David, well said and of course we all could do more and do better. I am as sure as God made little green apples, that SCI is always striving to do more and better things for the hunting industry as a whole, not just African hunting. We must remember there is a much larger world outside Africa. We must also remember that this AR site is also a very small part of the hunting community on the internet. I think some of us take ourselves too seriously.

Dave,

While I won't debate the validity of the gathering aspect of hunters and outfitters being beneficial; the aspect of 'MAJOR" donors such as Usangu Safrais and OOA not being vetted when SERIOUS laws are broken, fraud is committed and laws are broken leaves SCI open to scathing criticism. Having been one who went over the top with a 'bad apple' situation with SCI and felt their resistence to upset the apple cart of their cash flow, I can atest to the validity of these feelings. Specifically I speak of Usangu Safaris.

If you want to have a sales convention then do so. If you want to run a self congratulatory back slapping country club around hunting then call it that.

My .02.

Jeff

Saeed - So since I have only spent a couple hundred thousand hunting Africa and not several million and I belong to SCI, go to the Convention according to you I am not supporting Africa? Thanks alot and now who is playing my dick is bigger than yours?? It's not SCI who is confused about this. Good bye, the elk are waiting!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Larry,

People like you and me are the ones supporting the African hunting industry.

In fact, what SCI does by forcing outfitters and PHs to "donate" hunts, and then sell them at the convention, actually makes it difficult for them to sell other hunts.

And who gets the money?

SCI.

And each time we ask what SCI has actually given back to Africa, we get the run around.

At a very conservative estimate, I would imagine I have spent several million dollars hunting Africa.

And SCI had absolutely nothing to do with.

Just imagine all the hunters who hunt Africa without going to the convention.

They are the ones supporting Africa.

I think SCI is has gotten themselves confused if they think there would be no one hunting Africa if it wasn't for their convention.

dang Larry, thats pretty convuleted thinking...

I'd say YOU supported hunting in Africa to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars, not SCI.

Just like Saeed supported hunting in Africa out of HIS pocket......I didn't read that as a comparison of what other hunters have spent....

troy

DT - I would have never hunted Africa once let alone 13 times if not for SCI. That's my point, whether some here want to believe it or not, SCI is a great generator of business for Africa and African hunting. Their efforts and theirs alone put money in African pockets year after year. But that fact can't be seen as SCI giving back to African PH's, African hunting and helping the average African citizen for some with their own negative thinking. I never said or suggested that all hunting money goes through SCI, but several million each year finds it's way there via the SCI Convention route. It's SCI's route I point out, but the naysayers are blind to the fact.

My dollars would have stayed in the US and Canada most likely if I had never gotten involved with SCI. I booked my first African hunt at the SCI Convention and everyone since. I realize some here are so special and gifted that they don't need help with their hunting plans and planning. Let's just call them the "Inner Circle" of non supporting SCI folks. They certainly act the same as the very folks they are condeming at SCI, even though they won't own up to it.

SCI doesn't owe Africa one single dime unless the choose to do so. Some here obviously don't have enough business sense to realize all money taken it at the SCI Convention doesn't go into their pockets. Does anyone have any idea how many dollars it takes to put on a Convention of the size SCI does? Obviously not!

As has been stated a trillion times before on here, exibitors are not forced to donate anything, nor are they forced to pay for booth space. They have a choice, pay to play, or stay away. This is not really that hard to understand, unless you are mentally challenged I guess.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
dang Larry, thats pretty convuleted thinking...

I'd say YOU supported hunting in Africa to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars, not SCI.

Just like Saeed supported hunting in Africa out of HIS pocket......I didn't read that as a comparison of what other hunters have spent....

troy

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Saeed - So since I have only spent a couple hundred thousand hunting Africa and not several million and I belong to SCI, go to the Convention according to you I am not supporting Africa? Thanks alot and now who is playing my dick is bigger than yours?? It's not SCI who is confused about this. Good bye, the elk are waiting!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Larry,

People like you and me are the ones supporting the African hunting industry.

In fact, what SCI does by forcing outfitters and PHs to "donate" hunts, and then sell them at the convention, actually makes it difficult for them to sell other hunts.

And who gets the money?

SCI.

And each time we ask what SCI has actually given back to Africa, we get the run around.

At a very conservative estimate, I would imagine I have spent several million dollars hunting Africa.

And SCI had absolutely nothing to do with.

Just imagine all the hunters who hunt Africa without going to the convention.

They are the ones supporting Africa.

I think SCI is has gotten themselves confused if they think there would be no one hunting Africa if it wasn't for their convention.

Larry,

Go read my post again.

You must be so confused to the extent that you no longer understand plain English!

No wonder you are so hooked on SCI accomplishments!

David, Larry et al.

I really would prefer to keep this on subject because I feel that the original issue is far more important than the usual squabbling that inevitably happens on whenever the subject of donations raises it's ugly head.

However, I'll try to explain why I personally resent the system and refuse to take part in it.

Before I start, I appreciate that the SCI convention is a big marketing tool but it's NOT the only marketing tool. The African hunting industry, just like the hunting industry elsewhere in the world got along very well in the past without SCI for umpteen years and if the show wasn't there, it would get along very well without it again.

I also appreciate that the mindset of both hunters and operators find that fact hard to comprehend but nevertheless, it's true.

I also appreciate that my maths here is VERY approximate.

I'm sure you guys will appreciate that the vast majority of hunting operations are fairly small scale. Usually not more than 2 or 3 PHs etc. In other words, fairly small business operations.

This page http://www.showsci.org/static/...ndex.cfm?action=List lists about 1000 exhibitors. Some of those are joint numbered and some not in Africa and I don't know if that's the total list of exhibitors but I'll keep my figures modest and work on 1000 for convenience.

Now let's get the calculators out.

Let's say a modest average donation of US$5000 per exhibitor. (I don't think that's an unreasonable figure to work on)

Then add another US$5000 which is the money lost because the buyer of the donation or another buyer would have booked direct. (That perhaps is an over simplistic way of looking at it because there are other factors such as quota etc but the maths works out about the same)

So now we're up to US$10,000.

Then add the cost of the booth plus all the odds and ends, plus air travel, hotel bills, travel insurance, printing, cabs and all that hospitality of taking potential clients out for dinner etc for the exhibitor. Let's say another US$10,000.

So now we're up to US$20,000.

Multiply that by 1000 exhibitors.

that's US$20,000000 or US$20M.

Now ask yourself how unreasonable it is to expect a small business industry to sustain US$20M a year or US$200M a decade to be milked from their industry? and how reasonable is it to expect them to be happy with that appalling situation?

I appreciate a fair number of exhibitors will say in public that they don't have a problem with it and the reason for that is they're shit scared of losing their rating and best and possibly being excluded at worst....... but I have never met an exhibitor that could look me in the eye across the privacy of a camp fire and tell me they wouldn't prefer not to make use of the SCI show and donation scheme if they could find another way of doing it.

And incidentally, that doesn't even begin to look at the additional 15% or so that the a large part of the industry also pays to agents..... Nor does it begin to address the subject of the people who trot up and ask for something for nothing such as a free observer who can also hunt etc. Both of which are whole different cans of worms

And people think the people at the sharp end of the hunting industry are ripping them off and making a fortune because the daily rates are so high!

Steve,

So do you think that it would be a good thing for SCI to close down the convention? So that the small scale hunting operators could save the money they spend on it for the good of the hunting industry? You don't think they'd go to another show(s) and spend the same amount on hotels/airfare etc? You don't think they'd also have to pay for a booth at other shows? Come on.....A lot of your other SCI posts have required me to concentrate a little before responding, this one does not require any thought whatsoever. Talk about clutching at straws. And before you say hunters would be happy to book through other mediums besides shows, let me assure you that most would not. The majority of clients and operators like to meet the people they are dealing with face to face, and so they should.

Who ever said SCI was the only marketing tool for hunters? Must have been a really clueless guy. It's a free world, there are many ways to book a hunt, didn't we all know that already? Yeah, so the hunting industry got along just fine without SCI and would if it closed down tomorrow, so what? What's the point? Can you explain why SCI is so successful, why it has so many members on both sides of the pond and why so many people attend its conventions? One thing you have correct is that it's a big marketing tool, but let me expound a little on that - it is the hunting industry's biggest marketing tool by far. There is a reason for that because not all the guys who use SCI as a medium to sell/buy hunts are dumbasses, which is basically what you are saying. In fact, the vast majority are successful in whatever field they work in. Just for a reaction, I am going to put it to Roger Whittall that he has been hoodwinked and wasted his money exhibiting at SCI for the past however many years. As I've already said, such a suggestion would bring about much hilarity. The guys that exhibit as SCI make their money back many times. Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Nobody expects a small business industry to fork out 20 million a year, they do it because they want to. Does SCI force them to, maybe? They must be happy with the situation because they continue to do it. Why? Because they know that they will benefit from doing so. If one is unhappy with a situation, what does one do? Just plod along unhappily or address that situation and make positive changes?

Cheers, Dave

Thank you Steve for that enlightened post, you truly out did yourself in proving your stupidity. Figures don't lie but liers do figure. That 20M figure is sooo off base.

David,

No mate. I don't expect them to close the convention. Just to abandon the unfair donation scheme.

Incidentally, you also need to bear in mind the profit SCI make from auctioning the donated hunts that then seems to mostly disappear up it's own arse.

DOJ

What part of the phrase "I also appreciate that my maths here is VERY approximate" don't you understand?

Once I know that, I could possibly try to explain it to you in words of fewer syllables.

I can always rely on you to open your mouth, put your foot in it and give us all a good laugh!

Well Steve lets see.

1. average donation if the $5,000 would be the market value of the donation then say the cost would be say $3000. In todays market the donor may or may not have sold that hunt. How many operators have unsold hunts at the end of the year. Also the average donation is well below $5,000. If I understand the "donation" requirement is the donor can donate $2,000 cash. It would appear the donors feel the donation in kind is better for them than the cash donation.

2. Forget the doubling.

3. The costs of travel well that is up to how much the exnibitor wants to spend and it seems the hunter usually treats the outfitter. Not all exhibitors come from Africa or other countries or even other states.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Well Steve lets see.

1. average donation if the $5,000 would be the market value of the donation then say the cost would be say $3000. In todays market the donor may or may not have sold that hunt. How many operators have unsold hunts at the end of the year. Also the average donation is well below $5,000. If I understand the "donation" requirement is the donor can donate $2,000 cash. It would appear the donors feel the donation in kind is better for them than the cash donation.

2. Forget the doubling.

3. The costs of travel well that is up to how much the exnibitor wants to spend and it seems the hunter usually treats the outfitter. Not all exhibitors come from Africa or other countries or even other states.

Bearing in mind that at the top end, many companies donate things like 21 day safaris or elephant hunts etc, I'd say that if anything a US$5K donation average is a low estimate and probably a very low estimate.

I'd certainly be very surprised indeed if those figures turned out to be over inflated.

SUPRISE!!!!!!!! SUPRISE!!!!!!!SURPRISE!!!!!!!

Some accounts would clear up the mysteries and save the rows.

The point is that whatever the cost of exhibiting at SCI is, many (is it 1000?) choose to do so. Whilst they may not be thrilled (who is when they have to dip into their wallet?), they see it as making good business sense. Some have seen it thus for many years and continue to do so. I have absolutely no understanding of money and business but have friends who do (yes, they exhibit annually at SCI), and often they go on about having to reap in order to sow, spend in order to make.....

Steve, you really shouldn't go on about wanting to stick to the topic when you keep changing it... Wanting to prevent the thread from degenerating into a slinging match yet taking aim as you write it....

David

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
SUPRISE!!!!!!!! SUPRISE!!!!!!!SURPRISE!!!!!!!

Well, here's a page chosen purely at random. http://www.showsci.com/static/.../Spotlight-Auctions/

Total cost of donated hunts on that page are: US$102300

Which works out to be an average of US$25575

total cost of non hunt donationd are US$90061

Which works out to be an average of US$18012

If you want to talk only Africa. Take a look at the top end donations here: http://www.showsci.com/static/...ionPreview/index.cfm

Total cost of just the first ten donated hunts on that page are: US$552125

Which works out to be an average of US$55212

Then you have the bottom end hunts that will bring those averages down but I reckon the overall average of US$5000 that I worked on is extremely conservative.

Surprised?

I'm not.

Actually David, it was you and DOJ who kept wanting to change the subject not me. In fact, if I didn't know you to be an honourable man, I'd suspect it was a deliberate attempt to divert the discussion of the original subject. As I do know you to be an honourable man, that isn't the case.

However, I'm very happy to get back to the topic of in the light of recent events, will SCI have the decency to change some of the people at the top and try to do something to justify their laughable claim of being first for hunters?

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
The point is that whatever the cost of exhibiting at SCI is, many (is it 1000?) choose to do so. Whilst they may not be thrilled (who is when they have to dip into their wallet?), they see it as making good business sense. Some have seen it thus for many years and continue to do so. I have absolutely no understanding of money and business but have friends who do (yes, they exhibit annually at SCI), and often they go on about having to reap in order to sow, spend in order to make.....

Steve, you really shouldn't go on about wanting to stick to the topic when you keep changing it... Wanting to prevent the thread from degenerating into a slinging match yet taking aim as you write it....

David

Very good!



It makes business sense to grease the palms of those purporting to represent the largest fraction of American Safari hunters.

Another way of looking at it might be that American Safari hunters could well be better off represented by someone else.

An organisation that doesn't spend more money on staff than conservation for example.

Just for clarity, I have no axe to grind with anyone, eccept the rip=off merchant. If there are no rip-off merchants masquerading as looking out for hunters, there is no problem.

The British Association of Shooting and Conservation is the premier organisation for the shooting sports, in terms of hunters at least, in the UK.

They publish accounts for their members to see and hold open elections for the executive positions.

Why should SCI not do the same?

Apart from the obvious, of course.

That's right Steve, try and twist the story as much as you can. I only react to some of your posts because I can see clearly how biased and unsubstantiated they are.
Actually mate, your comments are laughable. Watching you try and work your way out of a corner with the same old bumph is laughable.

Cheers, David

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

The British Association of Shooting and Conservation is the premier organisation for the shooting sports, in terms of hunters at least, in the UK.

I bet their convention gives SCI a run for its money eh? Insofar as doing good for hunting is concerned. I don't think we should use anything British as an example for anything to do with hunting, do you? You have to make an example to set one.

David

Dave,

I used simple maths on the corporation's own figures as published on their own website.

They're not wrong but if you think they are wrong, why not get yourself a calculator and post the proof by way of links to the pages where you got the original info and then your figures?

Just like I did......

alternatively, just check my figures against the links I posted.

You can't win a debate with insults and accusations mate....... to win a debate you have to prove yourself right with conclusive evidence and cite your sources.

Just like I did........

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
I don't think we should use anything British as an example for anything to do with hunting, do you? You have to make an example to set one.

David

Yeah, good point buddy. Maybe we should use an organisation that ignores scores of complaints from it's own members about dodgy doings by a company that happens to donate umpteen hunts a year to that organisation?

I'll cite this as proof: http://forums.accuratereloadin...041023241#6041023241

When those "costs" are calculated they are what would be projected as the "cost" to the buyer not the cost to the donor. There is a difference.

Steve,

I just wanted to point out somethings you left out of your calculations.

1. I know at least at my local chapter the one donating the hunt/item get 30% of the winning bid. I assume something like that is true for the national convention.

2. Repeat business for the PH/outfitter. I bought my first Africa hunt from local chapter of SCI. I have now hunted with the same outfit 4 times.

3. Most people that buy the hunts spend money on things not included in the donation, i.e. trophy fees on animals taken not in the donation.

4. You assume that they would have sold the hunt if they would not have donated it, all though true in some cases but not all.

Also remember that the PH/outfitters chose to donate the hunts, no one is twisting their arm. If they think they have to donate to SCI to exhibit at the shows then they can go else where.

Just a few things to take into account in your calculations.

Steve,

If you feel insulted, then I apologize. I am just saying what I believe. And I do believe you are blindly biased when it comes to SCI. As far as my use of the word unsubstantiated is concerned, in your own words your figures are an approximation, a thumb suck actually. And if you re-read one of my previous posts, you'll see that I consider the cost exhibitors pay to be irrelevant in any case. Whatever the cost of exhibiting, there are many who are prepared to pay it, and that actually says it all.

Dave

David C,

They don't choose to donate those hunts mate........ they're extorted out of them in exchange for a higher rating to ensure they get a better booth location.

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

The British Association of Shooting and Conservation is the premier organisation for the shooting sports, in terms of hunters at least, in the UK.

I bet their convention gives SCI a run for its money eh? Insofar as doing good for hunting is concerned. I don't think we should use anything British as an example for anything to do with hunting, do you? You have to make an example to set one.

David

Calm down David, You might not want to follow British governmental policy as regards to hunting, however I think that accounting practices might be a little more international in their consensus.

They don't have a convention, the safari companies in the UK exhibit in the game fairs, these are known as purely commercial events run purely for the benefit of their organizers.

Their accounts are avaliable from companies house, but nobody cares as they know the game fair organisers are trying to make money like anyone else, and not bleating on about saving the world.

Not even incrementally.

As I say, some accounts made available to the members would render this sort of pointless back and forth, well, pointless.

From that perspective the BASC is a model for how a hunter's organisation should be run, at least to entities like SCI.

Look at it from my perspective, I've been hunting for a few years now and went to RSA for the first time in August.

I very much enjoyed myself and decided i wanted to return and do more of that sort of thing.

I therefore look around for an organisation to support, in supporting me and what I do.

SCI is the big fish in this regard, rather disappointing then to find that the fish appears to smell a little, well, fishy.

My first questions as to the way the organisation works were met with instant castigation and accusations of "blowing smoke", the second set with veiled threats of litigation.

In the circumstances, I think we should concentrate on the questions, if the answers whereof are within the sphere of people's knowledge, or let somebody that does know answer them.

Threats of litigation and ratehr tart comments about the size of the BASC safari convention are at best irrelevant, at worst diversion.

Come on mate, we are all on the same side I just won't be on the same side as some bloated old boys network that needs to receive five grand to spend five bucks.

Ps. (That last was a figure of speech, entirely allegorical and should therefore not be construed as slanderous, libelous or defamatory)

Pps.( This post does not represent the views of AR or it's parent, subsidiary or sister companies)

Ppps. ( or their affiliates)

Dave H,

No need to apologise mate. This is a debate, not an argument. I was just pointing out that the way to win a debate is with proof rather than anything else.

I'll also draw your attention to my original statement that said "I'll try to explain why I personally resent the system and refuse to take part in it".

I've done exactly what I said. I explained why I personally resent the system and refuse to take part in it.

Whether others choose to waste their money in such a way is entirely up to them.

I'm not preaching to the industry about whether they should or should not play the SCI game, I'm just explaining why I flatly refuse to.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
I don't think we should use anything British as an example for anything to do with hunting, do you? You have to make an example to set one.

David

Yeah, good point buddy. Maybe we should use an organisation that ignores scores of complaints from it's own members about dodgy doings by a company that happens to donate umpteen hunts a year to that organisation?

I'll cite this as proof: http://forums.accuratereloadin...041023241#6041023241

Sarcasm usually means the debate is over. So the ship was rocked, so what? Which ship hasn't encountered a bit of stormy weather? SCI will be up and sailing again soon. I just hope, like everyone else, that the mutineers are tossed overboard.

I'm really not interested in your figures. By my own admission, I know nothing about business or money and I am quite content to exist like that forevermore. That way I won't become like Dawie or his cronies. All I am doing is backing SCI as a whole and I won't change my stance. Much more good has come out of SCI than bad.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
David C,

They don't choose to donate those hunts mate........ they're extorted out of them in exchange for a higher rating to ensure they get a better booth location.

No. They are not extorted out of them, that is a baseless accusation. The exhibitors have a CHOICE and they choose to pay.

Dave,

So do you agree that all those involved in SCI (including the ethics committee) who were party to OoA being allowed to continue as SCI members, donate hunts and exhibit etc despite all those years of controversy in general and complaints from members in particular should immediately resign their posts in the corporation?

If so, then we're on the same side......... even if we do disagree about the donation scheme and even despite the fact you can't acknowledge my figures are pretty much correct.

Oh BTW. My crystal ball tells me that the little storm you mention that rocked the boat is going to develop into the perfect super hurricane that is going to rock the hunting world to it's very foundations.

Believe me when I say we've only seen the very tip of the iceberg right now.

ghubert, I am as calm as a man could be right now, thank you. David

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
I don't think we should use anything British as an example for anything to do with hunting, do you? You have to make an example to set one.

David

Yeah, good point buddy. Maybe we should use an organisation that ignores scores of complaints from it's own members about dodgy doings by a company that happens to donate umpteen hunts a year to that organisation?

I'll cite this as proof: http://forums.accuratereloadin...041023241#6041023241

Sarcasm usually means the debate is over. So the ship was rocked, so what? Which ship hasn't encountered a bit of stormy weather? SCI will be up and sailing again soon. I just hope, like everyone else, that the mutineers are tossed overboard.

I'm really not interested in your figures. By my own admission, I know nothing about business or money and I am quite content to exist like that forevermore. That way I won't become like Dawie or his cronies. All I am doing is backing SCI as a whole and I won't change my stance. Much more good has come out of SCI than bad.

Dave

Dave,

Sadly, the ship is not just rocked.

It has developed a sizeable leak!

And it is up to us as members to make sure that it is put in order.

Keeping our mouths shut at all these shinanigans is not going to help. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I honestly hope someone in SCI is going to take notice of this, and do something about it.

Because the fall out is going to hurt us all as hunters.

SCI claim FIRST FOR HUNTERS.

It is about time they put their actions where their mouths are.

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
ghubert, I am as calm as a man could be right now, thank you. David

I am as happy as a Frenchman whose just invented a pair of self-removing trousers for you.

I thank you for your assistance with regard to those questions that were troubling me about joining the organisation.

Regards,

Amir

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Dave,

So do you agree that all those involved in SCI (including the ethics committee) who were party to OoA being allowed to continue as SCI members, donate hunts and exhibit etc despite all those years of controversy in general and complaints from members in particular should immediately resign their posts in the corporation?

If so, then we're on the same side......... even if we do disagree about the donation scheme and even despite the fact you can't acknowledge my figures are pretty much correct.

Oh BTW. My crystal ball tells me that the little storm you mention is going to develop into a perfect hurricane that is going to rock the hunting world to it's very foundations.

Believe me when I say we've only seen the very tip of the iceberg right now.

Yes, we agree that those who are responsible for allowing OOA to get away with what they did should be held accountable, I have always made that clear. Who wouldn't feel that way, I ask you?

Well, bring the hurricane on, the ship and its crew will only emerge stronger.

The fact that we are all on the same side hits the nail on the head squarely.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Keeping our mouths shut at all these shinanigans is not going to help. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

.

Saeed, I haven't noticed anyone keeping their mouth shut about anything.

David

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:


I thank you for your assistance with regard to those questions that were troubling me about joining the organisation.

Regards,

Amir

Glad to be of assistance, I'm sure you'll be missed.

David

Dave,

We've seen guys here defend SCI's stance on OoA so some people obviously don't agree with us.

As for the ship surviving. I hope it does and have said so previously by saying we should be sure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater....... however, I reckon the ship you mention will only stay afloat if we see a considerable number of the seniour officers resign.... and the longer they delay their resignations the more chance there is of the ship sinking... or at least, taking on considerable water that will damage it's valuable cargo immensely.

Missed?

By who?



There might be somebody out there who realises that collective organisations cannot be run for the chief benefit of just a few of their members with the scraps being thrown at everybody else.

One of those guys might eventually come to SCI's defence.

I want to be here for that, the guy would get much respect for giving straight answers to straight question from potential future members.

David - +100 on that one. Same ole people singing the same ole "gloom and doom" song, without the ability to turn the page to a new verse. Actually they probably have the ability to turn the page, but prefer to keep up the trash talk to suit themselves I suppose.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Keeping our mouths shut at all these shinanigans is not going to help. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

.

Saeed, I haven't noticed anyone keeping their mouth shut about anything.

David