• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Pig Wrestling, part 6

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH's comments on me, "He thinks low cattle prices after the checkoff was initiated is proof that that the checkoff hasn't done any good as if the checkoff was the only factor affecting cattle markets during that period of time which included the $8 hog era. Real brilliant guy" and "you make allegations that I claimed the checkoff was solely responsible for demand after I have mentioned the Adkins diet how many times"

Folks, this is exactly what I said, " I suggest you compare the number of years the checkoff has been operational and how many of those same years beef demand increased/decreased."

I followed that comment with, "I was simply pointing out that one could not point at the checkoff as being a great demand maker when demand actually decreased most of the time."

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, would a rational person not needing the services of a good shrink reach the same conclusions and make the same statements as our excitable friend here? How can anybody take anything he says seriously - you see the thought process (or lack of) right here.


In case you haven't noticed, SH, you torked me off. I'm a pretty laid back guy and can blow a lot of things off, but I've endured enough personal attacks and childish taunts from you to last a while. I'm sick of being called a liar, twister, deceiver, etc... only to see you define those very terms with your posts.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I think it is easy for most people to tell that SH's further education come from the school of delusions. The only reason we respond to him is that for people trying to learn about these issues on this board, his delusions are a little believeable if you didn't have any background in the facts or reality.

It is amazing to me that so many people would allow him to go on as he does just because it fits their agenda (Agman and Beefman among others).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Folks, this is exactly what I said, " I suggest you compare the number of years the checkoff has been operational and how many of those same years beef demand increased/decreased."

I followed that comment with, "I was simply pointing out that one could not point at the checkoff as being a great demand maker when demand actually decreased most of the time."

I am simply pointing out the fact that you cannot measure the impact of the beef checkoff on beef demand by simply looking at lower cattle prices. Unless you isolate all of the factors that affected cattle prices, you cannot possibly know the impact of the beef checkoff. This is typical of the shallow observations of a blamer.

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LOWER CATTLE PRICES WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT THE BEEF CHECKOFF.

Yet another empty tree!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Folks, this is exactly what I said, " I suggest you compare the number of years the checkoff has been operational and how many of those same years beef demand increased/decreased."

I followed that comment with, "I was simply pointing out that one could not point at the checkoff as being a great demand maker when demand actually decreased most of the time."

I am simply pointing out the fact that you cannot measure the impact of the beef checkoff on beef demand by simply looking at lower cattle prices. Unless you isolate all of the factors that affected cattle prices, you cannot possibly know the impact of the beef checkoff. This is typical of the shallow observations of a blamer.

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LOWER CATTLE PRICES WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT THE BEEF CHECKOFF.

Yet another empty tree!


~SH~

Nice strawman, SH. I was simply pointing out that what I clearly said and what you deducted wasn't even close. You were, how do you phrase it... spinning and being deceptive?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Folks, this is exactly what I said, " I suggest you compare the number of years the checkoff has been operational and how many of those same years beef demand increased/decreased."

I followed that comment with, "I was simply pointing out that one could not point at the checkoff as being a great demand maker when demand actually decreased most of the time."

I am simply pointing out the fact that you cannot measure the impact of the beef checkoff on beef demand by simply looking at lower cattle prices. Unless you isolate all of the factors that affected cattle prices, you cannot possibly know the impact of the beef checkoff. This is typical of the shallow observations of a blamer.

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LOWER CATTLE PRICES WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT THE BEEF CHECKOFF.

Yet another empty tree!


~SH~

You don't either.

The checkoff dollars for advertising seems to have replaced some of Tyson's advertising budget when Tyson buys animals for the grind but want to cut out some of the more tender pieces to sell seperately so they get more money.

I don't know why cattleman's dollars should replace the advertising budget for Tyson Foods when they are such market manipulators of cattle prices.

That is a more easily calculated number, if the NCBA would do it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag,

How can you determine the impact of the beef checkoff on beef demand unless you isolate all the variables that affect cattle prices? You can't possibly know what degree the checkoff increases beef demand unless you isolate all the variables affecting cattle prices. Once again, you can't back your ignorant statement.



Conman: "I don't know why cattleman's dollars should replace the advertising budget for Tyson Foods when they are such market manipulators of cattle prices."

Another lie!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag,

How can you determine the impact of the beef checkoff on beef demand unless you isolate all the variables that affect cattle prices? You can't possibly know what degree the checkoff increases beef demand unless you isolate all the variables affecting cattle prices. Once again, you can't back your ignorant statement.



Conman: "I don't know why cattleman's dollars should replace the advertising budget for Tyson Foods when they are such market manipulators of cattle prices."

Another lie!



~SH~

Where is the lie, SH? Tyson uses a large percent of the cattle it buys in the grind. If they took out all of the more tender cuts of meat (especially pieces not normally taken out of the chuck) to sell for higher prices, they have to develop a market for those cut outs. You do that with advertising.

Isn't that what MRJ has been arguing the beef checkoff has done?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Conman: "I don't know why cattleman's dollars should replace the advertising budget for Tyson Foods when they are such market manipulators of cattle prices."


WOW, TWO LIES IN ONE EMPTY STATEMENT!

Lie #1. The checkoff is replacing Tyson's advertising budget.
Lie #2. That market manipulation exists.


Back either statement Conman!

Watch the dance folks...............


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Conman: "I don't know why cattleman's dollars should replace the advertising budget for Tyson Foods when they are such market manipulators of cattle prices."


WOW, TWO LIES IN ONE EMPTY STATEMENT!

Lie #1. The checkoff is replacing Tyson's advertising budget.
Lie #2. That market manipulation exists.


Back either statement Conman!

Watch the dance folks...............


~SH~

I think the evidence for both is out there. The jury agreed with #2 and relied on Judge Strom's ignorance and the little idiot arguments you pose.

On #1, didn't you say before that by advertising those cuts that Tyson made before the grind benefited cattlemen through higher prices? Who got their hands on those higher prices first, the packers (Tyson) or the producers? Did the advertising of those cuts increase the value Tyson received and was it paid for by cattlemen? Can you "prove" that the producers got their hands on all that increased value or do we have to assume that the packers (Tyson) just gave it to them out of the goodness of their hearts?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "I think the evidence for both is out there."

What you want to believe and what you can prove are worlds apart!


Conman: "On #1, didn't you say before that by advertising those cuts that Tyson made before the grind benefited cattlemen through higher prices?"

No, I didn't say that.

I said that Tyson advertising their own branded beef products helps producers with higher prices.

Herman Schumacher recently testified in Aberdeen and stated (paraphrasing) that "no greater factor affects live cattle prices than boxed beef prices".

Is that a true statement or not?


Conman: "Who got their hands on those higher prices first, the packers (Tyson) or the producers?"

That's obvious, Tyson did. That doesn't meant that higher retail beef prices does not equate to higher live cattle prices.

Do you agree with Herman's statement or not?

Why would you support Country of Origin Labeling since using your logic, only the packer would benefit if there was a benefit.


Conman: "Did the advertising of those cuts increase the value Tyson received and was it paid for by cattlemen?"

Tyson pays for a lot of their own advertising. The checkoff pays for beef research, promotion, and education.


Conman: "Can you "prove" that the producers got their hands on all that increased value or do we have to assume that the packers (Tyson) just gave it to them out of the goodness of their hearts?"

The fact that live cattle prices track with boxed beef prices is well documented to anyone with a stitch of common sense.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "I think the evidence for both is out there."

What you want to believe and what you can prove are worlds apart!

Econ: Especially with this rigged court system.


SH:
Conman: "On #1, didn't you say before that by advertising those cuts that Tyson made before the grind benefited cattlemen through higher prices?"

No, I didn't say that.

I said that Tyson advertising their own branded beef products helps producers with higher prices.


Econ: You may have said that Tyson advertising helps producers with higher prices also, but you also said that by advertising the petite tender and other cuts, the packers are able to offer more for the cattle they buy. This assumes that the packers didn't just pocket it as a higher margin. The Canadian bse incident show us they are willing to pocket money and not share it with producers UNLESS MARKET CONDITIONS MAKE THEM DO IT.


Herman Schumacher recently testified in Aberdeen and stated (paraphrasing) that "no greater factor affects live cattle prices than boxed beef prices".

SH: Is that a true statement or not?

Econ: Right now. But it is only part of the equation, SH. You just don't know the full equation and are asking if you can have partial credit. Fine, have partial credit. It still doesn't mean you got the whole thing right or that you can leverage the partial credit into a full answer. Market conditions and the manipulation of information about the market can have a huge effect on live prices. That was proven in Aberdeen to the jury.

Conman: "Who got their hands on those higher prices first, the packers (Tyson) or the producers?"

SH: That's obvious, Tyson did. That doesn't meant that higher retail beef prices does not equate to higher live cattle prices.

Do you agree with Herman's statement or not?

Econ: As with everything, you have to put it into context. I think you have a problem with your ability to do that as the message on the bottom of all your posts attests.

Why would you support Country of Origin Labeling since using your logic, only the packer would benefit if there was a benefit.

Econ: I don't think you are able to understand anything I say because you just don't want to. You almost always take the packer side on every issue. Do you ask MRJ or Agman or someone else at the NCBA for your guidance?

Conman: "Did the advertising of those cuts increase the value Tyson received and was it paid for by cattlemen?"

Tyson pays for a lot of their own advertising. The checkoff pays for beef research, promotion, and education.


Conman: "Can you "prove" that the producers got their hands on all that increased value or do we have to assume that the packers (Tyson) just gave it to them out of the goodness of their hearts?"

The fact that live cattle prices track with boxed beef prices is well documented to anyone with a stitch of common sense.

Econ: And it is well documented that market conditions have the overall say so, as the Canadians found out. Did their live prices track with boxed beef prices? You have a tendency to misuse information for your own purposes. This is another example of that tactic.

Why do you almost always take the packer side of every argument? Do you have something against producers getting their fair share?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Especially with this rigged court system."

A blamer will always find someone or something to blame.


Conman: "Econ: You may have said that Tyson advertising helps producers with higher prices also, but you also said that by advertising the petite tender and other cuts, the packers are able to offer more for the cattle they buy. This assumes that the packers didn't just pocket it as a higher margin. The Canadian bse incident show us they are willing to pocket money and not share it with producers UNLESS MARKET CONDITIONS MAKE THEM DO IT."

If cattle markets were controlled by packers, prices would never move higher. That's the common sense of the issue.

If there was no competition in the packing industry between the major packers , this would open the doors for smaller less efficient packing companies to compete with the larger more efficient companies but you have a conspiracy to try to explain that fact away too don't you?

The Canadian situation is not applicable to the United States because the United States had historically slaughtered a large portion of Canada's cattle. When BSE was discovered in Canada and those Canadian cattle could no longer be shipped South to the United States for slaughter, Canada found themselves with more cattle than slaughter capacity while those plants in the NE United States that relied on Canadian cattle suddenly found themselves with more slaughter capacity than cattle.

The BSE EXCEPTION does not make the rule. During BSE, the packers in the US were losing money. That is an undeniable fact.

You got nothing but baseless conspiracy theories and lies Conman.


Conman: "Market conditions and the manipulation of information about the market can have a huge effect on live prices. That was proven in Aberdeen to the jury."

Yet another lie. There was no manipulation of information about the market. USDA ADMITTED THAT THEY MADE A PRICE REPORTING MISTAKE.


Conman: "As with everything, you have to put it into context. I think you have a problem with your ability to do that as the message on the bottom of all your posts attests."

DIVERSION!!!

Herman's statement was obviously pivotal in the case. DO YOU AGREE WITH IT, YES OR NO?????


Conman: "Econ: I don't think you are able to understand anything I say because you just don't want to. You almost always take the packer side on every issue."

Diversion!

You don't want to admit to the hypocrisy in your position. If advertising beef only benefits the packers and not the producer, how do you explain "M"COOL? Using your argument, that would only benefit the packer.

Address the issue Conman and quit diverting.

As far as taking "the packer side", I am taking the truthful side of these issues, nothing more and nothing less.

The truth is, we won't get another dime for our cattle unless the packer receives more money for his beef. It's always been that way and it will always be that way.

Your cheap talk won't explain your way out of it. Boxed beef prices track with live cattle prices. Only a complete idiot like you would try to deny it.


Conman: " And it is well documented that market conditions have the overall say so, as the Canadians found out. Did their live prices track with boxed beef prices? You have a tendency to misuse information for your own purposes. This is another example of that tactic."


Why do you always think the "exception makes the rule".

THE UNITED STATES HAS ENOUGH SLAUGHTER CAPACITY FOR THEIR AVAILABLE CATTLE.

WHEN THE CANADIAN BORDER WAS CLOSED, CANADA DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SLAUGHTER CAPACITY FOR THEIR AVAILABLE CATTLE.

APPLES AND WATERMELONS! THE TWO SITUATIONS ARE NOT COMPARABLE!

CANADIANS HAD NO OPTIONS FOR THEIR CATTLE BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T SELL THEM IN THE UNITED STATES. CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR CONCRETE HEAD????

How many times do we need to go over this fact and you still bring it up? I guess it's because you don't have any better arguments.

You want to blame someone for Canadian producers suffering, blame R-CULT for keeping the border closed longer than it had to be.


Conman: "Why do you almost always take the packer side of every argument? Do you have something against producers getting their fair share?"

Why do you take the "BLAMING PACKER VICTIM" side of every argument? Do you have something against the truth?

I take the factual side of an argument while you take the blaming conspiracy side of the argument.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The factual side? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Like the USDA saying BSE could not be detected until shortly before symptoms appear? :lol: :lol:

How about "Nothing is wrong with GIPSA"? :lol: :lol:

Maybe the problem with you is the definition of "fact". You see, I think "fact" is something that is true and can be proven true. You seem to define "fact" as how you want your world to be, regardless of how it actually is.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Maybe the problem with you is the definition of "fact". You see, I think "fact" is something that is true and can be proven true."

BWAHAHAHAHA!

YOU???? THE MASTER "ILLUSIONIST" IS GOING TO LECTURE ME ON WHAT IS "FACT"?????

BWAHAHAHAHA!


Fact, to you, is something that supports your packer blaming bias. Like taking bse tester at his word rather than hearing USDA's side of the argument regarding when bse prions can be detected. Like listening to a politically motivated government statement regarding GIPSA that you want to believe rather than hearing both sides of that argument. Like the "FACTS" you presented to back your market manipulation conspiracy theory as opposed to accepting the fact that you lost the Pickett case.

You bet Sandbag, tell me another one you damn hypocrite!


How many times have you taken a statement of mine and brought the COLD HARD FACTS TO POSITIVELY REFUTE IT????

NOT ONCE! You can't even win a bet by proving me wrong. I have to prove myself wrong and willingly admit it. Some debater you are.

You couldn't be more "factually void".

ADD ANOTHER "ILLUSION" TO YOUR LIST!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Especially with this rigged court system."

SH: A blamer will always find someone or something to blame.

Econ: And a name caller has no real intellectual argument.


Conman: "Econ: You may have said that Tyson advertising helps producers with higher prices also, but you also said that by advertising the petite tender and other cuts, the packers are able to offer more for the cattle they buy. This assumes that the packers didn't just pocket it as a higher margin. The Canadian bse incident show us they are willing to pocket money and not share it with producers UNLESS MARKET CONDITIONS MAKE THEM DO IT."

If cattle markets were controlled by packers, prices would never move higher. That's the common sense of the issue.

Econ: You are the only one making the assertion that the cattle markets are completely controlled by the packers and hence your frogjump to the conclusions you have that make no sense. Even in the Canada bse fiasco, there are still market forces. The question is not an all or nothing one at this point, and even if Tyson was the only company in the industry, there are economic factors at play. Tyson economists know that the theoretical limit to their price suppression is the average variable costs. They use this limit all the time when calculating how much to pay farmers when they have a geographical monopsony as in their poultry business. Your little mind reasoning would suggest that Tyson could get their supply and pay farmers nothing, which shows how much you know about reality.



SH: If there was no competition in the packing industry between the major packers , this would open the doors for smaller less efficient packing companies to compete with the larger more efficient companies but you have a conspiracy to try to explain that fact away too don't you?

Econ: If you are going to call my answer a "conspiracy" and dismiss it before I give it, maybe you are not going to hear it anyway. The packers form a barrier of entry into the business by operating they way they do. It is a classical economic desire in any business. Your what if questions are pretty meaningless when you don't know a thing about how markets work.

SH: The Canadian situation is not applicable to the United States because the United States had historically slaughtered a large portion of Canada's cattle. When BSE was discovered in Canada and those Canadian cattle could no longer be shipped South to the United States for slaughter, Canada found themselves with more cattle than slaughter capacity while those plants in the NE United States that relied on Canadian cattle suddenly found themselves with more slaughter capacity than cattle.

Econ: No, I don''t ever expect you to believe anything you don't want to believe in. Even pertinent real life examples. You are describing supply/demand. That is the basis for markets. My example proves that it is supply and demand that determine price and that your little extraneous "theories" are apparently in error. The Aberdeen case was more about the fact that markets require transparency to function properly. The transparency wasn't there in the Aberdeen case and it created harm to the sellers and allowed the packers to profit at their expense.

SH: The BSE EXCEPTION does not make the rule. During BSE, the packers in the US were losing money. That is an undeniable fact.

You got nothing but baseless conspiracy theories and lies Conman.

Econ: The "rules" of the market are economic rules. This is something you have proven time and time again you have no mastery over. You have nothing but baseless gopher talk and name calling, SH.


Conman: "Market conditions and the manipulation of information about the market can have a huge effect on live prices. That was proven in Aberdeen to the jury."

Yet another lie. There was no manipulation of information about the market. USDA ADMITTED THAT THEY MADE A PRICE REPORTING MISTAKE.

Econ: Where was your touted "voluntary" price reporting, SH? As I said before, this would have been an affirmative defense for the packers in the case. The fact is that it is another "lie" that you bring to the board. It wasn't used as a defense because it didn't exist. You are full of tricks today, I see.


SH:
Conman: "As with everything, you have to put it into context. I think you have a problem with your ability to do that as the message on the bottom of all your posts attests."

DIVERSION!!!

Herman's statement was obviously pivotal in the case. DO YOU AGREE WITH IT, YES OR NO?????

Econ: It is a subset of the right answer, not the complete right answer. As a subset, it is entirely correct in the case cited. In the Canadian case, it was not, as I have shown you time and time again. How many times must you be spoon fed, SH? Will you ever grow up?

SH:
Conman: "Econ: I don't think you are able to understand anything I say because you just don't want to. You almost always take the packer side on every issue."

Diversion!

You don't want to admit to the hypocrisy in your position. If advertising beef only benefits the packers and not the producer, how do you explain "M"COOL? Using your argument, that would only benefit the packer.

Address the issue Conman and quit diverting.

Econ: It has the potential of benefitting both. It does not always do so. If there is no strong competition for producer's cattle, the benefits of the higher price will accrue to the packers only theoretically varying to the inverse of market power to perfect competition. Since the producers were paying for the advertising instead of Tyson, one would have to assume perfect competition in order for those benefits to be passed down to the producers. We don't have anything near perfect competition in the beef industry so it doesn't happen.

SH: As far as taking "the packer side", I am taking the truthful side of these issues, nothing more and nothing less.

The truth is, we won't get another dime for our cattle unless the packer receives more money for his beef. It's always been that way and it will always be that way.

Your cheap talk won't explain your way out of it. Boxed beef prices track with live cattle prices. Only a complete idiot like you would try to deny it.


Conman: " And it is well documented that market conditions have the overall say so, as the Canadians found out. Did their live prices track with boxed beef prices? You have a tendency to misuse information for your own purposes. This is another example of that tactic."


Why do you always think the "exception makes the rule".

THE UNITED STATES HAS ENOUGH SLAUGHTER CAPACITY FOR THEIR AVAILABLE CATTLE.

WHEN THE CANADIAN BORDER WAS CLOSED, CANADA DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SLAUGHTER CAPACITY FOR THEIR AVAILABLE CATTLE.

APPLES AND WATERMELONS! THE TWO SITUATIONS ARE NOT COMPARABLE!

CANADIANS HAD NO OPTIONS FOR THEIR CATTLE BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T SELL THEM IN THE UNITED STATES. CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR CONCRETE HEAD????

How many times do we need to go over this fact and you still bring it up? I guess it's because you don't have any better arguments.

You want to blame someone for Canadian producers suffering, blame R-CULT for keeping the border closed longer than it had to be.


SH:
Conman: "Why do you almost always take the packer side of every argument? Do you have something against producers getting their fair share?"

Why do you take the "BLAMING PACKER VICTIM" side of every argument? Do you have something against the truth?

I take the factual side of an argument while you take the blaming conspiracy side of the argument.



~SH~

Econ: Please don't make me laugh. I give the credit to the industry when it deserves it. They have been very good at infiltrating the USDA to get what they want regardless of who is in political office, constructing barriers to entry to keep competition out, and cheating producers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
More cheap talk! Long on rhetoric and short on facts to support it.

Same old liar!


~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
AW com'on SH,you knew you were trapped,and no way for you to twist outa the bet,after agman abandoned you,quit insulting everyones intelligence with this white knight image you keep trying to sell...........good luck
PS Thank you for the $100,Im sure it was used to create fairness :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "How many times have you taken a statement of mine and brought the COLD HARD FACTS TO POSITIVELY REFUTE IT????"

Let's see....... There was the WTO fur deal....."Japan has never asked for testing"......."You liar" (what you said regarding GIPSA)...."Mike Callicrate is a purjuror".....You backing the USDA claiming BSE cannot be detected until shortly before symptoms.... How long a list do you want?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
SH, "How many times have you taken a statement of mine and brought the COLD HARD FACTS TO POSITIVELY REFUTE IT????"

Let's see....... There was the WTO fur deal....."Japan has never asked for testing"......."You liar" (what you said regarding GIPSA)...."Mike Callicrate is a purjuror".....You backing the USDA claiming BSE cannot be detected until shortly before symptoms.... How long a list do you want?

Sandhusker, it doesn't count on the days he is wrong, it was just another instance of "opposite day". :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Let's see....... There was the WTO fur deal....."Japan has never asked for testing"......."You liar" (what you said regarding GIPSA)...."Mike Callicrate is a purjuror".....You backing the USDA claiming BSE cannot be detected until shortly before symptoms.... How long a list do you want?"

You never presented facts on the WTO fur deal, you presented a statement. I did some research and admitted I was wrong. That can be found in the archives.

I called you a liar in reference to your statement about "GIPSA doing all they could not to investigate" you spinned it into something it wasn't. Another illusion.

Lying under oath is perjury. Mike lied under oath. He changed his story. His testimony was thrown out. You spinned that into having to be brought up on perjury charges to have committed perjury.

You have no proof that BSE can be detected before visible symptoms. You simply sunk your teeth into the words of the first person to come along to refute USDA's claim like the mindless lemming you are.

You got nothing here but empty trees.

You brought no facts to back the WTO fur deal.
You brought no facts to refute the fact that Callicrate changed his story and that judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregrard his testimony.
You brought no facts to prove that GIPSA was doing all they could not to investigate.
You brought no facts to prove that bse prions are detectable before an animal shows visisble symptoms.

YOU BROUGHT NOTHING BUT SPIN, ALLEGATIONS, AND "ILLUSIONS" just like the deceptive person you are.


~SH~
 
Top