Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

OCATA THERAPEUTICS, INC. Message Board

lonesome_polecatt 182 posts  |  Last Activity: 5 hours ago Member since: Nov 7, 2012
  • Reply to

    Ignore

    by trotter23 Jul 18, 2016 10:47 AM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 18, 2016 10:55 AM Flag

    I think this board is no longer supported by Yahoo. Many of you had to arrive here through a back door

    I've had jojoako on ignore for years but now I see his posts all the time. He has to be the most unoriginal poster here. His message is always the same "pump, pump, pump".

  • Call Black Lives Matter. After all cops are nothing more than vicious, murdering, racists but BLM are rational, concerned citizens who I am sure will rush to your aid.

  • of the Earth. Who knew?

    "Harvard shield Harvard University Gazette Harvard University Gazette

    Current Issue:
    April 24, 2003

    Global warming is not so hot:

    1003 was worse, researchers find

    By William J. Cromie
    Gazette Staff

    The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?

    To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.

    Sallie Baliunas argues that an increasing brightness of the sun plays a large role in the present global warm-up. (Staff photo by Jon Chase)

    This review of changes in nature and culture during the past 1,000 years was published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of Energy and Environment. It puts subjective observations of climate change on a much firmer objective foundation. For example, tree-ring data show that temperatures were warmer than now in many far northern regions from 950 to 1100 A.D.

    From 800 to 1300 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, many parts of the world were warmer than they have been in recent decades. But temperatures now (including last winter) are generally much milder than they were from 1300 to 1900, the Little Ice Age.

    To come to this coclusion, CfA researchers, along with colleagues from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., and the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, reviewed more than 200 studies of climate done over the past 10 years. "Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change," says Willie Soon of CfA. "Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."

    Nature still rules

    Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? Soon won't go that far. But he does say "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. [The year 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, then 2001.] In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

    Soon and colleagues believe their findings will contribute to computer models that simulate natural and human influences on climate more accurately. That should lead to better climate forecasts, including those on local and regional levels. Such forecasts, in turn, could help make it easier to reach international agreements on treaties to control emissions of industrial gases that contribute to global warming. One reason the administration of President Bush gives for not signing the international 1997 Kyoto Protocol to limit carbon dioxide emissions is that sufficient scientific information about the cause of global warming is lacking.

    Vikings enjoy Greenland beaches

    Plenty of anecdotal evidence exists for warmer times and decades of more frigid and extreme weather than we are now experiencing.

    Extended television and government forecasts didn't exist during the 16th to 18th centuries, but many Flemish and Dutch artists, like Pieter Brueghel and Hendrick Avercamp, depicted severe Little Ice Age winters in their paintings.

    CfA's Sallie Baliunas, a co-author of the study, refers to the medieval Viking sagas as examples of unusual warming around 1003 A.D. "The Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium, but they died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder," she notes. "And good evidence exists that vineyards flourished in Scotland and England during the medieval warmth."

    The evidence also shows that the warmer and colder times occurred not just in Europe, but in places all over the world. Entered into computer simulations that can send us backward and forward hundreds of years in a matter of days, the new information should make forecasts and hindcasts of climate much more accurate.

    "

  • Reply to

    Off Topic

    by shoenfield Jul 16, 2016 1:53 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 17, 2016 12:59 PM Flag

    Monday, 24 August 2015
    July “Warmest on Record” Lie Debunked by NASA Data
    Written by Alex Newman


    font size decrease font size increase font size Print Email
    July “Warmest on Record” Lie Debunked by NASA Data
    The Obama administration's politicized bureaucracies are trying to deceive the world once again, this time claiming, falsely, that July of 2015 was the “warmest on record.” In the real world, it was not even the hottest July since last year, according to the global satellite temperature record, which is considered more reliable and comprehensive than the admittedly manipulated and incomplete data relied upon by NASA and NOAA to make their latest false “warmest on record” pronouncements. Virtually none of the establishment press bothered to mention the caveats on the methodology behind taking the Earth's temperature, preferring instead to parrot official press releases yet again.

    Indeed, as has happened in virtually every instance where the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made a “warmest on record” claim — whether it be over a time span of a year or a month — the agencies' own data contradict the claim. In fact, the global temperature data gathered by NASA's own satellites, the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) data set, along with the satellite data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), make a complete mockery of the latest fear-mongering, just as they did for claims made about last August and the year 2014.

    “Better data shows July this year is the hottest since way back in … 2014. It’s not 4,000 years, not 135 years, it’s the hottest July since the last one,” noted popular Australian climate researcher and scientist Jo Nova in an analysis ridiculing the official claims and the even more outlandish media propaganda surrounding them. “We only have 30 years of good climate data: the satellites tell us the pause is real, and last month’s summer temperatures is not a record anything. According to the UAH and RSS global satellites, lower troposphere averages for July 2014 were 0.30C and 0.34C, compared to July 2015 of 0.28C. Even June 2015 was hotter (UAH, 0.35C; RSS, 0.39C). July 2015 is not even the hottest month since June.”

    Oops! As usual, the cascade of alarmist headlines worldwide about the allegedly record-setting July — some especially silly journalists speculated that it may have been the hottest in 4,000 years — began with a press releases from alleged scientists at the NOAA and NASA. Instead of focusing on the fact that their own satellites show that the ongoing pause in global warming has been going for more than two decades, or that even this June and last July were warmer than July 2015, the tax-funded alarmists cherry-picked dubious, incomplete, massaged, and in some cases invented (extrapolated) data to falsely claim a new “record” was set last month.

    “The July average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.46°F (0.81°C) above the 20th century average,” NOAA said in its deceptive press release. “As July is climatologically the warmest month for the year, this was also the all-time highest monthly temperature in the 1880–2015 record, at 61.86°F (16.61°C), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.14°F (0.08°C).” It also claimed that land surface temperatures in July were the sixth highest on record, and that much of the alleged record was driven by warmth in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. NOAA's "Global Summary Information" press release did not bother to mention the powerful but natural El Niño driving ocean temperatures.

    Critics tore the claims apart from all angles. Using a number of fascinating graphs and images created with the U.S. government's own temperature data, independent climate analyst Steven Goddard at Real Climate Science demolished the official claims and lambasted the “criminals” behind them. “July was either 8th or 9th warmest since 1979, not the 'hottest month ever' as the criminals at NOAA claim,” he observed. “Global warming theory demands that the lower troposphere warms faster than the surface — the exact opposite of the fraudulent claims being made by NOAA. The level of fraud on display here is off scale. July was nowhere near the hottest month.”

    Among other data cited by Goddard is the fact that the percentage of days over 100 degrees in the United States has plummeted since the 1930s. Again using the U.S. government's own data, he showed that the average summer maximum temperature “has also plummeted, with summer 2015 more than four degrees cooler than 1936.” Across the United States, July was just the 51st hottest since 1895, according to U.S. government temperature data — despite major fact errors by journalists, such as Mariano Castillo and Brandon Miller at alarmist media outlets such as CNN, who falsely claimed July was the warmest on record in the United States.

    “Make no mistake about it,” continued Goddard, a whistleblower who worked on U.S. government contracts to create climate models and now operates websites debunking global-warming alarmism and the false claims underpinning it. “The people making these claims are criminals, who are generating completely fake numbers for the White House — in true Orwellian fashion.” The graphs he provides comparing the real data gathered by the U.S. government and the false claims made in press releases make that abundantly clear.

    Other critics ridiculed the claims based on the dubious data sets used by bureaucrats to make the alarmist pronouncements in the first place. Writing in the Washington Times, International Climate Science Coalition Executive Director Tom Harris said the Obama administration was “hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.” He pointed out that NOAA's “record” claim was based on “calculations” that showed July 2015 to be eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius above July 1998, while NASA calculated that this year's July was a mere two one-hundredths of a degree warmer than July of 2011.

    “But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics,” explained Harris. “NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set. So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set.”

    In other words, even ignoring their own satellite data and relying on the data sets (and adjustments) used by NOAA and NASA, the “warmest on record” claim is absurd based on the agencies' own acknowledged margins of error. “Such misrepresentations are now commonplace in NOAA and NASA announcements,” Harris continued, adding that it was “irrational” to even try to calculate “global average temperatures” to hundredths of a degree, considering the fact that there is very little to no real data for the vast majority of the Earth's surface. “They are regularly proclaiming monthly and yearly records set by less than the uncertainties in the measurements. Scientists within the agencies know that this is dishonest.”

    Of course it is dishonest. And extremely misleading. In fact, the entire “climate” juggernaut is based on dishonesty and fraud, as countless scientists — including more than a few who have resigned from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) in disgust — have made abundantly clear. The “ClimateGate” scandals, in which alarmist “scientists” were exposed conspiring to break the law and deceive humanity, offered even more proof. Then there is the fact that there has been no warming in 20 years, contrary to every prediction based on UN climate models. More than a few credible experts, including many who have worked for NOAA, NASA, and the UN, are now warning that a natural cycle of global cooling is the real threat — and that it is coming soon.

    But with the UN and its revenue-hungry member governments and dictatorships meeting later this year in Paris to hammer out a planetary global-warming regime to battle the essential-to-life gas CO2, humanity can expect an accelerating deluge of easily disproved climate claims from governments and media outlets in the coming months — along with demands for more cash and more government. The “Paris-ites,” as critics are calling them, have invested so much taxpayer money and put so much of their credibility on the line that the man-made catastrophic-warming charade must be perpetuated at all costs. On the bright side, though, it appears that much of humanity, and Americans in particular, are seeing through it all.

  • Reply to

    Off Topic

    by shoenfield Jul 16, 2016 1:53 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 17, 2016 12:25 PM Flag

    "(Hottest June on record, July? last decade?)"

    Source please and don't quote PT Barnum (Al Gore).

  • Reply to

    Off Topic

    by shoenfield Jul 16, 2016 1:53 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 17, 2016 12:24 PM Flag

    "Can't argue with folks who don't believe science or facts." You must be talking about yourself. Give me three GW predictions that have come true.

    " Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

    James Taylor May 19, 2015 @ 09:53 AM

    Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

    The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

    Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

    NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.

    A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

    In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

    Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

    During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

    The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:

    “Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps”

    “2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse”

    “An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea”

    “New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at ‘unprecedented rate’”

    The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.

    To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.

    The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done."

  • https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/black-fathers-matter#.V17j

  • Reply to

    Off Topic

    by shoenfield Jul 16, 2016 1:53 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 17, 2016 11:11 AM Flag

    Don't you follow the news or do any research at all or do you just pull these bogus "facts" out of you a s s?

    "Sunday July 17, 2016
    Search Newsmax
    Rasmussen Poll: Trump Leads Clinton By 7 Points"

    I am on the right side of history. The Clintons are low life crooks and you know it but being a brainwashed socialist you don't care if they are unindicted felons. All you want is for your socialist ideology to win the hell with the welfare of the country.

  • Reply to

    Good Morrning Sunday Coffee

    by bum5353 Jul 17, 2016 7:50 AM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 17, 2016 10:16 AM Flag

    From your lips to God's ear.

  • Reply to

    Off Topic

    by shoenfield Jul 16, 2016 1:53 PM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 17, 2016 10:14 AM Flag

    Hillary is a disgusting, self serving, opportunistic liar who treats people like c r a p, just ask the Secret Service. Secret Service officers believe serving on Hillary's detail is a form of punishment and they hate it.

    As far as GW goes, it's a hoax perpetrated by the PT Barnum of the left, Al Gore.

    " POSTED ON APRIL 10, 2012 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN CLIMATE
    NASA SCIENTISTS REBEL AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA

    One of the world’s four or five leading global warming alarmists is James Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. We have written about Mr. Hansen a number of times, including this post, which almost has to be read to be believed: Hansen, traveling in China, denounced the United States and hailed China as the world’s “best hope” to stave off global warming. Hansen described Americans as “barbarians” with a fake democracy, and urged China’s rulers to lead a boycott of the United States in the hope that it would bring our economy to its knees. One can only wonder what China’s autocrats made of this barely-sane proposal. One also wonders how NASA, which is supposed to be responsible for space travel, got into the business of trying to subvert our economy through unscientific hysteria.

    A lot of NASA scientists and other employees are wondering the same thing. On March 28, fifty former NASA employees signed this letter to Charles Bolden, NASA’s Administrator:

    Dear Charlie,

    We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

    The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

    As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

    For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

    Thank you for considering this request.

    Sincerely,

    (Attached signatures)

    Hansen’s unscientific yammering about global warming has ruined the reputation of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and gravely damaged the image of NASA. Most recently, he has compared global warming to slavery:

    Dealing with climate change is a moral issue on a par with ending slavery, the world’s most celebrated climate scientist, James Hansen, of Nasa, believes.

    Dr Hansen, who heads Nasa’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, will be making the slavery comparison in his acceptance speech for the Edinburgh Medal next Tuesday, when he will also be calling for a global tax on all carbon emissions. Nothing less will do, he will argue, so urgent is the challenge which climate change presents for future generations.

    One thing about slavery, as opposed to anthropogenic global warming, is that it actually exists, to a significant degree. In fact, by some estimates there is more slavery in the world today than in the 19th century. So if Hansen actually cared about slavery as a moral evil as opposed to a rhetorical device, he could devote what remains of his career to combating it, instead of stirring up hysteria in an effort to destroy the world’s economy."

  • lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 15, 2016 5:49 PM Flag

    I'm sure the idiot is in turkey fighting with his Islamic buddies against the coup and for the Islamic fanatic president of Turkey.

  • lonesome_polecatt by lonesome_polecatt Jul 15, 2016 5:25 PM Flag

    MEDIA BLAMES TRUCK, NOT TERRORISTS OR ISLAM, FOR NICE ATTACK
    Will banning assault trucks stop more violence?
    Paul Joseph Watson - JULY 15, 2016 1400 Comments
    Media Blames Truck, Not Terrorists or Islam, For Nice Attack

    Leftist media outlets reacted to the devastating attack in Nice not by blaming Islam or even terrorists, but by suggesting that an inanimate object – the truck – was responsible for the carnage.
    Instead of pointing the finger at Islamists, CNN, CBC and the New York Times all published headlines that served to hide the true nature of the attack.
    CBC reported, “Children feared killed in Nice as truck attacks family event”. Presumably, the truck was somehow able to manifest artificial intelligence and plough itself through dozens of victims.

    Not to be outdone, CNN reported “Truck rams crowd; 84 dead in Nice,” again providing a convenient way of avoiding any mention of the ideology that inspired the driver.

    The New York Times went with “Truck attack on French crowd; Scores die,” again pinning the blame on the vehicle rather than the Islamist inside it.

    Given that the truck alone, and not the ideology that radicalized the terrorist who used one as a weapon, is to blame for the massacre in Nice, the solution to stop further violence is simple; Ban deadly assault trucks

  • MEDIA BLAMES TRUCK, NOT TERRORISTS OR ISLAM, FOR NICE ATTACK
    Will banning assault trucks stop more violence?
    Paul Joseph Watson - JULY 15, 2016 1400 Comments
    Media Blames Truck, Not Terrorists or Islam, For Nice Attack

    Leftist media outlets reacted to the devastating attack in Nice not by blaming Islam or even terrorists, but by suggesting that an inanimate object – the truck – was responsible for the carnage.
    Instead of pointing the finger at Islamists, CNN, CBC and the New York Times all published headlines that served to hide the true nature of the attack.
    CBC reported, “Children feared killed in Nice as truck attacks family event”. Presumably, the truck was somehow able to manifest artificial intelligence and plough itself through dozens of victims.

    Not to be outdone, CNN reported “Truck rams crowd; 84 dead in Nice,” again providing a convenient way of avoiding any mention of the ideology that inspired the driver.

    The New York Times went with “Truck attack on French crowd; Scores die,” again pinning the blame on the vehicle rather than the Islamist inside it.

    Given that the truck alone, and not the ideology that radicalized the terrorist who used one as a weapon, is to blame for the massacre in Nice, the solution to stop further violence is simple; Ban deadly assault trucks.

  • Reply to

    Day of Rage?

    by fraud_z_buster Jul 14, 2016 10:53 AM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 15, 2016 10:05 AM Flag

    Fraud, yahoo has changed the format and I had to do gymnastics to fined the ACTC site. Evan after I found it I have to click Topics to get to the current posts.

  • lonesome_polecatt by lonesome_polecatt Jul 15, 2016 12:22 AM Flag

    by the religion of peace.

    Loony left socialists will believe anything their socialist masters tell them.

  • lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 14, 2016 7:14 PM Flag

    I hope I have addressed your concern.

  • Reply to

    Day of Rage?

    by fraud_z_buster Jul 14, 2016 10:53 AM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 14, 2016 7:12 PM Flag

    Fraud, we may be the last two people on this MB.

  • lonesome_polecatt by lonesome_polecatt Jul 14, 2016 6:28 PM Flag

    Anybody?

  • lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 14, 2016 4:20 PM Flag

    I post some political post, Not all are political. But I do it for two reasons.

    1. Most of the posters on this board haven't a clue what Geron is going to do and that includes me. Most, not all, are petty whiners who insult other posters and say nasty things in general.

    2. I post political things just to #$%$ off up tight, unhappy, angry prigs such as you. It seems to work and that makes me happy.

  • Reply to

    Are folks letting Yahoo know

    by shoenfield Jul 14, 2016 11:47 AM
    lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Jul 14, 2016 3:26 PM Flag

    How do you go directly to the boards?