So he sends me a whole e-mail of his IDs including a picture:
Dear Mr. xxxxxxxx,
How are you and your family? I want to thank you very much for your immediate response as regards my proposal to you. Like i mentioned to you in my first mail i have in possession every necessary document that will enable the direct tranfer of the funds into your possession as the next of kin to my client Mr. Frank J. xxxxxx within the next 10 working days. To proceed from here i will need from you, full participation and dedication to make this business a success as every plan and process will be executed professionally and legally. The Modus Operandi will then follow immeditely after i receive your information so that i can prepare all transfer documents in your name as regards this claim.I will first proceed to the High Court to make an enquiry on how to procure an AFFIDAVIT OF CLAIM on your behalf and as your legal advisor to this claims. This is the document that will give us all the legal backing that we will need here in Nigeria. When i acquire this document i will then forward to the security company for claims; after which the said funds will be transfered. I want to state herein that this whole procedure is capital intensive, so any funds that is put into this business will be accounted for in receipts and deducted from the transferred funds at the end of the day, so i'll advise that any expense you make even your phone calls or fax to me will be accounted for too, I will not support any ideal of involving any third party in this transaction.So please send to me the following so that we can commence immediately... Your Name: (as it will appear in all legal document as the beneficiary)Address: (also as it will appear in all legal document as the beneficiary)Cell & Home Tel and Fax Number:Scanned copy of your Personal Id of any sort. (international passport or Driver's license)Please i don't want you to misuse the trust and faith that i have in you, that we can both make this business a success.So please i need your full trust and word on this that when the funds get into your account you will not rebel on me. My life counts on this money too as i intend to go into a partnership with you as you so desire. please don't let me down. (so please tell me a little about yourself). i intend to cross over with my family for sharing when the funds is finally transfered into your account. God Bless you.
I would like to give a warn that you have to be very careful because there are alot of internet hackers that normally hack into someone's email account because it happened to me in a couple of weeks ago and realised that it was these internet hackers that are trying to scam people, i almost harassed someone else for this. If you do receive any strange emails in my name or in any names that contains almost the same content with mine, all you have to do is to check the email address, and if you realise that the email address is not mine, kindly delete the email because it was sent by these internet hackers. I hope this is understood.
You have my full contact information Tel6934 Email address: @yahoo.co.uk
Please don't send any information to any contact that is not enlisted above. FOR SECURITY PURPOSE. You can send the information i required via email, Call me after you reply to this message so that we can discuss further on this transaction.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.Your Brother,: Find attached the copy of my international passport, the documentation of my call to the bar, and certificate of incorporation.
THIS IS WHAT I SENT HIM ORIGINALLY
Mr xxxxx
I will need some kind of identification before I proceed with this matter.
Time is of the essence here.
Please get back to me ASAP
Release the hounds................
AND I ANSWERED THIS LAST E-MAIL WITH THIS:
Ohh mmmmmy............you're quite handsome....are you single???
You're quite yummy as they say in the States....
Friday, December 8, 2006
Monday, December 4, 2006
Time
They're rockin' while they've still got it
Sunday, December 03, 2006By John Sinkevics---from The Grand Rapids Press
Fans cheering celebrated rocker Pete Townshend as he windmills his way into another blistering guitar riff at Van Andel Arena's Who concert Tuesday will want to reflect on this: He's older than President George W. Bush, tycoon Donald Trump and talk-show host David Letterman. Like most rock stars, Townshend doesn't pretend to act his age, which happens to be 61. Same goes for fellow 61-year-olds Eric Clapton, the legendary guitarist who delivered Van Andel's concert of the year in September, and Bob Seger, the beloved Michigan rocker who recently launched his first tour in a decade here to throngs of rabid fans. Famous rock artists Neil Young, John Fogerty and Van Morrison also turned 61 in 2006, so 1945 clearly was a very good year for rock 'n' roll, even if this genre wasn't yet a genre. Hold onto your Botox, baby boomers: The roster of beloved rock icons older than 60 is growing faster than ear hair and cholesterol counts. I won't suggest concert venues stock up on defibrillators and oxygen tanks backstage, but this rock-at-retirement-age thing is an alarming phenomenon for fans of classic rock bands who heartily embraced the youthful energy, the rebellion, the volume and the dynamic spectacle of rock in the '60s and '70s. Now they worry if this hearty embrace might result in a broken hip. Let's face it, anybody who grew up idolizing sex symbols Robert Plant, Mick Jagger or Carly Simon never envisioned rock heroes with gray or balding hair, reading glasses, bad teeth and a Medicare card. Even Townshend's "My Generation," the 1965 anthem of youth that The Who still performs, brazenly declared, "I hope I die before I get old." Yes, Who drummer Keith Moon tragically followed through on that (along with other hard-partying rock 'n' rollers), but plenty continue to sprint, or shuffle, across stages. This is truly astonishing when bearing in mind that the grumpy-looking President Lyndon Johnson didn't turn 61 until after he left office in 1969, and the jowly Richard Nixon was 61 when he resigned. Not only are Townshend, Clapton and Seger older than Bush and Bill Clinton, they're even older than the bikini, which was invented way back in 1946. (Granted, this isn't really relevant. I just found it interesting that the bikini is 60 years old.) More amazing, Townshend cohort Roger Daltrey already has turned 62, Jagger is 63, The Beatles' Paul McCartney is 64 and Bob Dylan is 65. Luckily, most of these survivors seem to take pretty good care of themselves these days. They don't hurl themselves off of amplifier stacks or stage-slide quite as far in their seventh decade, but I'm convinced they usually put on better-sounding shows than they did when they were in their 20s or 30s. And I'd bet plenty of whipper-snappers would have trouble keeping up with the aerobically fit Jagger over a boisterous two-hour show. But how much longer can they keep this up? How long before their knees give out, before they're all using TelePrompTers to jog their memories, before fans realize their favorite stars look like their grandparents? Heck, a lot of 'em are grandparents. Can the Rolling Stones tour at age 70? That's the scariest question no one ever dreamed would get asked, but then, I'm more curious than most and old enough to forget what point I was trying to make in the first place. Consider, too, that hearing loss affects about half of people 60 and older, and most of them didn't stand in front of amplifiers cranked to '11' a la Spinal Tap. (In a Press interview, Townshend blamed headphones for his hearing problems: "Those occasions when I was in the studio having fun, wearing earphones to make sure I didn't wake up my family, drinking for pleasure, I lowered my pain threshold and did the most damage.") Stars in other musical genres haven't had to worry so much about this age thing. After all, roaring through lively rock solos in a cloud of stage fog is a different animal than Frank Sinatra crooning "My Way" in his 60s. Sure, bluesman B.B. King still performs at age 81, but he sits down for his shows.
The moral? Enjoy them now, before the term "rocker" just describes the chair they have to haul out on stage.
Sunday, December 03, 2006By John Sinkevics---from The Grand Rapids Press
Fans cheering celebrated rocker Pete Townshend as he windmills his way into another blistering guitar riff at Van Andel Arena's Who concert Tuesday will want to reflect on this: He's older than President George W. Bush, tycoon Donald Trump and talk-show host David Letterman. Like most rock stars, Townshend doesn't pretend to act his age, which happens to be 61. Same goes for fellow 61-year-olds Eric Clapton, the legendary guitarist who delivered Van Andel's concert of the year in September, and Bob Seger, the beloved Michigan rocker who recently launched his first tour in a decade here to throngs of rabid fans. Famous rock artists Neil Young, John Fogerty and Van Morrison also turned 61 in 2006, so 1945 clearly was a very good year for rock 'n' roll, even if this genre wasn't yet a genre. Hold onto your Botox, baby boomers: The roster of beloved rock icons older than 60 is growing faster than ear hair and cholesterol counts. I won't suggest concert venues stock up on defibrillators and oxygen tanks backstage, but this rock-at-retirement-age thing is an alarming phenomenon for fans of classic rock bands who heartily embraced the youthful energy, the rebellion, the volume and the dynamic spectacle of rock in the '60s and '70s. Now they worry if this hearty embrace might result in a broken hip. Let's face it, anybody who grew up idolizing sex symbols Robert Plant, Mick Jagger or Carly Simon never envisioned rock heroes with gray or balding hair, reading glasses, bad teeth and a Medicare card. Even Townshend's "My Generation," the 1965 anthem of youth that The Who still performs, brazenly declared, "I hope I die before I get old." Yes, Who drummer Keith Moon tragically followed through on that (along with other hard-partying rock 'n' rollers), but plenty continue to sprint, or shuffle, across stages. This is truly astonishing when bearing in mind that the grumpy-looking President Lyndon Johnson didn't turn 61 until after he left office in 1969, and the jowly Richard Nixon was 61 when he resigned. Not only are Townshend, Clapton and Seger older than Bush and Bill Clinton, they're even older than the bikini, which was invented way back in 1946. (Granted, this isn't really relevant. I just found it interesting that the bikini is 60 years old.) More amazing, Townshend cohort Roger Daltrey already has turned 62, Jagger is 63, The Beatles' Paul McCartney is 64 and Bob Dylan is 65. Luckily, most of these survivors seem to take pretty good care of themselves these days. They don't hurl themselves off of amplifier stacks or stage-slide quite as far in their seventh decade, but I'm convinced they usually put on better-sounding shows than they did when they were in their 20s or 30s. And I'd bet plenty of whipper-snappers would have trouble keeping up with the aerobically fit Jagger over a boisterous two-hour show. But how much longer can they keep this up? How long before their knees give out, before they're all using TelePrompTers to jog their memories, before fans realize their favorite stars look like their grandparents? Heck, a lot of 'em are grandparents. Can the Rolling Stones tour at age 70? That's the scariest question no one ever dreamed would get asked, but then, I'm more curious than most and old enough to forget what point I was trying to make in the first place. Consider, too, that hearing loss affects about half of people 60 and older, and most of them didn't stand in front of amplifiers cranked to '11' a la Spinal Tap. (In a Press interview, Townshend blamed headphones for his hearing problems: "Those occasions when I was in the studio having fun, wearing earphones to make sure I didn't wake up my family, drinking for pleasure, I lowered my pain threshold and did the most damage.") Stars in other musical genres haven't had to worry so much about this age thing. After all, roaring through lively rock solos in a cloud of stage fog is a different animal than Frank Sinatra crooning "My Way" in his 60s. Sure, bluesman B.B. King still performs at age 81, but he sits down for his shows.
The moral? Enjoy them now, before the term "rocker" just describes the chair they have to haul out on stage.
Some Bushisms for a Monday Afternoon
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it. " George W. Bush
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." George W. Bush
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." George W. Bush
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." George W. Bush
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George W. Bush
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." George W. Bush
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." George W. Bush
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." George W. Bush
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George W. Bush
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Guest Editorial from Keith Olbermann
Keith Olbermann
MSNBC
November 30, 2006
And finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment about free speech,
failed speakers, and the delusion of grandeur.
"This is a serious long term war," the man at the podium cried, "and it
will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect
place in the country."
Some, in the audience, must have thought they were hearing an arsonist
give the keynote address at a convention of firefighters.
This was the annual Loeb First Amendment Dinner in Manchester, New
Hampshire - a public cherishing of Freedom of Speech - in the state with
the two-fisted motto "Live Free Or Die."
And the arsonist at the microphone, the former Speaker of the House,
Newt Gingrich, was insisting that we must attach an "on-off button" to
Free Speech.
He offered the time-tested excuse trotted out by our demagogues, since
even before the Republic was founded: widespread death, of Americans, in
America, possibly at the hands of Americans.
But updated, now, to include terrorists. using the internet for
recruitment. end result, quote "losing a city."
The Colonial English defended their repression with words like these.
And so did the Slave States.
And so did the policemen who shot strikers.
And so did Lindbergh's America-First crowd.
And so did those who interned Japanese-Americans.
And so did those behind the Red Scare.
And so did Nixon's Plumbers.
The genuine proportion of the threat is always irrelevant.
The fear the threat is exploited to create. becomes the only reality.
"We will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can
find," Mr. Gingrich continued about terrorists formerly Communists
formerly Hippies formerly Fifth Columnists formerly Anarchists formerly
Redcoats.
"..to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their
capacity to use free speech."
Mr. Gingrich, the British 'broke up our capacity to use free speech' in
the 1770's.
The pro-slavery leaders 'broke up our capacity to use free speech' in
the 1850's.
The FBI and CIA 'broke up our capacity to use free speech' in the 1960's.
It is in those groups where you would have found your kindred spirits,
Mr. Gingrich.
Those who had no faith in freedom, no faith in this country, and,
ultimately, no faith even in the strength of their own ideas, to stand
up on their own legs, without having the playing-field tilted entirely
to their benefit.
"It will lead us to learn," Gingrich continued, "how to close down every
website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach
to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of
nuclear and biological weapons."
That we have always had 'a very severe approach' to these people is
insufficient for Mr. Gingrich's ends.
He wants to somehow ban the idea.
Even though everyone who has ever protested a movie or a piece of music
or a book has learned the same lesson:
Try to suppress it, and you only validate it.
Make it illegal, and you make it the subject of curiosity.
Say it cannot be said - and it will instead be screamed.
And on top of the thundering danger in his eagerness to sell out freedom
of speech, there is a sadder sound, still - the tinny crash of a garbage
can lid on a sidewalk.
Whatever dreams of internet-censorship float like a miasma in Mr.
Gingrich's personal swamp, whatever hopes he has of an Iron Firewall,
the simple fact is - technically, they won't work.
As of tomorrow they will have been defeated by. a free computer download.
Mere hours after Gingrich's speech in New Hampshire, the University of
Toronto announced it had come up with a program called "Psiphon" to
liberate those, in countries in which the internet is regulated.
Places like China, and Irahn, where political ideas are so barren, and
political leaders so desperate, that they put up computer firewalls to
keep thought and freedom out.
The "Psiphon" device is a relay of sorts that can surreptitiously link a
computer user in an imprisoned country to another in a free one.
The Chinese think the wall works, yet the ideas - good ideas, bad ideas,
indifferent ideas, pass through anyway.
The same way the Soviet Bloc, was defeated by the images of Western
Material Bounty.
If your hopes of thought-control can be defeated, Mr. Gingrich, merely
by one computer whiz staying up an extra half hour and devising a new
"firewall hop," what is all this apocalyptic hyperbole for?
"I further think," you said in Manchester, "We should propose a Geneva
convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who
would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of
mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact
subject to a totally different set of rules, that allow us, to protect
civilization by defeating barbarism."
Well, Mr. Gingrich, what is more 'massively destructive' than trying to
get us, to give you our freedom?
And what is someone seeking to hamstring the First Amendment doing, if
not "fighting outside the rules of law"?
And what is the suppression of knowledge and freedom, if not "barbarism"?
The explanation, of course, is in one last quote from Mr. Gingrich from
New Hampshire. and another, from last week.
"I want to suggest to you," he said about these internet restrictions,
"that we right now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a
level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the
scale of the threat."
And who should those "impaneled" people, be?
Funny I should ask, isn't it, Mr. Gingrich?
"I am not 'running' for president," you told a reporter from Fortune
Magazine. "I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by
offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people
say I have to be president, it will happen."
Newt Gingrich sees, in terrorism, not something to be exterminated, but
something to be exploited.
It's his golden opportunity, isn't it?
'Rallying a nation,' you might say, 'to hysteria, to sweep us up into
the White House with powers that will make Martial Law seem like
anarchy.'
That's from the original version of the movie "The Manchurian Candidate"
- the chilling words of Angela Lansbury's character, as she first
promises to sell her country to the Chinese and Russians, then reveals
she'll double-cross them, and keep all the power herself, waving the
flag every time she subjugates another freedom.
Within the frame of our experience as a free and freely argumentative
people, it is almost impossible to conceive that there are those among
us, who might approach the kind of animal-wildness of fiction like that
- those who would willingly transform our beloved country into something
false and terrible.
Who among us can look to our own histories, or those of our ancestors
who struggled to get here, or who struggled to get freedom after they
were forced here, and not teer up when we reed Frederick Douglass's
words from a century-and-a-half ago: "Freedom must take the day"?
And who among us can look to our collective history, and not see its
turning points - like the Civil War, like Watergate, like the Revolution
itself - in which the right idea defeated the wrong idea on the
battlefield that is the marketplace of ideas?
But apparently there are some of us who cannot see, that the only future
for America is one that cherishes the freedoms won in the past, one in
which we vanquish bad ideas with better ones, and in which we fight for
liberty by having more liberty, not less.
"I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a
series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have
to be president, it will happen."
What a dark place your world must be, Mr. Gingrich, where the way to
save America, is to destroy America.
I will awaken every day of my life thankful I am not with you in that
dark place.
And I will awaken every day of my life thankful that you are entitled to
tell me about it.
And that you are entitled to show me what an evil idea it represents -
and what a cynical mind.
And that you are entitled to do all that, thanks to the very freedoms,
you seek to suffocate.
Good night, and good luck.
"Tyranny thrives on Apathy"
MSNBC
November 30, 2006
And finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment about free speech,
failed speakers, and the delusion of grandeur.
"This is a serious long term war," the man at the podium cried, "and it
will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect
place in the country."
Some, in the audience, must have thought they were hearing an arsonist
give the keynote address at a convention of firefighters.
This was the annual Loeb First Amendment Dinner in Manchester, New
Hampshire - a public cherishing of Freedom of Speech - in the state with
the two-fisted motto "Live Free Or Die."
And the arsonist at the microphone, the former Speaker of the House,
Newt Gingrich, was insisting that we must attach an "on-off button" to
Free Speech.
He offered the time-tested excuse trotted out by our demagogues, since
even before the Republic was founded: widespread death, of Americans, in
America, possibly at the hands of Americans.
But updated, now, to include terrorists. using the internet for
recruitment. end result, quote "losing a city."
The Colonial English defended their repression with words like these.
And so did the Slave States.
And so did the policemen who shot strikers.
And so did Lindbergh's America-First crowd.
And so did those who interned Japanese-Americans.
And so did those behind the Red Scare.
And so did Nixon's Plumbers.
The genuine proportion of the threat is always irrelevant.
The fear the threat is exploited to create. becomes the only reality.
"We will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can
find," Mr. Gingrich continued about terrorists formerly Communists
formerly Hippies formerly Fifth Columnists formerly Anarchists formerly
Redcoats.
"..to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their
capacity to use free speech."
Mr. Gingrich, the British 'broke up our capacity to use free speech' in
the 1770's.
The pro-slavery leaders 'broke up our capacity to use free speech' in
the 1850's.
The FBI and CIA 'broke up our capacity to use free speech' in the 1960's.
It is in those groups where you would have found your kindred spirits,
Mr. Gingrich.
Those who had no faith in freedom, no faith in this country, and,
ultimately, no faith even in the strength of their own ideas, to stand
up on their own legs, without having the playing-field tilted entirely
to their benefit.
"It will lead us to learn," Gingrich continued, "how to close down every
website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach
to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of
nuclear and biological weapons."
That we have always had 'a very severe approach' to these people is
insufficient for Mr. Gingrich's ends.
He wants to somehow ban the idea.
Even though everyone who has ever protested a movie or a piece of music
or a book has learned the same lesson:
Try to suppress it, and you only validate it.
Make it illegal, and you make it the subject of curiosity.
Say it cannot be said - and it will instead be screamed.
And on top of the thundering danger in his eagerness to sell out freedom
of speech, there is a sadder sound, still - the tinny crash of a garbage
can lid on a sidewalk.
Whatever dreams of internet-censorship float like a miasma in Mr.
Gingrich's personal swamp, whatever hopes he has of an Iron Firewall,
the simple fact is - technically, they won't work.
As of tomorrow they will have been defeated by. a free computer download.
Mere hours after Gingrich's speech in New Hampshire, the University of
Toronto announced it had come up with a program called "Psiphon" to
liberate those, in countries in which the internet is regulated.
Places like China, and Irahn, where political ideas are so barren, and
political leaders so desperate, that they put up computer firewalls to
keep thought and freedom out.
The "Psiphon" device is a relay of sorts that can surreptitiously link a
computer user in an imprisoned country to another in a free one.
The Chinese think the wall works, yet the ideas - good ideas, bad ideas,
indifferent ideas, pass through anyway.
The same way the Soviet Bloc, was defeated by the images of Western
Material Bounty.
If your hopes of thought-control can be defeated, Mr. Gingrich, merely
by one computer whiz staying up an extra half hour and devising a new
"firewall hop," what is all this apocalyptic hyperbole for?
"I further think," you said in Manchester, "We should propose a Geneva
convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who
would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of
mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact
subject to a totally different set of rules, that allow us, to protect
civilization by defeating barbarism."
Well, Mr. Gingrich, what is more 'massively destructive' than trying to
get us, to give you our freedom?
And what is someone seeking to hamstring the First Amendment doing, if
not "fighting outside the rules of law"?
And what is the suppression of knowledge and freedom, if not "barbarism"?
The explanation, of course, is in one last quote from Mr. Gingrich from
New Hampshire. and another, from last week.
"I want to suggest to you," he said about these internet restrictions,
"that we right now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a
level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the
scale of the threat."
And who should those "impaneled" people, be?
Funny I should ask, isn't it, Mr. Gingrich?
"I am not 'running' for president," you told a reporter from Fortune
Magazine. "I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by
offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people
say I have to be president, it will happen."
Newt Gingrich sees, in terrorism, not something to be exterminated, but
something to be exploited.
It's his golden opportunity, isn't it?
'Rallying a nation,' you might say, 'to hysteria, to sweep us up into
the White House with powers that will make Martial Law seem like
anarchy.'
That's from the original version of the movie "The Manchurian Candidate"
- the chilling words of Angela Lansbury's character, as she first
promises to sell her country to the Chinese and Russians, then reveals
she'll double-cross them, and keep all the power herself, waving the
flag every time she subjugates another freedom.
Within the frame of our experience as a free and freely argumentative
people, it is almost impossible to conceive that there are those among
us, who might approach the kind of animal-wildness of fiction like that
- those who would willingly transform our beloved country into something
false and terrible.
Who among us can look to our own histories, or those of our ancestors
who struggled to get here, or who struggled to get freedom after they
were forced here, and not teer up when we reed Frederick Douglass's
words from a century-and-a-half ago: "Freedom must take the day"?
And who among us can look to our collective history, and not see its
turning points - like the Civil War, like Watergate, like the Revolution
itself - in which the right idea defeated the wrong idea on the
battlefield that is the marketplace of ideas?
But apparently there are some of us who cannot see, that the only future
for America is one that cherishes the freedoms won in the past, one in
which we vanquish bad ideas with better ones, and in which we fight for
liberty by having more liberty, not less.
"I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a
series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have
to be president, it will happen."
What a dark place your world must be, Mr. Gingrich, where the way to
save America, is to destroy America.
I will awaken every day of my life thankful I am not with you in that
dark place.
And I will awaken every day of my life thankful that you are entitled to
tell me about it.
And that you are entitled to show me what an evil idea it represents -
and what a cynical mind.
And that you are entitled to do all that, thanks to the very freedoms,
you seek to suffocate.
Good night, and good luck.
"Tyranny thrives on Apathy"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)