top-10-reasons-bigfoot-probably-doesnt-exist/"
10. The Photographic and Video Evidence is Poor
Yes, it is. But Patterson-Gimlin is real, not hoax. I doubt many would have the courage to chase after a possibly violent 8 foot tall ape in the spur of the moment - especially back then, when according to you bigfoot was relatively unknown.
9. Bigfoot Doesn't Exist in the Food Chain
"Adding" bigfoot to the food chain messes things up only if you're thinking of bigfoot as not already being integrated into the food chain. You wouldn't feel any "reverberations" if it was already a part of it. Also, forest area in the US is HUGE, and there's plenty of food to go around.
8. Bigfoot is Too Big To Go Unnoticed
Tell that to the panda. Tell that to gorillas and chimpanzees. Tell that to cross river chimps and those weird monkeys they took pictures of last year. Tell it to the dwarf elephant and the sumatran rhino. Also, plenty of people notice it every year - but of course we can't count those people, right?
7. No Bigfoot Fossils Exist
Forest environments don't produce good fossils. Find me some chimp fossils. Go ahead. I'll wait. Also, if they bury their dead - which they very well might if they are related to humans - or even just hole up in the ground before dying, we wouldn't find them. Perhaps some of those hominid skulls ARE bigfoot.
6. Successful Breeding is Unlikely
30,000 bigfoots could easily exist in North America evading capture. The population of black bears in North America (excluding 5 states including Alaska) is around 400,000. Add grizzly bears to that mix and you've got a hell of a lot of bears. But when was the last time that you saw one? And at a zoo doesn't count.
And we're talking about a creature with near-human intelligence, evolved over the centuries to evade humans - and according to descriptions is perfectly built to blend in with its environment.
5. Misidentification Is Widespread
DeleteBear tracks look nothing like human tracks. Neither does the Patterson-Gimlin film. On top of that, plenty of sightings occur by people living in rural areas who know what bears look like, and describe vividly features of the face and behavior (besides walking on two legs) that could not be a bear.
4. There Were No Sightings Before 1958.
Oh really? I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt claimed to see then. And I wonder where the word sasquatch comes from (hint: Columbus thought they lived in India)
3. Lack of Killings Despite Reward
First of all, most people who see them see them for a very short time and are too stunned to do anything (and usually aren't carrying guns). Second of all, if they are as humanlike as the reports indicate, people would resist wanting to kill them. That being said, the panda likewise had a reward for being killed when it was first being talked about, and despite standing out against its environment, being slow, and being rather stupid, it took decades of consistent searching to find it. And there wasn't a stigma preventing most scientists from looking. (Nor were there invested forestry and religious interests in not finding it.)
2. Bigfoot is a Hoaxer's Paradise
Yet no one has turned up a film as good as Patterson-Gimlin, in all this time. Maybe because it's not that easy? And hoaxing isn't usually worth the trouble?
1. Lack of Physical Evidence
We have hair samples currently listed as coming from no known animal. We have footprints - scores and scores of them. We have blood samples currently being tested both in the US and the UK. We have bones from a reported yeti, and even its skull cap, on display in a sacred monk temple in Nepal. We have reports from the early 20th century (in the NYTimes no less among others) turning up report after report of giant bones being unearthed in America. We have - possibly - fossil evidence of a parallel evolution of bigfoot and man in the already existing hominid fossil record. Paranthropus and gigantopithecus, I'm looking at you. Simply put, if we had any physical evidence that was more "definitive", we wouldn't be arguing about it! So until then, those who know what they've seen and believe that there is enough evidence - both circumstantial and physical - to warrant investigation, will continue searching, while you bury your head in the sand. Have fun!
First how do u know the thing is violent?
DeleteSmart enought to bury their dead??? Not smart enought to make/ use tools. Not smart enought to make a pair of deer skin boots to hide their tracks.
DeleteThat long ass post was nothing but speculation and your beliefs. Not one damn fact, pure footer bullshit.
DeleteI don't need no facts. I've got Indian mysticism and bold faced lies.
Delete-Sasquaination
I will shoot Bigfoot in the damn lungs an see if it can run away, no wait it will never happen because Bigfoot is fake as fuck.
Delete@ Anon 8:23
Delete"Not one damn fact."
^ Quite a few actually.
List of facts I used:
* People would generally be afraid of 8 foot tall animals they've never seen before. (1)
* The amount of forest/park area in the USA and Canada is HUGE. There are around 1 million square miles of forest in the US alone, which is between 29% of the total US land area. In the Northwest and Alaska the percentage is much higher, likewise in Canada. (2,3)
* The search for the panda was a long and hard one and many doubted its existence at first. (4)
* The gorilla was also thought to be mythical at first. (5,6)
* The Cross River gorilla was once thought to be extinct, and despite intense research since the 90s, photos only emerged recently. (7)
* From the lesula to the bili ape, we are discovering new apes and monkeys or reclassifying old ones all the time these days. (8,9)
* Chimp fossils haven't been found until recently, and they have left evolutionary biologists wondering how they ended up on the wrong side of the Great Rift Valley. (10,11)
* Fossils are rare in the first place, but land animals, and then forest land animals rarer still: "Forest or woodlands, the presumed habitats used by prehistoric procyonids [raccoons], are not conducive to fossilization and may explain the relative paucity of fossil record for this family." (12)
* There are around 400K black bears in North America (you can check Wikipedia yourself). Also, 125,000 gorillas were recently found in an area much smaller than North America which had been previously undetected. We're only hypothesizing around 30,000 bigfoots in a MUCH bigger land area. (13)
* I concede that Roosevelt wrote about a bigfoot encounter that was not his own (oops). The book title is named in the link. (14)
* The New York Times did have a few stories about giant bones in the early 20th century, which you can read from a google search here. (15)
The rest of my claims are not "facts" - just the application of logic to the known facts, and things that are common sense about human nature.
Sources
(1) common sense
(2) US Forest Inventory and Analysis
(3) http://geography.about.com/od/usmaps/a/states-area.htm
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Western_discovery
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Studies
(6) http://listverse.com/2010/04/16/10-beasts-that-used-to-be-mythical/
(7) http://www.wcs.org/saving-wildlife/great-apes/cross-river-gorilla.aspx
(8) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/2012/09/15/new-species-of-african-monkey-discovered/
(9) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3730574.stm
(10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Fossils
(11) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9145721/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/first-ever-chimpanzee-fossils-found/#.UQIOy-j7psc
(12) Wild Mammals of North America - Feldhamer/Chapman.
(13) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93254830
(14) http://www.ourbigfoot.com/teddy_roosevelt_bigfoot.html
(15) https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+times+giant+bones&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=EUx&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PRICUafaKcew0AHfhoDgDg&ved=0CE4QsAQ&biw=1233&bih=666
And yes, I realize that half of you don't give a shit enough to even investigate all of this for yourselves, but I've put up my arguments and the links for those that wish to. Have fun trolling.
DeleteWow I guess you told us - I believe now - I BELIEVE!!!
DeleteNot really.
First of all, I have seen that exact argument copied and pasted verbatim on hundreds of other sites so don't act like it represents your own original thinking. The fact that you blindly repost it demonstrates that you are an uncritical, indoctrinated follower who has no ability to think independently.
DeleteSecondly, the discussion is filled with strawman arguments for which footers are well known. Jeez, North America is filled with vast forests -- there must be a giant ape man walking around. The same logic could be applied to any mythical creature you can invent. Plenty of room for dogman and owlman too.
And comparing apes found in small remote areas to an alleged one reported in every state in the US and more than half the countries of the world is patently absurd. Bigfoot is supposedly witnessed in urban and semi-urban areas near major cities, dumpster diving, peering through windows, and sleeping in dog houses. I've never heard reports of panda bears doing that and yet they were discovered.
Do yourself a favor and stop slavishly copying and pasting propaganda talking points and do some critical thinking of your own.
middleC, Don't even try to reason with these Anoms.. They are not even skeptics, they are basically here because they get off on starting drama like the little cowardly bitches they are. At the top you will see the box labeled "Forum" That is where the rest of us are. The trolls do not show up there because you have to register and they are in fact, lifeless cowards... There is no intelligent life here on the blog anymore, we moved to the forum.. See you there :)
DeleteYes, go to the forum where you can join the rest of the choir without any fear of reason or sanity creeping in.
DeleteYes, go to the forums and read Tzieth's crazy conspiracy theories about the New Town Sandyhook shootings. Great fun reading his strange ramblings about a so called "false flag" event staged by the Obama administration. And I am quite sure that you will thoroughly enjoy Tzieth's analysis of video of grieving parents who just lost their children not acting "appropriately" in his opinion.
DeleteSee? I rest my case.. the trolls go there but say nothing.. Good system ;)
DeleteOh about that grieving parent? (The one who was laughing and smirking before his interview).. You do know his daughter is still alive right?
Middlec , it's not just the data you have it's figuring out how to put it in to context! Raw data or "facts" are always subject to outside factors that either disprove or validate them or they are sometimes misinterpreted completely to prove someone's argument. For example you could use the argument for the discovery of the Panda or Gorilla as evidence for Bigfoot as you have here, you can also provide estimates for the populations of these creatures that might support your argument and also site the discovery and re-classifications of primates as evidence too. All those are based on known facts about these animals. However, what you have not done here is look at that information and put it into context. For example the hunt for Panda did take a long time as did the hunt for Gorillas both of them were considered folk tales too. However, that was over a hundred years ago and this is the 21st century!! When people were searching for these animals they didn't have the technology that modern day footers posses, HD cameras, Flir thermal cameras, night vision hell even automobiles! You also have to look at the countries themselves, America even in the 19th and early 20th centuries was a very different country from Africa or China, they are still very different geographically, culturally, socially and politically to the US. For example there is a whole rainforest in Mozambique that has only been discovered by using Google Earth because the whole country has been a war zone and not safe for scientists to travel to. China too for many years had shut it's self off from the west and not only since the communist revolution there but for centuries previously so it was very hard to even get into the country to begin with and as it was western colonial scientists who catalogued these animals back then (hence all spiecies carry Latin names) that was a problem that wouldn't have occurred in the US.
DeleteThe primates recently discovered or re-discovered have been in the news too but they are also either in countries in Africa again affected by conflict or they are a new species that is just a different type of an existing animal. The new monkey species that have recently been discovered where either in very remote areas not explored before by western (or any) scientists or were just different sub-species of existing animals. One was even discovered by accident as it was being kept as a pet and the scientist at first ignored it as he thought it was a known indigenous species untill he noticed some small differences and realised it was an undocumented animal. There's a big difference here between finding a new primate of an existing genus in a country with a primate population and looking at Bigfoot, an unknown species in a country with no other apes that's highly populated by man.
^^Damn, you're good.
DeleteAs for re-classification MiddleC it happens all the time and means very little to non-biologists. Not long ago they decided that the common American corn snake needed reclassifying as after study they realised that it differed ever so slightly from the rat snakes of the rest of world enough to warrant renaming and classifying it. They did the same thing last year with the geckos of New Caledonia and renamed and reclassified them all. The animals hadn't changed or been rediscovered or totally new to science it was just after further study they decided to reclassify them and change their names as they realised they were many small differences enough to reclassify them. Re-classification has nothing to do with Bigfoot.
DeleteAll the new animal species are being found in remote areas that have not been visited by scientists or even in places where only aboriginal tribesmen have been before. The forests of North America are not the rainforests of South America, the jungles of Africa or the tropical forests of Vietnam, Madagascar or Malaysia. They are just big areas of trees all explored at one point by some cartographer, biologist, park ranger, hiker etc... They aren't the same and they don't have the biological diversity that those other countries do.
As for the other facts, saying that people would be scared of Bigfoot isn't a fact, it's an assumption and who's to say that everyone would crap themselves? Teddy Roosevelt was just writing a story, it was heresay or camp fire tale. I'm sure the New York Times did publish those stories but that doesn't mean anything, they could have been hoaxed like carnival attractions and Jackelopes. It was a long time ago and Ed Smith and Dyer would have had a lot more success back then. Plus, I hate to break this to you but not everything reported in newspapers is real or Batboy would probably be President by now, hell Bigfoot could be the VP :)
@Anon 9:44 PM, people may have said similar things in the past, but I actually wrote all of this up just now.
DeleteSo either it's a magical cosmic coincidence or you don't understand what "verbatim" means.
@ Anon 1:12 AM,
I appreciate your careful, measured argument in this sea of lazy armchair trolls. However, I think there are a couple points that make your argument insufficient to discount the reports and the physical evidence: 1) if bigfoot is in fact some relic hominid (as stories of communication and trade with Native Americans would suggest), its intelligence is near or above ours, and it would certainly understand how to avoid human capture.
2) I think you underestimate how unpopulated vast stretches of the US really are. It's easy to think that we know everything that's going on underfoot and in the sky from our lofty perch in the cities, but there are huge areas which see barely any travelers each year (if any).
Take Dem. Rep. of Congo for example. We think of that as being pretty heavily forested and not very populated - and we'd be right. They're ranked 182nd for population density in the world and have only 78 people per square mile. But what about Mongolia? Other than Greenland and a few little islands, they're ranked last, being least densely populated at 5 per sq. mile.
Now how do reported bastions of sasquatch/yeti/bigfoot/yowie fare in comparison?
Russia -- 222nd -- 21 pop/sq mi
Canada -- 227th -- 10 pop/sq mi
Australia -- 232nd -- 8 pop/sq mi
How about the US?
We are 177th in pop. density with 89 pop/sq mi.
State-by-state,
NJ is first with 1,189 pop / sq mi.
California is 11th with 241.7 pop / sq mi (though most occurring in the major cities)
Texas is 98.07 pop / sq mi
Colorado is 49.33 pop / sq mi
Maine is 43.04 pop / sq mi
Oregon is 40.033 pop / sq mi
and finally, dear old Alaska
1.264 pop / sq mi.
If we look at Canada, we find Ontario has only ~5 pop / sq mi
and British Columbia, a reported hotspot of bigfoot activity has only ~1.9 pop / sq mi.
Damn, facts are good. :P
Facts are good MiddleC but like I said before it's how you interperate them and the context the facts or numbers are used in. For example everyone knows that Australia has vast areas that are unpopulated, they're desserts the outback where an animal like a large primate couldn't survive and would be almost totally exposed with virtually no cover to hide behind. I would guess that if you removed the big urban areas, farm land and the Outback from the equation there would be verry little forests and rainforests left to sustain any number of Yowies or their relatives! That's why Australia, Russia, Canada, Mongolia and Greenland are not densely populated because vast areas are inhospitable to man or primate! They are either too hot and arid or far too cold and barren for people to survive there so if Bigfoot is supposed to be a member of the human (therefore an ape) it wouldn't be able to survive either!
DeleteThere are large areas of the States that are inhospitable too hence the low population densitiy of Alaska or Texas because it's too hot or too cold for humans to survive there without all of our gadgets, buildings, water supplies etc. So take out the inhospitable areas, urban areas and the masses of farm land for crops and cattle and how much forest is left to sustain 30,000 Sasquatch? Like Australia, Canada, Russia and (for sure) Greenland the US has been pretty much all explored and the plants and animals catelogued by science. The point is yes there's lots of forest in North America but it's not undiscovered land like in other countries, it's not out of reach or unexplored it's used for hiking, hunting, camping etc.
To avoid biologists for so long it would have to be a very smart creature but if it is so smart where's the Bigfoot settlements, where's the evidence of Bigfoot tools, where's the Bigfoot rock paints or any other evidence not only that they exist but that they are so smart? Chimps use tools, most primates have big ordered social groups so if they do exist and they are so intelligent they must in hundreds of years of colonisation left real proof somewhere! Nope not a bit, we can find animals in the Congo, Brasilian rainforests and in remote bits of Asia but can not find a shred of proof of Sasquatch.
There is no real physical evidence, hundreds of years of American colonisation and not a single dead body found or one caught in a bear trap or anything just footprint casts! They can't even be counted as physical evidence unless there's a severed foot left in it! There is no 100% video or photographic evidence, all those investigations by teams with funny names, tv shows with professional camera crews and people who even claim to hang out with them or watch them die of old age or whatever but in 45 years only the PGF film (which you can not claim to be genuine unless you are the ghost of Patterson or Gimlin) has proved hard to debunk. At least over 45 years of people hunting and nothing but funny noises and blobsquatch? Black bear maybe hard to find but in 45 years there's plenty of footage of them! Oh, let's not mention Ketchum's results as her paper has not been realised yet so neither of us can say proof or hoax on that!
DeleteAs for witnesses they're unreliable as a lawyer lol! Native American tales of Bigfoot are that tales, stories every culture has them and they all have similar characters and creatures in them but it doesn't mean they're real. It's just based on a collective primal fear that we as humans have of the dark, forests and wilderness every culture has a boogeyman and a big hairy beast is probably a universal image in many cultures. It seems like something happened in western European culture since the 60s where if a aboriginal from the New World (US, Canada or Australisia) tells you a folk tale then there must be truth in it! It's because they're so wise, spiritual and ancient etc. I'm not saying this to insult these people but if these were Romainians talking bout vampires or Germans talking bout werewolves we would find it hard to believe them but when it's about Sasquatch it must be true because it's an old legend! So Romainians aren't an old culture with legends or if some one told you from Norway about Trolls and they're loads of werewolf stories all across France, Germany even the UK but if you believed in their monsters you're an idiot but to believe in the Sasquatch or Yowie well they're real and need Government protection! We know vampires, trolls, dragons and mermaids are baloney they're silly folk stories from our ancestors like Sasquatch, Wendigo, Skinwalkers and Yowies are theirs. We don't know they exist yet alone traded with the First Nation people so sorry you can't call that evidence unless you where there or are infact a 8 ft hairy apeman :)
Hey Middle C, I am the original troll who responded to you. Yes, I do know the definition of "verbatim" and I exaggerated when I wrote that I had read the passage "hundreds of times." But it was something that I felt sure that I had read multiple times in other forums. It also seemed that you were a liitle to ready with footnotes to type out all of the citations off the top of your head.
DeleteIn any event, because you have assured me that it was all original thinking, I acknowledge that I was incorrect. And I admit that your subsequent posts tend to support that fact you're an independent thinker. I apologize for the negative tenor of my earlier post and respect that we think differently on this particular subject.
*too
DeleteI'm the other anon that writes the essays, I hope you eventually prove me wrong :)
Delete@ 3:25 Anon
DeleteWow. I'm pleasantly surprised.
I don't think it's unreasonable that people doubt bigfoot's existence anyway - I doubt it as well. I'm simply trying to show that arguments claiming to disprove its existence are flawed - no argument other than real evidence can prove that it does exist.
I agree to disagree.
P. S. The citations were the result of about half an hour of Google searching, that's all.
I was chatting with someone who is a premium member at the BFF and he told me that Mulder started a thread in the Tar Pit section in which the footers trade ideas on how to come up with snappy comebacks to trolls on Bigfoot Evidence.
ReplyDeleteHe mentioned that he became disturbed when Mulder devoted dozens of comments to creating a Queen Randi golden butt plug scenario and was actually inviting other members to act it out with him so that they could use the retort more credibly.
That's rubbish. Mulder could never afford a golden butt plug. He so stupid and broke he sold both his kidneys to pay for dialysis.
DeleteAs a substitute, Mulder could use the broken and infected plastic butt plug that he found in a dumpster behind the local Circle K and left there by a diseased shemale prostitute.
Deleteno gay as in fabuloso
ReplyDeleteNot gonna lie, this show looks like it might be pretty fun. If they're already getting vocalizations better than Finding Bigfoot has in 3 seasons, they must be doing something right.
ReplyDeleteYep, They didn't invite MM since he as been blacklisted by the Bigfoot.
DeleteI had one semester of law school AND long hair, I will sue your asses in civil court!
DeleteI shave my squatch with a Flowbee while wearing oven mitts and a tunic made from an old fish print shower curtain.
ReplyDeleteEww! Too much information.
Delete-Sandy the Squeamish
Tell me more Anon eight fifty four!
Delete-Petey the Perv
Missing kids obviously the dastardly work of big and aliens. LMAO
ReplyDeleteI've been standing by for over twenty minutes now - I don't think this is happening. In any case I'm going to bed.
ReplyDeleteHey these guys are fat & out of shape so it may take a bit!!
ReplyDeleteshow cancelled or something?
ReplyDeleteHow can people out there believe in Bigfoot if you can't get a huge fat gay guy on a computer?
ReplyDeleteI have the baby Bigfoot Justin shot, it's in a freezer. The creature weighs more than 35 lbs. maybe more like 70lbs. Unless it got heavier from being frozen. I am going to sell it to Tom Biscardi - I thought of different ways to explane this but every way sounds so dumb.
ReplyDeleteThe funding? Come on! You are lazy and slow... The dumber ape!
ReplyDeleteTom Biscardi has defenetly spent more time in the woods searching for Bigfoot than this Jeffrey guy, not that I am a supporter of him but that's not hard to figure out, please!!!
ReplyDeleteA beaver hand? Hahahaha
ReplyDeleteBottom of the barrel Bigfoot researchers - except for Shaun Evidence, he's Asian so you know he's smart
ReplyDeleteThe blonde is hot. I love her. What's her name?
ReplyDeleteMum
DeleteMy left nut hangs lower than my right.
ReplyDeleteAh. Chinese wiseman One Hung Low
DeleteWell, if there are around 400K black bears in North America. Also, 125,000 gorillas were recently found in an area much smaller than North America which had been previously undetected. We're only hypothesizing around 30,000 bigfoots in a MUCH bigger land area, then surely one of you must know which ointment to use on the rash between my ass cheeks, the hole really itches.
ReplyDeleteHilarious.
DeleteSo, they got punk'd. They admitted to it in the end. Nothing to see here.
ReplyDeleteHey, how about moderating these comments? You know, don't let them post until the the comment goes through a moderator... You have one or two either 14 year olds or really immature idiot adults ruining this otherwise decent site.
ReplyDeleteHey, how about heading over to the BFF site where all comments are heavily scrutinized? You will love the police state way they do things over there.
DeleteYou'll Get Nothing And Like It.
ReplyDelete