| PANDEMIC ALERT LEVEL |
| 123456 |
| Tracking the next pandemic: Avian Flu Talk |
I Got The $#@%$&*$ Flu Shot |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | |
Satori 
Valued Member 
Joined: June 03 2013 Status: Offline Points: 28655 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: I Got The $#@%$&*$ Flu ShotPosted: November 18 2015 at 7:11pm |
|
and now I've got the flu
 well not me but a friend of mine she got the flu shot Friday morning and late Saturday had all the signs and symptoms of the flu she went in to see her MD and he did indeed confirm that she had the flu and told her that he thought that it was the vaccine that had given it to her as sometimes "there is some live virus present in the vaccine" his words !!! |
|
 |
|
|
KiwiMum
Chief Moderator 
Joined: May 29 2013 Status: Offline Points: 29670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 19 2015 at 12:52am |
|
This is exactly what happened to friends of ours last year. They got the flu shot for the first time ever and both came down with the flu, and a really bad case of it at that.
|
|
|
Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Penham
Chief Moderator
Moderator Joined: February 09 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 14913 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 19 2015 at 7:00pm |
|
If you scroll down to the section on the left of the CDC page "Vaccine/Virus Selection/Vaccines/Safety & Supply" it will tell you there is no live virus in the vaccines except the nasal spray vaccine.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/disease.htm |
|
|
|
|
Satori
Valued Member
Joined: June 03 2013 Status: Offline Points: 28655 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2015 at 4:27am |
|
I know what the CDC says
I also know they have been caught lying on more than one occasion and after the EBOLA debacle in Texas,the CDC holds little sway with me I'm merely repeating what my friends MD told her concerning the possible presence of some live virus in the vaccine and it is interesting to note,this same friend has an older child who is severely handicapped he started out as a perfectly normal child one day he received a number of childhood vaccines the next morning he was in a state of uncontrollable seizures and ended up with numerous lifelong disabilities the doctors a the time,told my friend that the "vaccines had nothing to do with it" yet at the same time told her that he nor his brother should ever receive another vaccine of any type make of that what you will I'm not an anti-vaccination type by any means but neither do I think we are being told the whole truth about vaccines |
|
|
|
|
DeepThinker
V.I.P. Member
Joined: September 26 2015 Location: So. California Status: Offline Points: 3245 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 22 2015 at 11:55am |
|
This the way I see vaccines... All vaccines have risks associated with them. You can't deny this. With some diseases vaccines are highly effective and the disease is bad enough to take the risk of getting a vaccine.
However with flu.... we only loose about 1,000 people a year to flu in the USA (the 35,000 is a lie and there are no studies that prove it is real). The vaccine isn't particularly effective. Even if it keeps you from getting flu one year (this is very questionable) you still need a new vaccine the next year. Also unfortunately those that have the highest risk from flu... also tend to receive the least benefit , and highest risk from the vaccine. I just don't think the risk verses reward ratio with the flu vaccine is very good. |
|
|
|
|
CRS, DrPH
Expert Level Adviser
Joined: January 20 2014 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 26660 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 22 2015 at 12:53pm |
Very good points! However, they are aiming for herd immunity with ring vaccination, and to this end, I support widespread vaccination with mandatory vaccination of certain sub-groups such as HCW, teachers, fire/police etc. The only real drawback to the influenza vaccine is a sore arm. I highly recommend it. Vaccination is the primary means of preventing influenza. Inactivated influenza vaccine is safe and effective in healthy persons <65 years of age, and it provides 70%–90% protection against infection [5, 6]. Similar high protection rates have been documented among HCWs. Immunologic response to inactivated influenza vaccine is not as effective among the older population, especially those with chronic illness in long-term care facilities [7]. This population needs the additional protection provided by ring vaccination, a well-established concept that is the basis for the recommendation to vaccinate household members and caregivers of both older persons and infants who are too young to be vaccinated. |
|
|
CRS, DrPH
|
|
|
|
|
DeepThinker
V.I.P. Member
Joined: September 26 2015 Location: So. California Status: Offline Points: 3245 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 22 2015 at 1:13pm |
|
CRS, DrPH
I respect you. You bring great knowledge to the table. That being said... are you really saying with a straight face that a sore arm is the only possible downside to a flu jab? This is something I don't like, vaccine proponents often are not honest about risks. |
|
|
|
|
Technophobe
Assistant Admin
Joined: January 16 2014 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 88450 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 22 2015 at 2:02pm |
|
CRS DrPH (Chuck) is a very great expert. He is very well respected around here.
You are right, DT, that the flu jab is pretty useless on a personal basis. But, personally, I view my contribution to herd immunity as a moral duty, PROVIDING the vaccine used does not contain mercury. If it does, then stuff it! I do not think I can be morally expected to actually poison myself to slightly raise others' chances of possibly avoiding the flu.
|
|
|
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving. |
|
|
|
|
Satori
Valued Member
Joined: June 03 2013 Status: Offline Points: 28655 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 22 2015 at 2:24pm |
|
remember this little incident from a couple years ago ?
‘Accidental’ Contamination Of Vaccine With Live Avian Flu Virus Virtually Impossiblehttp://www.infowars.com/%E2%80%98accidental%E2%80%99-contamination-of-vaccine-with-live-avian-flu-virus-virtually-impossible/ |
|
|
|
|
KiwiMum
Chief Moderator
Joined: May 29 2013 Status: Offline Points: 29670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 22 2015 at 6:59pm |
You see this is where the problem starts: what you've written is contradictory. On one hand you support what Chuck said because you respect him and think he's an expert, and you also feel some moral obligation to contribute to herd immunity but on the other hand you want to be selective for personal reasons based entirely on your own views. You can't have it both ways. Added to that, Chuck states very clearly that he feels there should be mandatory vaccination for certain groups so what would you do if you worked in one of these groups but the preservative in the vaccine this year was thiomerosal? Again you can't have it both ways. We all want every one else to have to toe the line and put up with rules and regulations while we individually want to exercise our right to freedom of choice. For the record Techno, I also wouldn't have an injection containing mercury and my children have never had one - even when I've had to pay heavily to ship in a mercury free alternative for them. I also respect Chuck but don't agree with herd immunity and I am absolutely against mandatory vaccination. How many more of our freedoms are we going to give up? I don't trust the flu jab and I never will. I met my friends mother the other day and she's just been very ill with two bouts of pneumonia after a severe bout of flu........which she got shortly after having her first ever flu jab.
|
|
|
Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
DeepThinker
V.I.P. Member
Joined: September 26 2015 Location: So. California Status: Offline Points: 3245 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 23 2015 at 1:28am |
|
I work at a long term care facility, recently they sent around waivers dealing with the flu shot. All the residents and staff had to sign yes or no too the flu shot. Best I can tell the vast majority of the alert patients and most of the staff refused. I guess most of the non-alert patients got the jab. Hopefully that helps with herd immunity.
Honestly it is silly to force the staff to receive the shot when so many other people enter the facility, that they have no control over, visitors, vendors, doctors ext. Even if the entire staff is immunized there will still be plenty of paths for the virus into the building. |
|
|
|
|
Technophobe
Assistant Admin
Joined: January 16 2014 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 88450 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 23 2015 at 2:13am |
|
I think your method beats mine, Kiwi Mum. I moved to Scotland, where mercury free vaccinations are available. Paying to import them is probably better!
As with all other poisons, it is a matter of amount for mercury. As regards herd immunity, that's effectiveness is dependent on both take-up rates and vaccine effectiveness. Hopeless for measles, vital for whooping cough, for example. This leaves us both in the awkward position of wondering which ones to get. I honestly believe that vaccinations save more than they harm, but it would be an understatement to say that I agree with your position in many ways. I do agree with mandatory ring vaccination. Statitistics show it very effective at reducing disease rates. By the same token, if you are going to force people to use a vaccine it behoves you to ensure its safety. If I were in a mandatory vaccination group with mercury-containing vaccines, first I would attempt to get an alternative mercury free version. If I failed, then I would take the vaccine. Mercury is a cumulative poison, meaning it leavs the body VERY slowly. Over one's lifetime you can afford to have a few mercury vaccines without harm. But, repeated ones can build up in the system to problematic levels. I would then give up eating tuna and swordfish for the following year (both are delicious, but rich in mercury) to allow my body to drop the mercury levels a bit. If the ring vaccination were for flu and so repeated every year, I would campaign for mercury free. If nothing happened within about 5 years I would start a new career or move home. It is sad that the flu jab did not protect your friend's mother. The choice of vaccine specifics are a best guess senario. It is possible that she had a less severe bout as a result of being vaccinated, but it is more likely that the medical bods just got the wrong one this year. It is a long way from being a perfect system. But it all comes down to the numbers and this is the least-worst we have got.
|
|
|
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving. |
|
|
|
|
KiwiMum
Chief Moderator
Joined: May 29 2013 Status: Offline Points: 29670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 23 2015 at 12:23pm |
|
Techno, I feel one of the major moral issues facing developed economy nations is in their treatment of the elderly, and the incurably sick, and the genetically flawed. Just because we can use medication it doesn't mean we always should.
In the last 10 years, I've watched two elderly relations of mine being kept alive by invasive methods when, perhaps, they should have been allowed to die with some dignity. By all means ease their suffering so there is no pain, but putting a feeding tube into the stomach of a man in his 80's - really? Both of my relatives had a terrible quality of life after the intervention. One of them told me that every night she prays that she will go to sleep and just not wake up. The last 6 months of her life were in a nursing home private bedroom, seeing almost no one, isolated and alone. Now the same could be said for other medical conditions. At university in England I worked in a home for the severely physically and mentally handicapped. None of those children could speak, walk or eat. They were twisted and distorted and in pain. Many of those children had to have extensive medical intervention at birth to keep them alive and for what? They all lived in a home cared for by strangers, not with their parents. They would scream when they received their physio every day. Whilst the home was lovely and the carers were wonderful, what was the point? Where was their quality of life? I now I may sound callous and hard hearted - but I'm not - but are we right in keeping everyone alive when the odds are against them? Years ago my mother sat next to an eminent surgeon at a dinner and he told her that the human race was shooting itself in the foot by keeping alive children who, due to a quirk of nature, weren't fit to be alive. He was talking about the genetically flawed, the ones that nature would have taken out naturally in their childhood. As he said to my mother, if you have a baby girl born with a faulty heart and so you save her with a heart transplant, who is going to be the one to tell her she can't then have children when she's an adult because she will pass along her faulty genes? By saving everyone regardless of whether it is wise or not to do so, then we are purposefully breeding in flaws. So getting back to the flu jab, maybe none of us should have it and we allow the flu to thin out the medically infirm a bit. One thing is for certain, all developed nations are struggling with the cost of national health care, with so many baby boomers and comparitively fewer tax payers, something has to give.
|
|
|
Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Technophobe
Assistant Admin
Joined: January 16 2014 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 88450 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 23 2015 at 2:03pm |
|
OOh! You might be surprised to learn how much of that I agree with.
We are breeding the genetically flawed and, long term, this does the human race no favors. It seems to me that there are several approaches to this problem: 1, We are all God's creatures, so what? 2, Let the weak die, or better still euthanise the flawed. 3, Ban the weak from breeding and so improve the race. 4, Genetically modify ourselves to deliberately improve that which we stopped nature from improving by natural selection. In answer I say: 1, The species is degenerating, so this is not a good option. The scariest story I ever read was Cyril Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons" It may take a few thousand years, but that is where we are currently headed. I don't think it was meant as a horror story, but nothing else ever gave me that many nightmares - I see it happening. 2, Horrific! Besides, how do you define flawed? I'm Short, fat and have arthritis - Is it me? 3, Slightly better than 2, but still unfair and the definition question is remains unanswered. 4, The best of the lot, but I cannot see anything coming from this corner in my lifetime. We were all far too terrified (and rightly so) by Hitler's unspeakable eugenics programs. I have a suggestion, most people will not like it, but it would be workable and would tackle our population explosion too: Allow all women 1 child automatically - no exceptions we are all human and deserve to exercise a human instinct. It has to be women, as they are the bottleneck. (A woman can have, at most, about 30 children, a man can have an unlimited number.) Then, if a woman wants more children, she takes an IQ test. If she is above average she gets a permit for a second child. To be allowed to have a third child, a woman (or her married spouse) has to be responsible for a great gift to mankind, awarded by something akin to the Nobel committee. (you could also have a lottery: breeding for luck?) This way, no one is forbidden to breed, no one has to die earlier than medicine can manage and the clever bit is: As time and controlled breeding advance the average IQ rises. Eventually we will be smart enough to solve ALL our problems. Those are the options I've thought of. Has anyone else got any suggestions? If you do we could start a poll. |
|
|
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving. |
|
|
|
|
KiwiMum
Chief Moderator
Joined: May 29 2013 Status: Offline Points: 29670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 23 2015 at 4:12pm |
|
I think your suggestion is appalling on many levels. To dictate to women how many, or when they can have children is to totally undermine their freedom of choice. To have a lottery is even worse.
The answer has to be in relation to economics. We none of us can afford to fund the level of medical intervention that is currently happening, and you lot in the UK have it worse than the rest of us. If I remember rightly, when the National Health Service was born in 1948, it only treated 14 medical conditions. Now of course you can get your breasts enlarged or have a sex change operation, all at the expense of the taxpayers. It's ridiculous. Perhaps it's time for the medical world to make some cold, clear statements and to say to someone with a baby whose only hope of survival involves a new heart and 16 operations and medication for the rest of it's life that the baby should be enjoyed for the few weeks it will live and then allowed to die. I'm all for treating people who have a chance of a healthy life and many years of good health to come, but to treat a 90 year old for cancer seems a bit ridiculous. I'm incensed every time I read about an elderly person receiving a transplant when there are thousands of young people waiting for one. Perhaps there should be a cut off age, after which treatment for certain diseases is not given. I'm fully aware that the current government has just announced that all people over 75 will be guaranteed a doctors appointment on the day they request it, and that too is ridiculous. Children and expectant mothers should be, but not old people. They can wait. Here in NZ we pay to go to the doctor. They have just introduced free medical care for children under 13, but I pay $45 to go. Just under 20 pounds. I rang up on Monday morning at 8.30am a few weeks ago and was offered an appointment at 9.15am or 11.30am. The system works here. I think that doctors get a bit carried away. They are constantly pushing the boundaries without thought to the ongoing care of the patient. Just because you can do it, it doesn't mean you should do it. I'm not concerned with the number of people on the planet, just with the quality. As far as limiting who has babies, you need to find a way to make people want fewer children. But let's face it, if a woman can afford to stay at home and is inclined to have 4 children, why shouldn't she. Don't we all secretly want a Cotswold stone farmhouse, a labrador, a Chelsea tractor, an Aga, and 10 acres? Isn't that Boden woman?
|
|
|
Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
KiwiMum
Chief Moderator
Joined: May 29 2013 Status: Offline Points: 29670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 23 2015 at 4:17pm |
|
Here's an idea for stopping the lower economic classes from having large families: the government should offer to pay her. For example: from the age of 16 every woman who has no children would get paid 500 pounds., every woman with one child gets 300 pounds, with only two children gets 100. It would incentivise them to limit their families. The payments stop aged 50. And at the same time don't pay child allowance. The figures would need tweaking but the idea is sound.
|
|
|
Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Technophobe
Assistant Admin
Joined: January 16 2014 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 88450 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 24 2015 at 3:12am |
|
Yep, It would work to limit the population. I think it would be a bigger brake on the poorest - which class contains the most genetically damaged and so work on the other problems we face. But, it would seriously penalise the unluckiest. (The lottery was a joke - I don't honestly think you can breed for luck.) Yet, it is still at least as good, perhaps better than my way. Allowing people to suffer and die, as you suggested, is simply the worst choice, especially from flu where you drown in the products of your own lungs. It is better not to be born, where there is no pain, no terror and no bereaved left behind. Genetically modifying ourselves would be my favourite option, but even GM food appalls us and our ethics committees are usually partially guided by religion, so there is no hope of progress there.
I am mostly opposed to any form of euthanasia, palliative care needs dramatically improving instead. Life is precious. To surrender life is to remove any chance of improvement, recovery (or redemption*) - and those things do happen. They happened in my life. Yes, our health service is floundering, and yes, we are paying for unpardonably stupid things. But pushing the boundaries is part of preserving the most precious things. For instance, Willowby Brat had an AAA which ruptured, that was always fatal a few years ago (now it just has poor chances). He was lucky enough to get an experimental-type surgeon. He is not just alive, he is as good as new. I wish I were half as able bodied as he. Recovery can happen even in completely fatal illness, if research continues. No, not all women want lots of children. I have plenty thank you! Technobrat, at 16 going on 36, is enough stress for any parent and she is a great kid, far more sensible than most of her peers. I am very concerned for the numbers of people on the planet - because I care about people. We are poisoning our world. Nature recovers from most injuries, but she needs time and we are destroying things faster than she can repair them. If there were radically fewer of us, then the damage would slow, or stop and our efforts at mitigation would have a chance to work. If we go on as we are, then there are going to be huge catastrophies and millions, perhaps billions, will die in misery. I think we can at least agree we both wish to avoid that. *Not just in a religious way, but personally too - repaying the debts, saying sorry meaningfully, even saying where the bodies are buried in some extreme cases. |
|
|
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving. |
|
|
|
|
KiwiMum
Chief Moderator
Joined: May 29 2013 Status: Offline Points: 29670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 24 2015 at 11:25am |
|
What I was trying to say is that I feel very strongly that younger people should get medical priority, and that older people should wait or simply not be treated for terminal things if they are very elderly. It is ridiculous spending 50,000 pounds to extend the life of an 85 year old by a year. Let's just face it that some things kill you.
But obviously, that 50,000 would be better spent treating a 40 year old woman for breast cancer. If we lived in a world of unlimited wealth and resources then why not save everyone, but we don't. If I ruled the world I would start putting limitations of publicly funded healthcare on anyone over retirement age. And, by the way, I see nothing wrong people paying for themselves if they can afford it. And, added to that, no I don't think that is unfair on the poor because, in my experience, most people with money have worked damn hard to get it. You don't get a degree or a great career by accident, it is the result of sheer hard work and it should have some rewards.
|
|
|
Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
KiwiMum
Chief Moderator
Joined: May 29 2013 Status: Offline Points: 29670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 24 2015 at 11:43am |
|
I know a woman in the South East corner of England who was chronically overweight. This had resulted in her having huge breasts, and I mean HUGE. She suffered from terrible back pain due to her bust and went to the doctor to ask for a breast reduction. The doctor told her that if she lost 7 or 8 stone, her problem would sort itself out. She refused to diet saying that it was too hard and insisted on being referred to a surgeon (apparently she was within her rights to do so).
When her appointment with the surgeon came up a year or so later, he said to her "you are obese and have caused your own problem. You need to go away and lose weight, because if I reduce your breasts and you keep getting fatter, they will grow back." She insisted that she wanted the op, so he said that he wanted her to go back to the waiting room and that he would see her again for further discussion when he had a gap between patients. As she was leaving his room he told her to have a good look at all the other women in there, because all of them were cancer patients who were waiting for reconstructive surgery. She sat there for about 4 hours looking at the other women as they came and went, before leaving herself. She had been shamed into leaving and I think, rightly so. Why should the National Health Service, and ultimately, the tax payers pay for something like that? Ten years later, my friend is even larger than she was and still has chronic back ache. The cure is at her fingertips, yet still she won't do anything about it. I am very happy for my taxes to go to worthy causes but not to cosmetic nonsense that is a total waste of money. There is a huge call here for a particular breast cancer drug to be publicly funded. It is hugely expensive and our health system can't afford it for everyone, so no one gets it. Personally I think it should be made available for younger women, but not for older but because no one can possibly suggest this in publc and keep their political career, no one gets it. Madness. |
|
|
Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Technophobe
Assistant Admin
Joined: January 16 2014 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 88450 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 24 2015 at 12:30pm |
|
I'm very over-endowed in that area too. I get back pain. I would never consider surgery. It really is my fault, at least in part and the more needy DO come first.
But that is still my choice and I would not judge your friend for her attempt. I have never stood in her shoes, let alone walked a mile therein. All this is beside the point. You are absolutely right that cosmetic surgery is less important than life-saving treatments, even for those poor people with body-dysmorphia. But I beg to differ with the old. Hubby is 71 and every day with him is a treasure! I can not see that changing in this life. Aside from my personal feelings, though the probability is that the older person would expect a shorter lifespan than a younger one, there are no guarantees, there is always the unexpected bus, or in New Zealand (the land of dangerous sports) a rocket-on-a-string-around-a-pole accident. Also, who is to say which has the more value, length or knowledge, energy or (hopefully) wisdom? I am 16 years younger than WillowbyBrat, but I believe I have less of worth to offer the world.
|
|
|
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving. |
|
|
|
|
KiwiMum
Chief Moderator
Joined: May 29 2013 Status: Offline Points: 29670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 24 2015 at 3:07pm |
|
I hear what you say about how important your husband is to you and of course that's how it should be. But let's say for arguments' sake that he need a heart transplant and a suitable heart became available that would be a match for him but also a perfect match for a 20 year old man. Who should have it?
There is an impartial argument to say that your husband has already had a good long life, whereas the young man is only just beginning. Certainly on paper, the heart should go to the young man. Of course if he were a convicted rapist or something equally awful then no, he shouldn't get priority, but assuming he's a decent, normal man, then yes, I think he should get first dibs. The trouble is when emotion gets caught up in the decision making. Anyway, I've really enjoyed our conversation. What a pity we can't be having it in a pub over a couple of pints - oh how I miss a good British boozer! And I've been in a fair few Scottish ones too. Make mine a pint of lager, a bag of Walkers cheese and onion crisps, with a pickled egg in the top and I'll be a happy woman.
|
|
|
Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Technophobe
Assistant Admin
Joined: January 16 2014 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 88450 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 24 2015 at 3:18pm |
|
I'll have a MaCallan, but join you in the egg and crisps.
  It was a great talk! Cheers!
|
|
|
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving. |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
DeepThinker wrote: