Back to All About SoWal

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach Lover
526,502 views2
upload_2019-4-25_8-30-52.jpeg
When you see a PCB or Destin bumper sticker, what thought immediately comes to mind? Probably same for all of us with any time spent here - nice, but it ain’t 30A! Do you remember why you started renting/visiting here? What was it? Remember when you bought your first 30A property? Why here?
Because it was DIFFERENT, right? Remember the words you used to describe it to family and friends as you invited them here? “Private” “Quiet” “Intimate” “Less crowded”. That wasn’t by accident. The entire genetic code of Sowal beaches is because of the private ownership and neighborhood beach personalities.
You could rent “private beach”. You could buy “private beach”. There wasn’t a free for all frat party atmosphere because of unlimited public beach access on the sands. That behavior was regulated by the privately owned property where such behavior was immediately squelched. And yet, by custom, no one was ever “Kicked off” of private beaches because owners don’t do that unless bad actors abuse the privilege.
Walton County has always had more than 50% PUBLIC beach. Still does. That hasn’t changed. There are now deliberately misleading fear tactics out there with scary words like “Quiet Title” and “Privatization”, neither of which have affected one single square inch of public beach, not one. Yet, the mob mentality, orchestrated by local carnival barkers eager for fame and notoriety, and dollars, have mislead the citizens and deliberately tried to divide the community in a shell game of Customary Use.
The fact is that the county outran the capabilities of local Commissioners to plan for growth 20 years ago, and we haven’t improved that talent to deal with it even yet. So the County, in failing to plan beach availability, tried to illegally claim private property as public, without following the laws requiring judicial oversight. The local Good Ol’ Boys overreached their authority and got caught by the adults in Tallahassee. So they then decides to sue 4,800 of Sowal citizens to take their property. That’s right, your tax money is being spent, and a lot of it, to SUE almost 5,000 of your neighbors, and steal what they agreed to purchase at a premium, and have a deed to prove it.
Don’t blame them please, they didn’t want or ask for this fight. They live here and care for these beaches just like you and me. Go meet them, they are truly the eclectic fabric of 30A. The signs they had to put up are just in defense of this new orchestrated public attack against them.
The bottom line is this: The minute you release the public to occupy all of Sowal beaches, you IMMEDIATELY get nasty Destin and PCB problems. How will you feel about that 30A sticker then? Nostalgic? Me too.

03BC6F35-C70B-476E-8581-BDFB287ECF68.jpeg

Replies

2,312
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1802
CREDIBILITY (noun) the quality of being trusted and believed in.
9 questions to help you evaluate the credibility of news sources - Poynter

As I read back over these posts, it occurred to me that Credibility is what is being questioned and the CU consequences of past and present Walton Commissioners’ CU litigation. Stating facts that dispute CU or support property rights is not trying CU in the public forum but to establish facts and credibility of beliefs and opinions. Why do you believe what you post? Facts or beliefs? For me, so BPOs can know the private property facts and law from CU beliefs. Because like bellybuttons; everyone has an opinion. So what?

Facts are facts and speak for themselves. Do you trust court documents or slides from a known video provocateur off the internet? You may not accept the facts that do not support your belief but regardless who posts them anyone can or should be able to fact-check them. The deliverer of the facts to establish the credibility or incredibility of the belief is inconsequential. Except if the deliverer of the belief consistently does not establish any facts and no credibility over and over and over again; they become not-credible by the lack of facts. Like crying wolf. To state an opinion or belief as a fact - is not a fact.

Example of not credible statements.
#1779. mputnal states “FBB, I have GREAT answers for all your irrelevant, incredible and untruthful questions or false application of one fact ...” What are the great answers? Do not just give an opinion of whatever you do not agree with.

“I work, play and live here. I am in the 30A area most every week ...” but mputnal again did not answer the question; What community do you reside? Goes to credibility many CU believers have expressed about supporting the community because you live or don’t live in South Walton.

#1445 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy Mputnal “The characters in this thread are not from this community.”

#1666 James Bentwood (pseudonym?). “The real people who live in SoWal and have the guts and accountability to stand up for their community.” Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy Funny for someone who has not denied using a pseudonym.
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1803
Kathryn, The court will weigh the evidence, interpret the many laws, legal precedent and finally rule accordingly. The mean old power brokers are here to keep people upset. Apparently it is working otherwise we would all just wait and let the court do it's job.
And where do the many defendants who find themselves named in a frivolous lawsuit simply because they own beachfront property of some kind, fit into this scenario? Some of them may even support customary use. If the judge throws out this lawsuit, is Surfer Dude and his followers going to pay for their legal costs? I suspect that we the taxpayers will pay.
Beach Fanatic
#1804
FBB, Do you work, play and live in this community? I do. Why can't you answer that question? Heck you even ask me questions that you have already stated as irrelevant so I am just borrowing from you. I think you need to go back and read it again and you will find my answers. Me thinks you just don't like my answers! Credibility is important. Community is important. Being social is healthy. Your questions are starting to smell kind of rotten. I believe my offer for a fish fry summit would help you freshen up a bit with your civility and clear up the credibility issues. You should seriously consider my offer. Do you even like seafood?
Beach Fanatic
#1805
Kathryn, I suspect many BPO's support public beach, community good will and are very good and moral people. Unfortunately the "mean old power brokers" are leading them down a path of conflict and disharmony with most non-BPO's. When the power brokers made this about exclusive private beaches the County had no other choice in the matter. None. Excluding respectful people and families from the beach by an individual is not a constitutional power in my opinion. Individuals with that kind of power would be considered an elitist autocrat or despot. I read this in the hyperlink that FBB gave me about minority and majority rights so it is a fact as FBB would say. All of us in this forum have opinions and the court will decide the facts. Individuals should not have supreme power to decide who can use the beach. My opinion has evolved after reading the posts of these power brokers who desire control over "our" beaches.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1806
If CU believers want to describe the half of Walton's 26 miles of legally titled private beachfront property as "our beaches". I think we should describe those CU beliefs as a "CU mob mentality"; at least until the US courts have ruled on the ancient English common law of customary use. Or stop using "our beaches" when by law it is not. Walton wants to take the BPO choice to share their private property or not. That's political power, the Constitution protects individual rights against.
Beach Lover
#1807
Mptnal, your original statement was “Okay I have read some of the contents of the hearing and I would say… The county seems to be "sufficiently clear" in conclusion of it's determination of customary beach use by the public”

Great, enlighten us, show us ANY of the content provided by that County that shows it is ‘sufficient clear” to remove property rights in Walton County.

Now your statement seems to have changed “ I speculate that the evidence is similar to the words of one of our founding fathers, "self-evident".

So did you review and find content or evidence backing the county’s claim that removing property rights is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute, or do you speculate the county would not spend millions of dollars SUING EVERY WALTON COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER THAT HAS LEGALLY DEEDED BEACH FRONT PROPERTY without evidence? Your right, who would commit to spending Millions of dollars without any facts to back up the claim in a court of law? Surely the evidence exists, doesn’t it?

Also note that ALL evidence by the County has ALREADY been submitted to prove their claim. They are not going to be able to make up and submit new evidence. So, if you have reviewed any of these documents that make it “sufficiently clear”, please share it!

This lawsuit has NOTHING to do with going to the beach or keeping people off the beach. The State of Florida provides the right to walk the entire coastline, swim, fish, take pictures, and build sandcastles. So, what is the lawsuit about? It is about getting more property to DAY CAMP for UNLIMTED people with UNLIMITED beach equipment against the will of the property owner because the amount of beach previously purchased and made Public is grossly insufficient to handle the exponential growing tourist population. This year 4 million tourists. What happens when we have 6 million tourist per year? What about 8 million tourists? The county is attempting to TAKE property rights (right of exclusion) with no compensation, from land that prior to 2016 the BCC CONFIRM WAS PRIVATE IN COURT!

So, what happened in 2016 that all of a sudden, the Private property in Walton County no longer has Property Rights? That is a real question because prior to that the BCC confirmed Private Property Rights in Walton County. If the BCC thought they already controlled ALL THE DRY SAND BEACH in Walton County, why did they ever buy property that was previously private to make “Public Beach”?

More than willing to a nice discussion over a fish fry, but you got to come the table with actual facts to discuss, not that you believe that somehow property rights should not exist for a certain group of people because decades ago they have legal deeded property that is now in high demand and the county wants to generate huge profit for businessmen and developers by using private property against the will of the property owner. What is to prevent the BCC trying this to your property and every other property in Walton County?

Please provide the facts and evidence that is the basis for removing property rights for every single Walton County Legally Deeded beach property owner that shows it is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute, and then we can discuss the rest at the fish fry.
Beach Lover
#1808
Well written SCJ. VERY well done!

And I agree 100%.

Still somewhat puzzling that the CU supporters have not or will not state why it is in the best interest of ALL OF US that millions OF OUR MONEY is being spent by the county on this issue.
Beach Fanatic
#1809
SCJ, when can you calendar a fish fry summit? You and I are not accomplishing anything here. I think a change of venue would be good. I don't know why you are not listening to the answers but maybe a public debate would be more helpful for this community to hear people from both sides. Since you are "more than willing" I applaud you as being the only one so far from the private beaches side to commit. Lets get this thing rolling! Let's advertise as Private Exclusive Beach vs Public Beach where Families are always welcome.

We will need a moderator for the public debate. Maybe about 12 questions from the moderator and 12 questions from the public audience. It will help all of us to learn how to be more respectful more civil...I hope! We do not have to be enemies is my motto :)
stone packard avatar
Beach Lover
#1810
I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that a plaintiff must prove his case. How do the plaintiffs prove their case against several thousand people? And what are they trying to prove?
Beach Fanatic
#1811
SP, that is the point. We are not participating lawyers in the lawsuit therefore all we can do is speculate with opinion. I speculate that Walton County will try to prove that Traditional Use or Customary Use has been in place for generations. Kind of obvious right?

What they are presenting in part as evidence is a conclusion based on the general fact that BFO's have allowed this use...until the power brokers got involved. There are also affidavit's that are being presented as evidence of customary use going back generations. I believe there is evidence in the fact that specific beach front development approvals such as with St. Joe were contingent on public use (this was a significant portion of the overall beaches). I believe there is evidence in precedent of general beach use by the public. I believe there is additional precedent in property line disputes where the specific use of the property is recognized regardless of the deed description and taxes paid. Kind of like possession is 9/10's of the law where the general beach has been unrestricted to the general public.

I believe the Judge will rule in favor of Public Beaches or Customary Use by the Public. Of course this is my opinion and I have no crystal ball. The power brokers are behaving as an autocracy where they ridicule anyone who has an opinion that is opposed to theirs (autocracy). The information that was made available to us from FBB (minority and majority rights) actually explained how an abuse of power from autocrats will be held in place (checked) by the US Constitution. This would be an issue in a higher court. So if the defendant lawyers are utilizing this same behavior in court as the power brokers it would not go well for them. Trust me the power brokers will slice and dice and whoop and holler about how the Constitution protects their superiority and supreme power to exclude families from the beach. They are over confident and damaging to the community. Is that their purpose? If not what is their real purpose? If I were a BFO I would ask them to stop because they are creating unnecessary conflict. This is just a community forum and the power brokers are not from this community. Their facts are noted but I believe the Judge will rule in favor of public beaches.

All that said and I still welcome the fish fry summit with the power brokers. I believe that civility in society is very important. Why make enemies?
Beach Lover
#1812
You and I are not accomplishing anything here.

But I think we are accomplishing something here, because so far you have helped confirmed that the following:

Dave Rauschkolb, Founder FBFA (Co-Plaintiff of Lawsuit)
Dan Uhlfelder, FBFA Attorney,
William "Bill" Chapman District 1 BCC and approver of lawsuit
Cecilia Jones (R), District 2 BCC and approver of lawsuit
Melanie Nipper (R), District 3 BCC and approver of lawsuit
Sara Comander (R), District 4 BCC and approver of lawsuit
Tony Anderson (R), District 5 BCC and approver of lawsuit
Sidney Noyes, County Lawyer
David Theriaque, hired by the County to sue every Walton County Beach Property Owner​

that although you speculate should be some evidence, you have not been able to find any evidence why Private Property Rights (in particular the Right to remove unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment on private property against the will of the owner) cease to exist in 2016. Court documents prove the BCC, prior to 2016, recognized (along the State of Florida and the USA Federal Government) that these same owners that the county is now suing, had legally purchased private property and had legally binding deeds, which were accepted by Walton County, that granted all the property rights. These property rights are currently posted on the Walton County Web Site, include the right to fully determine who, and how many, and what beach equipment, may be on their private property (right of exclusion). The State of Florida and the US Federal Government still recognize private property owner rights in Walton County, it is only the Walton County BCC, that as of 2016, no longer recognizes these same rights that they had recognized for generations.

This is the first time a County has tried to “Nationalize” or “Countyalize” an entire stretch of private property that boarders the State owned coastline by the elimination of private property rights and transfer those rights (the right of exclusion) to the County with no compensation to the property owner. This is every different than Eminent Domain, where the County takes property, with compensation, against the will of the property owner.

There have been numerous owners and others willing to discuss facts and still are. Reggie has asked Dave Rauschkob for this public discussion of facts many, many times.

We don’t even need 12 questions, only one: What evidence has been submitted by the County that that forced occupation of private property of unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment, against the will of the deeded property owner, is ancient, reasonable, without interruption and without dispute?

Answer that question and let’s get this fish fry scheduled.
Beach Fanatic
#1813
SCJ, you have asked and I have answered the question several times. We are both chasing our tails. You frame the question with a flawed opinion "forced occupation" "against the will" "unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment". Those words are not facts. Those issues would have been solved except for the no compromise position you and the other power brokers have on the exclusive right to kick families off the beach. Again, the County concluded that Customary Use of the beach is the general use of the beach based on the fact that BFO's have not excluded the public in the past. For example, if you and I own adjacent properties (both with deeded description of property line) yet you put up a fence on my side of the property line and used that portion to grow a garden or farm or ranch and I allowed you to do this for many years then I lose that portion of the property to your use. It is considered a "conservative use". If the beach has not been used by the property owner "exclusively" I believe the Judge will accept the general use of public beach. Okay that said I have NO idea how Judge Green will interpret the laws of the land. I admit your guess is as good as mine but I guess that it will be public beach.

What has never made common sense to me is for BFO's to insist on the exclusive right to kick families off the beach. You mention unlimited people and unlimited vending. Both those issues could have been worked out. To spend all that money on a lawsuit that may or may not solve those problems just makes no sense to me. You power brokers know this and you are leading these people down the wrong path. Until our fish fry where you can explain this better I will assume the beach is the manifest destiny of wealthy people.
Beach Fanatic
#1814
SCJ, btw Walton County has filed over 8000 pages of evidence for general recreational beach use. Are we ready to schedule our fish fry summit?
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1815
Unfortunately, a public debate at this point probably wouldn't alter people's opinions and would be a moot point since the case is in court. Until there are some rulings or new information, seems that the current topics have been exhausted.
Moot, yes - but still satisfying to expose the mistruths , factless finger pointing and character assassinations by those with FBFA, in particular. Many THANKS to those who helped clear up the smokey air - perpetuated by some, not all, CU proponents.

And thank goodness for powerbrokerphobes and fried fish eating socialists. Why? I don't really know. Just trying to spread some kindness, I guess.

Heercumdajuj - at least the first one.

Edited

BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1816
....Still somewhat puzzling that the CU supporters have not or will not state why it is in the best interest of ALL OF US that millions OF OUR MONEY is being spent by the county on this issue.

"It's the economy, stupid"
is a slight variation of the phrase "The economy, stupid", which James Carville coined as a campaign strategist of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against president George H. W. Bush. Wikipedia

Oooops! I almost forgot. Economic benefit is NOT one of the 4 requirements for customary use. Good enough for Bill Clinton but not customary use. Sorry about that.
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1817
Also note that ALL evidence by the County has ALREADY been submitted to prove their claim. They are not going to be able to make up and submit new evidence. So, if you have reviewed any of these documents that make it “sufficiently clear”, please share it!

SCJ, btw Walton County has filed over 8000 pages of evidence for general recreational beach use. Are we ready to schedule our fish fry summit?

STOP! STOP! You're both right! (loved the Doublemint Twins)

BTW, where were ALL those 8000 pages actually "filed", with the county or with the court?

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#1818
BMBV, good to have you back. I am looking for a moderator for the GREAT debate. Will you reconsider?

Why do and the others asking questions that you really do not want an answer to? Ahh, I get it. You just want to make a point. This is the reason why we should debate issues in public where real questions and real answers are considered civil discussions.

I will answer you question in honor of civility. The County has filed over 8,000 documents as evidence of Recreational Customary Use on Walton County Beaches. Is that specifically clear enough? I believe that a County Government has the authority to make a conclusion of whether or not the beach has a history of general recreational public use or exclusive private beach. They concluded recreational public use. There is much evidence that will support that conclusion. Of course you and the power brokers disagree and that is why we have a lawsuit. You blame the lawsuit on the County but the lawsuit is because the power brokers convinced BFO's that they need to "dispute" recreational use so that private ownership of the beach will give them the power to exclude families (fathers, mothers, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, Veterans etc) from the beach. The definition of a power broker is someone who abuses power. The only taking of the beach would be if the Judge rules in favor of private beaches because of the historical recreational public use of Walton County beaches. The US Constitutional will not support an individual's right to exclude the public from a public beach in my opinion.

When you use a word to demean, minimize, bully or ridicule like "socialist" you are trying to provoke an emotion. I believe we both have participated and believe in Capitalism but one of us is a realist and the other is an idealist. Don't be an idealist unless your ideal world is about kindness, respect and civility and less about owning and excluding people from the beach or just wanting to always be right. A more appropriate name to call me a realist...someone who is able to see both good and bad. It allows me to focus on truth instead of justification or entitlement.
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1820
Moot, yes - but still satisfying to expose the mistruths , factless finger pointing and character assassinations by those with FBFA, in particular. Many THANKS to those who helped clear up the smokey air - perpetuated by some, not all, CU proponents.

And thank goodness for powerbrokerphobes and fried fish eating socialists. Why? I don't really know. Just trying to spread some kindness, I guess.

Heercumdajuj - at least the first one.
But don't you love the socialists who have profited by running businesses with huge profit margins that finance their crusades for the "little people"?
Beach Fanatic
#1821
SCJ, are you trying to make a point again that has nothing to do with the facts? If you have children that have gone to college I hope they are not reading your posts! All my children have gone to college and I am very proud of each of them even if they disagree with me on issues. As a matter of fact they are all BETTER than me. I think that should be the point. BTW facts matter but not at the expense of truth.

Kathryn, I know you are not talking about me and huge profits but I am wondering who the "little people" are? Are the little people all the non-BFO's? Are they working class folk? Are they all the losers who enjoy spending a day at the beach? Are they small business people? Are they middle class? Why go down this path of taking such an extreme position that it makes you say things like "socialist" or "little people"? It is okay to have a difference of opinion but we should try to be respectful right?
Beach Comber
#1822
Calling community members socialists is stupid. As if that word hurts anyone not watching fox propaganda and rally speeches. Surely any high school graduate could come up with a better insult that is relevant.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1823
This is the reason why we should debate issues in public where real questions and real answers are considered civil discussions. [mpoutnal you have said many times the Plaintiff’s (Walton Commissioners’) CU complaint will be settled in court. Now if you want to debate the “C” word CREDABILITY, that would be a good debate.” CU facts vs CU fictions.]

The County has filed over 8,000 documents as evidence of Recreational Customary Use on Walton County Beaches. Is that specifically clear enough? [Not clear! Where are the documents!? Or who told you that? Sounds in-credible. Can you produce 80 pages from each point of evidence. I can not find any on the Walton Clerk of Courts case public web page.]

I believe that a County Government [of 5 politically elected commissioners] has the authority to make a conclusion of whether or not the beach has a history of general recreational public use or exclusive private beach [NOT without seeking an independent court ruling FIRST! Read FS 163.035]. They [5 commissioners] concluded recreational public use [and the Florida Legislators concluded that was wrong and 84% voted to ensure no other county did what Walton did by declaring CU on private property as Plaintiffs]. There is much evidence that will support that conclusion. [Where? What credible evidence can you provide to support your “much evidence” CU opinion?]

Of course you and the power brokers disagree and that is why we have a lawsuit [NO! Walton Commissioners disagreed that owners have the right to Choose to share their property or not and brought suite to Change the property owners right to CHOOSE to share their property or not and are willing to spend $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 of Walton tax pay’s money to find out.]

You blame the lawsuit on the County but the lawsuit is because the power brokers convinced BFO's [to spend many tens of thousands of their own money] that they need to "dispute" recreational use so that private ownership of the beach will give them the power to exclude ... [NO! The Plaintiffs, Walton commissioners, have the burden of proof to change the EXISTING rights of property owners. What skin do CU believers personally have in the game like BPOS? Easy easy to have CU beliefs when spending all Walton tax payers money]. The definition of a power broker is someone who abuses power [Like the past and present Walton commissioners declaring without BPO due process]. The only taking of the beach would be if the Judge rules in favor of private beaches because of the historical recreational public use of Walton County beaches [Why do you think your CU belief is Credible?]. The US Constitutional will not support an individual's right to exclude the public from a public beach in my opinion [Not a credible opinion. Like a belly button; everyone has one. No basis in credible facts].

When you use a word to demean, minimize, bully or ridicule like "socialist" you are trying to provoke an emotion [Like when you and vocal CU believers call BPO properties “Our Beaches”?].
------------
#1821 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
I believe what kayti elliott posted is called sarcasm; the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. I believe she was referring to the Seaside 30A beach view businesses that have huge profit margins and businesses benefit from all Walton private beaches open to the public. And crusades for people who have not spent their own money to purchase beachfront property at market value as opposed to greedy rich BPOs [sarcasm]. Little people such as Seaside 30A business owners [sarcasm].
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1824
I'
Calling community members socialists is stupid. As if that word hurts anyone not watching fox propaganda and rally speeches. Surely any high school graduate could come up with a better insult that is relevant.
I seem to recall some of the righteous zealots here calling one community member who was obviously using an alias, Mike Huckabee. And when someone supports socialsts I tend to jump to the conclusion that they are socialists themselves. And is calling someone a socialist any different than calling someone a "power broker"?
Beach Lover
#1825
You frame the question with a flawed opinion "forced occupation" "against the will" "unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment". Those words are not facts.

SCJ, btw Walton County has filed over 8000 pages of evidence for general recreational beach use.


1. Court documents prove that prior to 2016, the BCC recognized, that these same owners that the county is now suing, have legally purchased private property, with legally binding deeds, which are accepted by Walton County, the State of Florida, and the Federal Government.

2. Private Property Rights in the State of Florida are currently posted on the Walton County Web Site, include the right to fully determine who, and how many, and what beach equipment, may be on their private property (right of exclusion).

3. The State of Florida and the US Federal Government still recognize private property owner rights in Walton County, it is only the Walton County BCC, that as of 2016, no longer recognizes these same rights that they had recognized for generations.

4. The BCC is suing the private beach front owner so unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment can occupy private property against the will of the property owner without compensation.

5. In all the documents provided by the BCC, there is no evidence that that prove, or even suggest, that removing Property Rights (right of exclusion) of a deeded property owner, is ancient, reasonable, without interruption and without dispute.
Beach Fanatic
#1826
Kathyrn, how else would you classify an individual that seeks power to exclude families from the beach and are not even part of this community. I only began using the term after Reggie/Regina used the term. They even called themselves hired guns! The term power broker is not meant to demean or insult or minimize their opinion Only to identify their purpose in this forum

ScJ and FBB, Obviously your purpose has been exposed and the truth hurts. Each time anyone answers your questions you attack as if you are above the laws of the land. It is exactly like your hyperlink of minority and majority rights described an autocrat. I think you are making it worse for the BFO’s. You probably would not do well in a public debate but the offer stands

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts