Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,290

    Post

    I've been cleaning up the OCR (Optical Character Recognition) version from "The Hive and the Honey Bee Collection". I have an original (different edition than that one) but the binding is shot so I've been reading the online text one. Of course all the "s"s are "f"s and it's very difficult to make sense of it. Anyway, I found these excerpts interesting:

    "The worm of workers passes three days in the egg, five in the vermicular state, and then the bees close up its cell with a wax covering. The worm-now begins spinniiig its cocoon, in whichoperation thirty-fix hours are consumed. In three days, it changes to a nymph, and passes six days in this form. It is only on the twentieth day of its existence, counting from the moment the egg is laid, that it attains the fly sate."

    François Huber, 4 September 1791. From the 1806 edition of "New Observations on the Natural History of Bees" page 151

    http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/...image;seq=0009

    Isn't this a shorter capping time and shorter emergence time? Twenty days instead of the currently accepted 21? Wasn't Huber on natural sized comb? Eight hours shorter is adequate to stabilize varroa populations.

    It's not difficult, of course, to verify shorter capping and post capping times on natural sized cells. But it is helpful, if you let them make their own, to measure it on various sizes since they will build from 5.1mm to 4.6mm and the times run from about 20 days for 5.1mm to 19 days on 4.95mm to 18 days on 4.6mm give or take some time depending on the temperatures and the strength of the hive. Cool weather and weak hives tend to lengthen the times.

    And how about comb spacing?

    "The leaf or book hive consists of twelve vertical frames or boxes, parallel to each other, and joined together the sides, should be twelve inches long, and the cross spars, nine or ten; the thickness of these spars an inch, and their breadth fifteen lines (one line = 1/12". 15 lines = 1 1/4" = 32mm). It is necessary that this last measure should be accurate"

    http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/length (If you want to see how much a line is put in 12 for lines and convert to see one inch. Then put in 15 lines and convert to see 1.25 inches and 31.75mm)

    François Huber, 18. August 1789. From the 1806 edition of "New Observations on the Natural History of Bees" page 5.

    http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/...image;seq=0009

    Isn't the "accepted" number for natural comb for a European bee 35mm (1 3/8")? But Huber's observation is the same as what is currently accepted for AHB or Scutella which is 32mm. And consistent with my observations that it averages about 32mm and goes as small as 30mm:

    http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/ima...bSpacing30.JPG

    Obviously natural cell size has always been about 32mm spacing on combs and twenty days or less from egg to emergence. Or at least since 1806.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hamilton, Alabama
    Posts
    1,196

    Post

    Its been a well known fact since Langstroth's time that some races of bees build combs closer together. There is an article in the January 1977 Gleanings by Charles Koover on this subject. I've used 31 mm spacing now for 28 years. I much prefer 31 mm (just under 1 1/4 inches) to standard 1 3/8 inch frames but only in the broodnest, not in supers.

    Its significant that the efforts of beekeepers for the last 150 years were devoted to larger cells and wider comb spacing. The bees don't use this naturally.

    Fusion

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    526

    Post

    Hi Guys,
    Very interesting!

    I don't think the bees have changed much since Huber's time. When given their own chance, they will construct brood comb in the same manner as they did back then.

    An interesting experiment might be to take a naturally tapered brood comb, one that has the largest worker cells at the top and even smaller than small cell size at the bottom. And then compare the hatching time for worker larva in the different size cells on the same comb.

    Regards
    Dennis

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > Isn't this a shorter capping time and shorter
    > emergence time? Twenty days instead of the
    > currently accepted 21?

    You have to imagine a bell curve. The bulk of the
    bees emerge on day 21, but some do emerge on day
    20, if you mark observation hive glass, and keep
    careful track of the hour each egg was laid, and
    the date/hour of capping, and then emergence.

    > It's not difficult, of course, to verify shorter
    > capping and post capping times on natural sized
    > cells.

    Has anyone done this in a manner suitable for
    publication yet?

    > Obviously natural cell size has always been...

    Let's not forget that Hubert was BLIND!!!
    I, like many, enjoy his writings, but I'm not
    going to assign much precision to the measurements
    of an 18th Century BLIND MAN. [img]smile.gif[/img]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,290

    Post

    >Let's not forget that Hubert was BLIND!!!
    I, like many, enjoy his writings, but I'm not
    going to assign much precision to the measurements
    of an 18th Century BLIND MAN.

    I'm not certain if this is chronological snobbery-- that an 18th Century man isn't intelligent and therefore can't count days; or abled body snobbery-- that a wealthy, intelligent blind man with a singularly intelligent assistant can't think analytically, let alone count to 20.

    That was the argument at the time too when they didn't want to believe that a queen mated in the air outside the hive and they didn't want to believe she only mated during one period for life and many other things contrary to the currently held opinions that he observed. They would point out that he was blind and simply laugh as if that was disproof enough of such foolishness. But most everything he came up with turned out to be consistent with what one can observe now and they were observations that no one had made at the time. All of his measurements have turned out to be very exact. With the exception, of course, that he can't count days and his comb spacing is too small.

    I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time. You become acutely aware of that when raising queens. Occasionally in hot weather some emerge on day 15. (potential disaster) Occasionally in cold weather they emerge on day 17. But they usually emerge on day 16.

    Worker brood is similar, I'm sure. But I've seen most of the ones on 4.95mm cells (wax dipped PermaComb) emerge in 19. I'm sure, simply because of the weather and because of variations in natural cell size that one can observe shorter and longer times on natural cells (as Huber would have been). But I've consistently seen shorter times and apparently so did he (or, if you will, his assistant).
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > I'm not certain if this is chronological snobbery-- that an 18th Century man
    > isn't intelligent and therefore can't count days;

    Please >>> READ <<< what I write before mounting your usual high-horse.
    I mentioned his blindness and his century in regard to your unquestioning
    acceptance of his "measurements" of cell sizes. Go to a museum and look
    at what passed for a ruled scale in the late 1700s. Then tell me how accurate
    their measurements could be.

    > I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time.

    I'm glad you agree with well-known fact, so I'll go back to the issue of capping
    and emergence of smaller-celled bees. Where is the bell curve centered?
    I'm sorry to be mean, but one must know the median! [img]smile.gif[/img]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,290

    Post

    >Please >>> READ <<< what I write before mounting your usual high-horse.

    I did.

    >I mentioned his blindness and his century in regard to your unquestioning
    acceptance of his "measurements" of cell sizes.

    Unquestioning? I come to the same conclusions by my own observations before quoting his. I would hardly call that unquestioning. This is simply showing independant confirmation of the observations of myself, Baudoux (which you can discount since it was a hundred years ago) and at least two of the posters above in this thread making at least five of us (Huber, Dennis, Fusion_power, Baudox and myself) confirming the same observations on comb spacing.

    As to the "cell sizes" I mentioned no measurements of cell sizes nor did Huber. "Please >>> READ <<< what I write before mounting your usual high-horse." I did mention that natural comb is spaced smaller.

    >Go to a museum and look
    at what passed for a ruled scale in the late 1700s. Then tell me how accurate
    their measurements could be.

    We've been measuring things quite small, such as a grain (1/7000th of a pound) or 1/64th of an inch for centuries. And we aren't talking about measuring the width of a cell down to 1/10ths of a mm, we are talking about measuring the spacing of the comb down to one line (1/12th of an inch or 2mm). The other thing we were discussing was how many days which are much easier to measure than small distances.

    >> I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time.

    >I'm glad you agree with well-known fact

    Interesting to be put down for simply agreeing with your "unquestioned acceptance" of a "well-known fact".

    >, so I'll go back to the issue of capping
    and emergence of smaller-celled bees. Where is the bell curve centered?

    My measurements narrow the curve quite a bit on two counts. First they were in a observation hive in a house that stays about the same temperature all the time (@70 F) and second they were in wax coated PermaComb with a very consistent cell size of 4.95mm equivalent (meaning I take into account the difference in cell wall thickness).

    The results are fairly consistently about 19 days. I'm sure if the cells were natural built and varied as the natural worker comb does, from 4.6mm to 5.1mm, there would be variation from that and then if the temperatures varied more it would vary more because of that. But under the controlled conditions I've been measuring them it's pretty consistent. I can't get it down to an hour without missing a lot of work to watch, but I check at least every eight hours and it came to 19 days even everytime I've tried it.

    >I'm sorry to be mean...

    Really? I have never gotten that impression.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,290

    Post

    Also, I'd like to add, I've never been accused of "unquestioning acceptance" of anything before that I can remember in the 50 years of my life.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    >at least five of us (Huber, Dennis, Fusion_power, Baudox and myself) confirming the same observations on comb spacing

    Hey!!! I observed it, too!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    That sums it up pretty well...

    Nope, no one has apparently bothered to document
    the claimed shorter capping times.

    Yep, references of only historical interest
    are trotted out to selectively support "points"
    that remain very much in doubt due to a lack of
    even minimal scientific rigor.

    Is it any wonder that "small cell" remains
    classified in most people's minds in the
    same category with UFOs, astral projection,
    mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography,
    full-trance mediums, elekinetic movement, black
    and/or white magic, pyramidology, the theory of
    Atlantis, the Loch Ness Monster, spooks, spectres,
    wraiths, geists and ghosts?

    Too bad.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,290

    Post

    Five beekeepers in this conversation. Four have tried natural or small cell and ALL of them have observed closer spacing (which, by the way is mostly what this conversation is about) as do two now dead "historical" references (both of whom would be surprised not to be considered scientists) and one beekeeper, who has not measured it, compares it to UFO's and ghosts.

    Yep. That sums it up pretty well.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > closer spacing (which, by the way is mostly what
    > this conversation is about)

    I could have sworn... yes, I just scrolled up
    and re-read, the first part of the posting was
    about Hubert (or Huber, if you prefer) as some
    sort of "confirmation" of small-cell in some
    way or another.

    Oh, I'm so sorry, I forgot that asking pointed
    questions tends to make everyone look up at the
    ceiling and whistle, and then try to change the
    subject. [img]smile.gif[/img]

    I had no comment about the closer spacing at all.
    I am confident that the technology of the late
    1700s was equal to that measurement task, and
    I am confident that any random person could
    take the same measurements with sufficient
    accuracy to draw valid conclusions with today's
    tools.

    > Five beekeepers in this conversation...

    I was not aware that Science was a democratic
    institution, where a random poll of readers of
    the "biological beekeeping" message board
    decided issues of fact. [img]smile.gif[/img]

    While we are at it, isn't ALL beekeeping
    "biological" by definition? I mean, I've
    shown a few people my design for the
    Robo-Bee 5000, but I don't even know of
    anyone else even thinking about a mechanical
    artificial intelligence driven autonomous
    bee, let alone working on one.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,290

    Post

    >> closer spacing (which, by the way is mostly what
    >> this conversation is about)

    >I could have sworn... yes, I just scrolled up
    and re-read, the first part of the posting was
    about Hubert (or Huber, if you prefer) as some
    sort of "confirmation" of small-cell in some
    way or another.

    I have heard him called Huber, Francis Huber, and
    François Huber but never Hubert. Where did you get that?

    The confirmation was of what is NATURAL width of comb and the emergence time on natural (as in no foundation) comb. Since no research has been done in recent times on ermergence times on NATURAL cell size I felt it was interesting that his observations agree with many of the small cell and natural sized cell people, yes. But you seem to think this conversation is about measuring cell size, which I did not talk about, nor did Huber.

    >Oh, I'm so sorry, I forgot that asking pointed
    questions tends to make everyone look up at the
    ceiling and whistle, and then try to change the
    subject.

    You're the one trying to talk about cell size. What pointed question did you ask that I did not answer? Perhaps you think I'm avoiding your bell curve question? I believe I answered it, but I will elaborate if you couldn't get it the first time. There is no bell curve on emergence when:

    1) the temperature is a practically perfect constant 70 degrees F.

    2) the cell size is practially a perfect constant 4.95mm

    3) the observations are made sometimes eight hours apart.

    Every time I've done this I come up with an even 19 days. Certainly not more because it's the same time of day observation 19 days after seeing the queen lay that same egg, so it's possible that it's 8 hours SHORT of 19 days, but it's not longer than 19 days.

    While I'm sure variaitions in natural cell size and variations in outdoor temperatures will cause more variation, Huber claims, and the eveidence would seem to support that Huber repeated all of his experiments many times.

    >I had no comment about the closer spacing at all.
    I am confident that the technology of the late
    1700s was equal to that measurement task, and
    I am confident that any random person could
    take the same measurements with sufficient
    accuracy to draw valid conclusions with today's
    tools.

    But that was the only measurement under discussion that would require a ruler and your reasons for questioning Hubers measurements are because 1) he is blind and 2) the measuring instrements of the 18th century were not accurate enough. The only other measurement under discussion was days and that hardly requires a ruler.

    >> Five beekeepers in this conversation...

    >I was not aware that Science was a democratic
    institution, where a random poll of readers of
    the "biological beekeeping" message board
    decided issues of fact.

    This is a forum. I believe the definition of a forum is, according to Webster:

    "A public meeting place for open discussion"

    I guess I was under the mistaken impression we were in a forum and we were free to share our observations. But if four of us have observed these things and a couple of old dead scientists have observed the same things, I don't see why you compare the idea to UFO's etc.

    >While we are at it, isn't ALL beekeeping
    "biological" by definition? I mean, I've
    shown a few people my design for the
    Robo-Bee 5000, but I don't even know of
    anyone else even thinking about a mechanical
    artificial intelligence driven autonomous
    bee, let alone working on one.

    I did not pick the name for this forum. I think all beekeeping is biological by definition. And gasoline is an organic chemical by definition. Obvously we all use words in different ways to communicate things in different contexts. You wouldn't think you'd study Benzene in "Organic" chemistry judging by it's use to describe chemical free farming, but of course we did.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    North Alabama, SW Kentucky
    Posts
    1,914

    Post

    >I was not aware that Science was a democratic
    institution......

    I would have to say that I that I love this statement, Literally. Now to convince the major scientific journals, readers' magazines, general public, and media at-large of this. [img]smile.gif[/img]

    Sorry for the intrusion of off-topic on what is a good thread. but I really did like the comment. I wish I could take credit for it.

    Waya
    WayaCoyote

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > I have heard him called Huber, Francis Huber, and
    > François Huber but never Hubert. Where did you get that?

    Not from you - spellings were very informal back
    then, and it is unclear which spelling he
    preferred, if he preferred one over the other.

    > There is no bell curve on emergence...

    If you don't have a bell curve, you don't have
    enough data. Period.

    >> I would have to say that I that I love this
    >> statement, Literally.

    Danke. Feel free to quote away at whim.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,290

    Post

    >> I have heard him called Huber, Francis Huber, and
    >> François Huber but never Hubert. Where did you get that?

    >Not from you - spellings were very informal back
    then, and it is unclear which spelling he
    preferred, if he preferred one over the other.

    And again, I ask the question, where did you get that? I'm not doubting you but I would love to see a reference that calls him Hubert. Perhaps I've seen it and forgetten it, but it doesn't sound familiar.

    >> There is no bell curve on emergence...

    >If you don't have a bell curve, you don't have
    enough data. Period.

    That quote is quite out of context. I did not claim there is no bell curve on emergence. In fact on that subject I said:

    >I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time...

    The rest of the quote you truncated is:

    > There is no bell curve on emergence *when*(emphasis added):

    >1) the temperature is a practically perfect constant 70 degrees F.

    >2) the cell size is practially a perfect constant 4.95mm

    >3) the observations are made sometimes eight hours apart.

    When you eliminate the principle factors that cause a spread in emergence times you don't have much of a curve left. Then when you only check every eight hours you can't pinpoint exactly when emergence occured, only that it occured BEFORE the time you found them emerged or emerging and after the last time you checked.

    But all of them that I measured were no LONGER than 19 days. And no shorter than eight hours short of 19 days. Which leaves a possible spread of eight hours. That puts it between 486 and 448 hours. But all of them fell in that frame so I still don't have a curve, only the margin of error. It is possible some were earlier. I threw out a couple that were gone on day 18 because I simply thought it was possible they were chewed out and removed by the house bees. I would love to take several days off of work and watch constantly to pinpoint exactly how many hours to capping and emergence for a large number of cells, but I'm afraid I can't afford to. As nice as it would be to have a more specific set of numbers the fact that it is always early is sufficient for me.

    I was not attempting at the time of these observations to write a scientific paper on the subject. As a matter of fact I wasn't even trying to prove anything. The first time it was just because I had just put the queen in the observation hive and wanted to measure emergence times for my own experience and enlightenment. I was expecting the textbook results. The first time I marked the cells the day they were capped and noted the time and then noted the days and time I saw them emerging 11 days later. I was surprised that this was a day earlier than I expected. This was repeated starting from seeing the queen lay the egg and they were capped early on day 8 and emerged on day 19. I was surprised. I had not heard any of the small cell camp mention this at the time and it seemed pretty significant to me where Varroa are concerned. I have mentioned it since and others have started to take note of it, but I was simply attempting to verify what I expected to be as the books say with capping between day 8 and 9 and emergence on day 21.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brown County, IN
    Posts
    2,025

    Post

    Most new comets are discovered by amateur astronomers, not by professionals a major observatories. Why? There are thousands upon thousands of amateur astronomers scanning the skies, while the pros at the big observatories are very narrowly focused on some specific area of research.

    Anyone see the parallels here? I'm a complete newbee, but I'm not going to dismiss the observations of some long-time beekeepers just because they may not be "suitable for publication." Science may not be democratic, but the fact that Mr. Bush's results have been repeated by other beekeepers and appear to be consistent with historical observations warrants, at a minimum, further investigation.

    For me, I'm excited about starting beekeeping, and one of the things I'm looking forward to is trying different things. I don't want a cookbook hobby where I just follow a checklist to get a particular result. I'll probably do that at first, to get my feet wet, and then... I want to play, I want to experiment, I want try many of the neat things I read about on these boards.

    While I've seen some cool pictures taken by the Hubble telescope, what I'll never forget are the awesome summer nights watching the comet Hale-Bopp. The bee labs will produce some useful research, but I'll bet on the amateur beekeepers for finding things that make this hobby fun.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,290

    Post

    >your unquestioning acceptance of his "measurements"...

    I had no expectation of what I found for comb spacing. When I built my first TBH back in 1975 or so, I spaced them 1 3/8" and the bees seemed willing to follow that for the most part. When I build another one several years ago I space the bars 1 1/2" thinking the bees would just follow the starter strips and space the combs 1 1/2" and they would be simpler to make. I was wrong. The bees spaced the combs 1 1/4" and ignored my starter strips. So I went to 1 1/4" bars. This worked until they got to the edge of the brood nest where they again ignored the starter strips and spaced them at LEAST 1 1/2" and sometimes more. So the spacing I arrived at was certainly not because of "unquestioning acceptance" of anything. It was entirely driven by the beees. Again, it was interesting to find Huber coming up with the same measuremnts. I did not come to those conclusions because anyone told me to. I expected the bees to be perfectly happy to space the combs 1 1/2" and naturally do them 1 3/8". But none of those things happened.

    The other thing I did not expect was that the bees drew smaller cells when the combs were closer together. At 1 3/8" spacing most of the brood comb from unregressed bees was 5.1mm. At 1 1/4" spacing unregressed large cell bees drew some of the brood 4.7mm. Regressed bees at 1 1/4" spacing built a lot of the brood comb 4.6mm. At 1 3/8" I seldom see it that small, especially from unregressed bees and especially in those amounts.

    None of these observations were what I expected.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Casper, WY
    Posts
    526

    Post

    Hi Guys,

    For me, biologic beekeeping is fundamentally different than non-biologic beekeeping. The focus for biologic beekeeping is working WITH the bee rather than getting the bee to work with US.

    A prime example of this difference can be found in a recent article by Sue Cobey in Bee Culture. This article describes the realities of double grafting which has been highly touted in the past. Beekeepers who double graft focus on only one aspect bee biology. They think they can do it better than the bees themselves do it and interfer with the natural process. They get larger queen cells but inferior queens.

    A more biologic approach would be to understand the bee behaviors and then provide the best possible environment for those processes to occur. The results are always superior.

    When I look at all the advancements in beekeeping since the Lang hive, almost all of them are concerned with the beekeeper and not the bee. As a consequence, most beekeepers are very well versed in bee management which is primarily focused on the beekeepers behavior :&gt

    Yet, they can be woefully deficient in understanding bee behavior itself. And that is particulary evident when any beekeeper thinks that the natural broodnest structure is irrelevant to bee behavior and health. It's a far stretch to think that the guts of the modern hive are even a close approximation to a natural broodnest for anyone who takes the time to examine one.

    Maybe it can be summed up this way. A biologic beekeeper uses bee biology to justify his management and equipment choices. A non-biologic beekeeper uses his equipment to justify his understanding of bee behavior.

    Regards
    Dennis
    Wondering how consistent comb observations, by numerous beekeepers, over a hundred years, can be discarded in the name of science and progress. Thinking maybe beekeeping science needs to get back to its roots.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Hiram, Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    731

    Post

    I'd like to pin Fisher down. Jim, is it your view that 19 day emergence in 4.9mm cells is on par with UFO's and ghosts? That is to say, do you think it's ridiculous superstition? Or are you just saying that since you haven't seen a study that you respect on the matter, that you don't neccessarily tend to believe it or disbelieve it?

    Reading most of your posts, I begin to think your aim here is just to try and goad others to support their claims by getting them worked up. That's all I can figure. Tell me again why you don't check it yourself and show these yahoos how it's supposed to be done? Don't say you don't have time--I read that thread on candle-feezing.
    It\'s people! Soylent Green is peeeeople!

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads