|
|
| I agree Marc, Ian Young has placed MCI in a tough spot by defending the O'Brien fish and has morally obligated MCI to repair the damage caused by a few rogue members. MCI must follow through with what was started and do a proper review this time, otherwise it will always be a black eye for them.
Does Ian Young really think what John Dettloff did at the Hall of Fame with Spray is acceptable, because he's doing same thing. I'm guessing Dettloff is living his life in regret for being so dishonorable (maybe not?). He traded an otherwise honorable legacy for a lie, and will never have any respect from his peers because of his selfish acts. I sincerely hope that Ian Young considers his legacy before he makes his next move. At the very least, I hope MCI management does not ignore this O'Brien situation for too much longer because it's only going to get worse. |
|
| |
|
| pigeontroller - 2/3/2012 4:11 PM
This is the last I will say on this. You will not here anymore from MCI or its President on this. Why, because we don't care...You annonynous posters can whine, and sling mud all winter for all we care. All Ian Young did was defend the honor of some of MCI's founding members. Muskies Canada did not petition the OFAH for anything. We are not a record keeping organization. The O'brien fish is considered the Ontario record Muskie, that has nothing to do with us...And as far as Marc Thorpe, ex-MCI president goes, he seldom has anything positive to say about MCI, or any of the 3 Presidents that succeeded him. So his opinion isn't held in too high of regard.
What Muskies Canada and its members (including its very dedicated President) do is spend thousands of hours in volunteer time involved in conservation and research projects, running Canada's only Muskie Show of which ALL our profits go directly back into the fishery. Slinging mud at an 600 member 35 year old fishing club that does alot of good things just makes ALL Y'ALL look pretty petty and narrow minded to me.
Dax Jacklin
Education Director
Muskies Canada Inc.
Wait just a minute there cowboy, you are calling us petty and narrowminded because we want MCI to be truthful and do an honest review this time? The truth is that Ian Young used his position to defend his friends who got caught red handed, there is nothing honorable about that.
My question to you is why the EDUCATION DIRECTOR does not have a problem with the president penning a misleading letter in Musky Hunter? Is this the kind of education you want to provide for your children?
|
|
| |
|
| "This is the last I will say on this. You will not here anymore from MCI or its President on this. Why, because we don't care...You annonynous posters can whine, and sling mud all winter for all we care. All Ian Young did was defend the honor of some of MCI's founding members. Muskies Canada did not petition the OFAH for anything. We are not a record keeping organization. The O'brien fish is considered the Ontario record Muskie, that has nothing to do with us...And as far as Marc Thorpe, ex-MCI president goes, he seldom has anything positive to say about MCI, or any of the 3 Presidents that succeeded him. So his opinion isn't held in too high of regard.
What Muskies Canada and its members (including its very dedicated President) do is spend thousands of hours in volunteer time involved in conservation and research projects, running Canada's only Muskie Show of which ALL our profits go directly back into the fishery. Slinging mud at an 600 member 35 year old fishing club that does alot of good things just makes ALL Y'ALL look pretty petty and narrow minded to me."
Dax Jacklin
Education Director
Muskies Canada Inc.
So lets get this straight you and Ian Young (President of MCI)are defending the founding member that was witness to the event.
Sounds like partisanship ,This is not about partisanship!!!!!
So by doing this MCI (Ian Young/honorary witnessing member)and yourself are questioning the validity of the ROM measurements that were taken by leading scientist?Funny the Rom and Larry Ramsell happen to share the same measurements.
I dont see Mr Marc Thorpe throwing Mud,just simply pointing out accountability on behalf of your President and his position to speak out on behalf of its members without authorization ,support or consent.
I suspect being past President he is very familiar with MCI protocol and the role of President.Evidently MCI is placed in an embarrassing situation due to your current President's actions.If I am not mistaken Mr Thorpe is quite involved in Conservation and a leading influence in Canada,very much respected.
I recall reading he is the lead crew member in the largest tagging study that may ever be done in North America.Data that could never be gathered by none other than those he assembled.Looks more like sour grapes to me on your behalf.
You are the education director????? and post your position after such a post
Nice way to propagate and represent education mr Jacklin as an MCI Official.
Its probably best you dont participate anymore
The old saying goes,you can sit, stay quiet and look foolish or open your mouth and remove all doubt.You have removed all doubt.
Shameful thing about all this ,its becoming rather obvious that Ken Obrien was innocently dragged into this by some very misleading people (in this case MCI honorary members),this in itself is very disappointing and shameful on behalf of those that took part.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| The FACTS speak for themselves sir. It matters not whose name is or is not attached to communicating that. The facts have not and cannot be refuted. I spoke personally with the taxidermist who made the mold of the O'Brien fish at the ROM and he told me that the O'Brien fish was no longer than 54", if that long, his words. The mold speaks volumes and should be all that is necessary to remove the fish from record book based on what was obviously a falsified application to the OFAH.
Respectfully,
Doug Petrousek
DOUGLAS TAXIDERMY
ELBURN, IL
www.douglastaxidermy.com
Edited by fins355 2/3/2012 6:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
| As far as I know at the time the record was determined by weight only, and the certified scale registered 65 pounds.
I fail to understand how a fish could hold 9 lbs. of water without flushing the stomach contents or how this could be done in the presence of so many bystanders.
I DON'T THINK the fish was 58 inches but I don't think that mattered at the time as far as setting the record .
A mistake could have been made in the measurement ( I don't know I wasn't there but I have known 3 of the people that were fo 20 plus years and they have never done anything to make me believe they are liars.) Just a supposition but if a tape was run over a fish rather than under you would get an exaggerated length I have seen people do this on occasion. John Cassleman says he can tell you the length of the fish from the cleithrum far more accurately than you can measure the fish.
What the record is or who holds it means little to me ( it will never be me) but I don't like peoples names being dragged through the mud 20 years after the fact when they are deceased and unable to defend theirselfs......(one dead guy said another dead guy lied )
I think this record could be beat and some of the recent fish from the Larry are contenders. Catch a bigger one and good luck getting someone to sign as a witness.
Any large group will always have its personal frictions and politics but in MY opinion
Mark Thorpe is one of the top 5 muskie fishermen and most knowledgeable conservationist in Canada.
I will not respond to anonymous posters
Frank Shelton
Tweed Ontario |
|
| |
|
| Hi Dax,somewhat disappointed by your response,but alas
You might understand a little more my post
In 2003 when I presided MCI and the WRMA was founded ,it was proposed to MCI'S Board of Directors whether MCI should get involved
(Support or what have not in the matter of records)
Which is the constitutional way of approaching the matter or subject which regards all members.
It was reject Unanimously.
Ironically Mr Ian Young took upon himself to Involve MCI and Defended the personal involvement and personal agenda of Mr Paul Gasparino. A constitutional breach on his part.
Like he said in a personal email,he took upon himself to position himself as Official spokesperson of MCI.
Well as long as its approved by its members ,he is
In this case,the decision should have been taken by its members not the NEC nor Its President
In doing so,I direct you back to my post in which Mr Ian Young President of MCI inevitably by issuing a public statement on behalf of MCI in a North American Publication without its members or NEC consent, involved MCI in matters in which in 2003 was voted against.
Its obvious he over stepped his responsibilities and constitutional powers and now is accountable and has made the organization accountable for his actions and plunged the organization in a public fiasco of embarressement.
Not ME
so I refer you to my original post
"The fact that Ian Young, President of MCI officially spoke without consent of his members,ultimately obligates him and MCI to review the findings with an open mind ,without influence from those involved and set an example for the entire Muskie Industry."
May I suggest,prior to taken defense of anyone or anything,be sure you have acquired the Knowledge of the matter,issue ,agendas and people involved at hand.
In this case the only person who is miss-informed about the issue and blindly defending the actions of others which obviously are driven by personal agendas and misleading innocent people is yourself and Ian Young President of MCI
May I suggest the organization review the data ,findings and information collected without partisanship of those involved and defending the personal agenda of some.
In this case MCI and Ian Young are inevitably questioning the Integrity of the ROM and those who documented the fish at the ROM.
Sadly my conclusion to all of this is :
the victim of all of this is Ken Obrien
those involved should be ashamed of taking advantage of his innocence
I fully understand why he has kept his distance and separated himself from the fish
Marc Thorpe
|
|
| |
|
| Frank 1 gallon of water weighs 8 pounds give or take
it weighed 56 pounds 9 days later
Total loss in 9 days 9 pounds
1 pound average mortality loss for a fish of that size and 8 pounds of questionable evaporating weight  |
|
| |
|
| Frank,quite honestly biologically,muskies simply cant grow that big
They have limitations
May I suggest you read this
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marc-Thorpe/155636717834539#!/note.ph...
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Marc Thorpe - 2/3/2012 7:40 PM
Sadly my conclusion to all of this is :
the victim of all of this is Ken Obrien
those involved should be ashamed of taking advantage of his innocence
I fully understand why he has kept his distance and separated himself from the fish
Marc Thorpe
Marc thanks for reminding everybody that Mr. Obrien is an honorable man.
I always enjoy it when you participate on this forum. What are your thoughts on the Williamson fish?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | No one has yet explained to me how this water was put in the fish and then hung on a scale in the presence of so many bystanders.
I truly believe this record WILL be broken |
|
| |
|
| What 'record'? The O'Brien fish is one of probably 30 or 35 different individual state or provincial records. It's no more or less important than the South Carolina state record musky or the Idaho state record musky. Big deal - time to move on. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Mark
I have just rewatched the presentation Dr. Cassleman gave to the Gan Chapter a couple of weeks back and am totaly convinced this record can be broken. The largest fish collected during the VHS die off was 59.8 inches if this fish had been caught in late November after the egg mass had begin to develop it would be possible. The fish left after VHS are faster growing. If global warming increased the temp of the Larry by one and a half degrees it would be the optimum temp for muskie growth. The Williamson fish was only 18 years old with lots of potential growth left. Some year classes are faster growing fish.
I want to see this record fall
|
|
| |
|
| Hi Frank,I have been briefed of DR Casseleman's presentation and Theory.
Very plausible but we must apply the laws of all living matter.
Having handled fish in excess of 55 inches to 58 on a yearly basis,more so than anyone in exception of 1 other person
There is Life expectancy : maximum life leading inevitably to death
Peak life period : maximum growth period,length and size during the fishes peak life period ,in muskies used to be 15 to 24 ,now 12 to possibly 24
Species limitations: expectancy during seasonal and lifetime growth
Not all fish live to 30 years of age and not all fish grow to to 60 inches
My write up was based on the sciences of existence of all living matter
Faster growing cold blooded species age faster and do not have the same life expectancy than those under normal growing conditions
Which means due to faster growth ,some fish will grow faster but the limitations of life expectancy is shorten.In other words the maximum age may be reduced over time as evolutionary populations replace the current populations.
as a fish ages,"some" fish continue to grow in length but loose mass as they age
Principle of all living matter
we and all living matter shrinks as it ages
to further undertsand, although not a fair comparison
lets use Humans grow from birth til 40 or 50s,from a young age we grow and gain height and weight into sexual maturity.
when reaching sexual maturity( peak life period),we can develop our bodies or physical mass (muscle mass) into size that are astounding by exercising.
Most case the surpassing of maximum growth rates (muscle mass not fat mass)is achieved with growth hormones (Steroids).
Upon reaching our mid life 40 or 50,we can no longer develop this mass,simply beacuse our biomechanism cease this growth and begins is decrease.
Now we are talking about warm blooded animals not cold blooded animals which growth is dictated by their surrounding environment and its temperatures
so what I am saying is a fish that reaches in excess of 55 inches,generally in exception of Williamson fish( no one is quite sure about the accuracy of the dimension that were taken and their accuracy) has passed its peak life period and,if we apply the laws of all living matter,will cease to grow over all in mass.
but may continue to grow in length some,but no longer carry the weight they once did during peak life period.
egg development ceases at a certain temperature in late fall and the last stages of development are done in early spring just prior to spawning (Dr Bernard Lebeau).
In which body fat is consumed during the winter due to lack of regular feeding activity.
the problem with the human species is always wanting bigger and better
But the laws of all living matter does not apply to Humans wishes,its has its limitations.
wished I could have been there,was invited and would have gladly raised question in which I am sure Dr Casselman would enjoy to further gather info to apply to his theory.
With the many scientist and biologist I work or collaborate with,most if not all agree with Life expectancy,and species limitations.
after all ,it is theoretical,thus far un proven that fish can attain and surpass 60 or even 70 pounds
Unfortunately he has never applied the formula of all living matter and peak life periods to his theoretical growth charts,which skews the theory of maximum growth potential
This in no way is disrespecting him,its juts he has not applied some elements to it
we are getting off topic
Marc Thorpe
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Marc so what your saying is neither Michael or I have done this so it can’t be done.... or all the 60 pound class fish are bogus
Edward Walden / 61-9 / 1940 / Eagle Lake, ON
- Martin Williamson / 61-7 / 2000 / Georgian Bay, ON (never weighed on a certified scale)
- John Coleman / 60-8 / 1939 / Eagle Lake, ON
- Art Barefoot / 59-11 / 1989 / Georgian Bay, ON
- Ruben Green / 58-8 / 1945 / Georgian Bay, ON
- G.E. Niemuth / 58-4 / 1932 / LOTW, ON
- William Fulton / 57-10 / 1917 / Georgian Bay, ON
Recent Times
Williamson 61-7 from 2000 that was never officially weighed (see above)
- Barefoot 59-11 from 1989 (see above)
- Boruki 56-11 from 1984 (see above)
- Sam Finsky 55-11 from 1963 Lake Kakagi, ON
- Joe Lyons 55-2 from 1972 Piedmont Lake, Ohio
- Gary Ishii 55-0 from 1981 Georgian Bay, ON
- Steve Albers 55-0 from 1985 Eagle Lake, ON
- John Ryan 55-0 from 1992 Georgian Bay, ON
any of these fish if legitimate with a couple of good sized whitefish (or other prey species) could challenge
Or there could be a genetic freak like the 101 pound lake trout (born without gonads) at the R.O.M.
Or the one no one has yet seen
I will continue to believe and I hope you catch it.....( sorry I shouldn’t wish that on anybody) |
|
| |
|
| Frank,has nothing to do with me or mike,its not about guides ,destinations,lodges,outfitters
Its about real life and some 60 000 of the finest anglers fishing muskies ever
We are living in the era of the most largest and the largest captures ever
There has never been a time with more quality anglers capturing monumental fish
No one has yet succeeded,from Known anglers ( there are so many great anglers out there )to the discreet (some of the best)
we have gone through and are living the peak of all times.
Our ressource is declening due to many reasons
ex:pharmaceutical contamination,invasive species,disease, diminishing species populations.
Frank,I have formed this view from conversing with folks in science that are not attached to muskies but study various elements of life,matter,fish limitations,biology and inquire and ask questions about certain things.Read allot also
Many things in life matters can be bridge from one species to another or one living matter to another.
I also indulge myself in muskie matters and science
Limitations is one em
when I weight trained,I wanted to be big like Lee Haney
Rich Gaspari said to me.at 5.7 feet nor you or I will ever be that big!
Some of us are tall,some of us short,some chubby,some swarthy
Same goes for Muskies,any living matter also
In exception of gigantism,a disease found in warm blooded animals(Humans being one em),not in all species
I wish someone would capture and properly document a fish,I really do
I did believe at one time
With all those elements and factors,we may very well have seen the pinnacle of it all
we should have a conversation about this in 10 years and see how far off I am 
I suspect some of those fish may be tainted also
The essence of all this,is having an attainable objective/record for someone who may actually capture a fish that may exceed a little over 60 pounds (that I suspect is possible given all the right elements converge)
Its moral and social obligation
Tks for chat,I've said what I have had to say about the subject
Its up to those that can make things right to do so
be good
Marc Thorpe |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32803
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Marc's point is an excellent one. Never in the history of this sport have so many accomplished anglers with the advantage of technology that takes this to a whole new level ever fished as many waters across the range of the Muskie. Fishing now is better for big fish than it has ever been. If muskies reached 60 to 70 pounds with any consistency anywhere on the planet, the last few years is when those fish should have shown up.
I do believe a record that will break all records exists. I believe that fish lives in the St. Lawrence. What I believe will not even get you a cup of coffee. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I'll buy you a coffee Steve is Tim Hortons ok or do you want Starbucks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1278
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Marc: Excellent posts!! Should answer a LOT of questions.
Horsehunter (Frank) wrote: "No one has yet explained to me how this water was put in the fish and then hung on a scale in the presence of so many bystanders.
I truly believe this record WILL be broken."
LR: Frank, while I wasn't there, I do have a considerable number of photo's taken of most of the senario (except the actual weighing and measuring). A few of the photo's reveal and GO AGAINST what I was told and published in my book. My reasonably valid thought is that AFTER the fish was hung, it was hosed off. I have 3 photo's that, on close examination, show the nozzle of the hose close to the hanging fish, when I was told that wasn't the case. At that time, either accidently, or on purpose, water was introduced into the fish during the "washing off" process (a gallon isn't much on a fish that size and easily accounts for most of the supposed weight loss). When the fish was weighed it was not laid down, so any water within the fish stayed there. NOTE: The entire sequence of photos from the boat, to first arriving on shore, til the last ones were taken, show a fish that went from a reasonable belly shape before hanging, to grossly bloated hanging and back to reasonable again not hanging.
guest wrote: "What 'record'? The O'Brien fish is one of probably 30 or 35 different individual state or provincial records. It's no more or less important than the South Carolina state record musky or the Idaho state record musky. Big deal - time to move on."
LR: How wrong you are guest! When one discounts the bogus and scientifically discredited records of the IGFA and NFWFHF, the O'brien fish is next in line and in fact was at one time the IGFA All-Tackle World Record and it is the Canadian record, not just a province record. It was long believed legitimate. It has now been proven not. So in one respect, we are "moving on" and wondering just what the legitimate World Record is and just how big the species can really grow. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | I love it! You guys get to post annonynously, drag a great organization and its dedicated President over the coals, free reign for you guys, I come on, post my real name, defend us and our President and my posts get removed. The credibility in this thread is getting pretty thin...guests.... |
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 2/3/2012 7:10 PM
As far as I know at the time the record was determined by weight only, and the certified scale registered 65 pounds.
I fail to understand how a fish could hold 9 lbs. of water without flushing the stomach contents or how this could be done in the presence of so many bystanders.
I DON'T THINK the fish was 58 inches but I don't think that mattered at the time as far as setting the record .
A mistake could have been made in the measurement ( I don't know I wasn't there but I have known 3 of the people that were fo 20 plus years and they have never done anything to make me believe they are liars.) Just a supposition but if a tape was run over a fish rather than under you would get an exaggerated length I have seen people do this on occasion. John Cassleman says he can tell you the length of the fish from the cleithrum far more accurately than you can measure the fish.
What the record is or who holds it means little to me ( it will never be me) but I don't like peoples names being dragged through the mud 20 years after the fact when they are deceased and unable to defend theirselfs......(one dead guy said another dead guy lied )
I think this record could be beat and some of the recent fish from the Larry are contenders. Catch a bigger one and good luck getting someone to sign as a witness.
Any large group will always have its personal frictions and politics but in MY opinion
Mark Thorpe is one of the top 5 muskie fishermen and most knowledgeable conservationist in Canada.
I will not respond to anonymous posters
Frank Shelton
Tweed Ontario
"John Cassleman says he can tell you the length of the fish from the cleithrum far more accurately than you can measure the fish."
John Casselman says O'Brien's fish is the oldest muskie he has ever aged and we KNOW it was only 54". If John says you can tell the length of the fish from the cleithrum this obviously proves him wrong.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | How does this prove him wrong he dosen't say what the length was ( less than 58 I would guess. I have examined the skin mount several times it is less than 58". I have caught 54 inch fish and it is a lot bigger than mine ) only that he knows from the cleithrum the length.What he did say is that the length of a fish is EXACTLY 10 times the length of the cleithrum. You wont stand behind your name but want to question the findings of a PHD in fisheries science who has worked with esocids since the 60's and worked his way through school guiding on the Larry. AT THE TIME RECORDS WERE DONE BY WEIGHT and even if mismeasured length does not mater only wether or not the weight was accurate
Edited by horsehunter 2/4/2012 11:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 2/4/2012 11:42 AM
AT THE TIME RECORDS WERE DONE BY WEIGHT and even if mismeasured length does not mater only wether or not the weight was accurate
Horsehunter, I'm guessing you did not read the WMA report but are in agreement that this fish was only 54”. If you go back and check you will see that part of the OFHA criteria is for the fish to be pictured alongside a ruler for verification purposes, this record should be removed because it does not meet the requirements. Even if Paul Gasbarino measured over the curve of the fish, there's NO WAY he could have honestly came up with 58”, with that said, everything else (including the weight) becomes suspect. If this thing really weighed 65lbs, why would it be necessary for him to lie about the length? Not only that, IF a 54” musky could weigh 65lbs, we would have seen more than this single 65lber don’t you think?
There is little doubt that MCI members are responsible for desecrating Ken O'Brien's musky, and now you're president has publicly defending these actions. What has everyone up in arms is that MCI has taken the lead in defending this thing without properly reviewing the evidence. It is understood that MCI is not a record keeper, but that didn't prevent MCI from taking a position based on friendship, not fact. It's pretty obvious acknowledging the truth is going to hurt, but without a proper review by MCI, this thing will always be hanging over the organization like a dark cloud.
I'm guessing someone will say that an anonymous coward is calling Paul Gasbarino a liar, when in fact it’s the physical evidence calling him a liar, and that is definitely not anonymous.
|
|
| |
|
| So what you're saying is John Casselman should know the length of O'Brien's fish from the cleithrum which means he should also know that the fish wasn't 58". The question then becomes why would a man with a PHD in fisheries science who has worked with esocids since the 60's and worked his way through school guiding on the Larry not support the findings of the WMA and admit that the length was falsified?
Guest 1
|
|
| |
|
| horsehunter,
Paul Gasbarino certainly knows how to properly measure a fish. If he measured over the curvature he is as guilty as if he flat out lied.
Guest 1
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32803
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | pigeontroller - 2/4/2012 10:45 AM
I love it! You guys get to post annonynously, drag a great organization and its dedicated President over the coals, free reign for you guys, I come on, post my real name, defend us and our President and my posts get removed. The credibility in this thread is getting pretty thin...guests....
Debate the matter without attacking other folks posting to this thread. The people involved in the incidents that lead to the record of this fish are part and parcel of the debate.
If they decide to speak for themselves they certainly can, and we'll see to it they will be treated fairly by all in the process. If not, it's fair to say those who have opinions on the matter will present them, and those who debate and disagree with those opinions may offer theirs.
Do so without attacking each other. If you use a name in a non logged in post on this thread, use that name consistently for all future posts. Those of you doing otherwise know who you are. |
|
| |
|
| Will do, thanks for letting us have this little debate here Steve. If MCI is willing I would like to see the membership vote on MCI doing a proper review of the WMA O'Brien report, or are they going to be shut out too. |
|
| |
|
| FACT: We know Dr. Casselman has examined the cleithrum from O'Brien's fish because he determined the age of the fish from it.
FACT: If Dr. Casselman says the cleithrum is the most accurate way of determining the length of a muskie then he certainly knows the length of O'Brien's muskie.
FACT: Dr. Crossman (Dr. Casselman's partner and mentor), was the person that gave Dr. Casselman the cleithrum from O'Brien's fish to examine. Dr. Crossman also participated in the making of the mold from the same fish that had the cleithrum. The mold / cast of O'Brien's fish was 54".
Fact: Dr. Crossman received the cleithrum from Paul Gasbarino who claimed the fish was 58".
FACT: WE KNOW Dr.Casselman wanted the records left alone because he said so at the Symposium.
Any thoughts on this guys?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32803
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yes, he said what he said and that is that. No one drags him into this debate and that's final. I spoke with him and several other top fisheries folks at the Symposium. They would prefer the 'lore' of the muskie left alone as 'historical' for their own reasons and preferred not to be engaged in the debate.
I disagreed with the former and agreed to the latter, and we left it at that. |
|
| |
|
| I understand Steve and thanks for not removing my post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32803
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No worries, just keeping my promises. |
|
| |
