This was posted 5 years 6 months 2 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Free #StartAdani T-Shirt and Stickers @ Adani Facts

375205
Free #StartAdani T-Shirt and Stickers @ Adani Facts
Go to Deal
Yapapi on 25/05/2019 - 09:35 adanifacts.com.au (12314 clicks)
Last edited 25/05/2019 - 14:15 by 1 other user

I love coal almost as much as I love bargains.

Get your FREE Adani Supporter pack today!

Email [email protected] to request an Adani Supporter pack, including T-shirt and stickers.

Mod: A free T-shirt is a valid deal (as were the Free Stop Adani Sticker Packs). As always, negative voters are also free to express their opinion against the deal, as long as a reason/explanation is given. See guidelines, writing 'agree' is not valid. Debate is fine, but name calling, trolling or inflammatory comments will be punished. Thank you.

Fashion & Apparel Adani Coal Sticker T-Shirt

Related Stores

adanifacts.com.au
adanifacts.com.au

closed Comments

                    • mychips on 26/05/2019 - 21:28

                      @rokufan:

                      This always sounds flippant. What ratio of new jobs to old jobs will be created by prematurely shutting down our biggest export industry? Will it fill the revenue hole in government coffers?

                      I'm not suggesting we close down mines, stop with the strawman argument. I'm merely suggesting we move to renewables and close down aging coal plants gradually in the interim.

                      Closing them slowly due to age and to reduce our co2 output can be managed properly whilst those jobs lost would be offset by new jobs in our growing renewables industry.

                      Coal is not reliable enough for our dynamic base load requirements. What we need is more battery within the grid and renewables to power it. It will get to a point where coal is no longer useful as there will be no need for it during the day whilst the sun is out and solar is overloading the grid.

                      See electricity duck curve for case in point. You clearly have NFI about what you are talking about.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve

                • scupper on 25/05/2019 - 14:22
                  +11

                  @avinit86: Last I checked a year ago, the fossil industry had $11 billion just in tax-based fuel subsidies, that's not including the millions in direct contributions for mining exploration, low emission coal initiatives, port and rail infrastructure upgrades, etc. Alernatively, renewables get $2.8 billion in subsidies.

                  @avinit86, Coal is on par with renewables, only after all these subsidies are also included as well as having existing coal plants that have already been paid for. New coal plants aren't cost effective and since they're increasingly aging, it's time we transition away from them so that we have proper amount of renewable power infrastructure by the time the next coal plant has to close.

                  • Ugly on 25/05/2019 - 16:19
                    +3

                    @scupper: I suggest you check again. The fuel rebate IS NOT a subsidy. It is a refund of the road tax component paid on diesel fuel. If you are not using the road, you don’t pay the road tax.
                    The exact same rebate is available for anyone who uses fuel in an “off-road” capacity, like generators, earthmoving equipment and farm machinery.
                    A refund of a tax you are not supposed to pay in the first place is not a subsidy.

                    • rokufan on 25/05/2019 - 18:18

                      @Ugly: Exactly. The fuel excise tax is called a hypothecated tax, a tax for funding a particular purpose, in this case the building and maintaining of roads. Miners and farmers who use vehicles on their own private roads get a refund on fuel excise. The Greens constantly lie about this.

                  • rokufan on 25/05/2019 - 18:32

                    @scupper: Excise fuel tax rebate was explained below.

                    In regards to exploration, governments who offer tax breaks for exploration and royalty holidays for new mines are doing it because it will lead to the creation of jobs and billions in taxes - more revenue for government. The mining industry is not unique in this regard. These are tax breaks not subsides, important difference (one that AOC does not understand). Whereas paying renewable subsidies is simply payment to rent-seekers.

              • mjp80 on 25/05/2019 - 11:58
                +8

                @mychips: The Tesla battery is providing huge ROI because renewables are intermittent and the spot prices spike to insane levels when it's cloudy and still, resulting in predatory pricing behaviour by the sources of dispatchable supply that can step in during these transient conditions. Once their contract with the SA government is up, they will become part of the cartel that also charges whatever the market will bear. The only long-term solution is to (re)nationalize electricity generation.

                • mychips on 25/05/2019 - 12:33
                  +15

                  @mjp80: I agree, the electricity grid should never have been privatised. Letting the market decide the pricing is stupid and leaves consumers to the mercy of the energy producers and suppliers.

                • foxinsox8 on 26/05/2019 - 17:50

                  @mjp80: Given the lifetime of the Tesla battery on the market it will not give you ROI. Thgis si true of all home batteries currently on the market. Finn Peacock at solarquotes.com.au has wriiten the definitive posts on this subject. They will give you on ROI at some time in the not too distant future but for now no.

              • entropysbane on 25/05/2019 - 12:15
                +3

                @mychips: If renewables are actually profitable that means we can end the subsidies, abolish the RET, renewable energy certificates and every other market destroying thought bubble the carpet baggers can dream up.

              • Onysius on 25/05/2019 - 15:26
                +3

                @mychips: Using sources like the guardian, and a fauxfacts newspaper does not help your argument.

              • rokufan on 25/05/2019 - 17:13
                +1

                @mychips: In regards to your first link. Renewables are not on par with coal because they are not despatchable baseload power. They only deliver power when the sun shines or the wind blows. You can't make an apples to apples comparison unless renewables have storage.

                Second article, quotes a study that uses some very creative accounting. There are almost no direct subsides for coal that I know of. Instead the study literally pulls a number out of the air for negative externalities and calls it a $5.2 trillion subsidy.

                Third, the excessive profitability of the SA Tesla battery is damning of the SA government overpaying for the contract and the renewable subsidies. This is proof of a rent-seeking industry at it's worst.

            • spaceflight on 25/05/2019 - 11:31
              +8

              @avinit86:

              Renewables are heavily subsidised. They are not profitable at all

              And fossil fuels aren't?

              So far the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF) as part of governments energy policy has given 82% of subsidies to 'Clean Coal Technology', with the remaining 18% of funds allocated to renewable energy.

              otherwise hundreds of companies would set up to get in on it and generate profits

              If you need to make money why would you invest billions of dollars of capital into a new industry when you can invest $0 and keep exploiting a resource that you have heavily invested in.

              Return on investment and shareholder returns are important.

              Investing in new technologies will not see returns for some time so do not make sense to maintain shareholder value in the short term.

              The reason for this is because polluting is free and those who pollute do not need to pay for the costs associated with it.
              If they did it would make financial sense for them to invest in green power.

              • rokufan on 25/05/2019 - 17:48
                +1

                @spaceflight:

                And fossil fuels aren't? [gives Low Emissions Technology Development Fund as an example]

                No they are not. This is a tiny development fund in the millions which has given most of its grants to natural gas. Hardly representative of subsides given to the industry as a whole. Versus the several billions in annual renewable subsidies.

                If you need to make money why would you invest billions of dollars of capital into a new industry when you can invest $0 and keep exploiting a resource that you have heavily invested in.

                You've stumbled on to something, but it proves the opposite of your point: the lower or written-off capital costs of old mines and coal-power plants - results in lower retail electricity prices.

                Investing in new technologies will not see returns for some time so do not make sense to maintain shareholder value in the short term.

                If that logic was true we would never see any new technologies brought to the market, or for that matter investment in long-lived assets. And wind turbines and solar panels aren't exactly new cutting edge technology.

                polluting is free

                CO2 is not pollution.

                We have regulations for pollution. And the production and disposal of renewable technologies has very significant pollution and environmentally challenges of its own.

                • mychips on 26/05/2019 - 21:38

                  @rokufan:

                  No they are not. This is a tiny development fund in the millions which has given most of its grants to natural gas. Hardly representative of subsides given to the industry as a whole. Versus the several billions in annual renewable subsidies.

                  Australian fossil fuel companies definitely do receive subsidies as do many other fossil fuel companies in G20 countries. This was highlighted in the G20. To say they don't receive generous handouts is a complete lie. It doesn't take a genius to wonder why renewables need subsidies when fossil fuel companies receive billions in handouts per year.

                  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-comp…

                  https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/Document…

            • grr1701 on 26/05/2019 - 10:14

              @avinit86: Do you ONLY watch Skynews?

      • phynicle on 25/05/2019 - 11:02
        +1

        Let's bring it back to first principles too, anyone have numbers on co2 emissions per capita for the different nations

        • spaceflight on 25/05/2019 - 11:36
          +8

          The biggest absolute emissions come from China and the United States. In terms of CO2 emissions per capita, China is ranked only ranked 47th, at 7.5 metric tonnes per capita. The US is ranked 11th at 16.5 per capita and amongst countries with sizeable populations, has the highest CO2 emissions per capita. India is the third highest country in terms of absolute emissions, but only 158th in terms of per capita output with 1.7 metric tonnes per capita.
          https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-p…

          https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

          • Meconium on 25/05/2019 - 11:46
            +9

            @Gamer Dad Reviews: No it isn’t. Habitable land maybe, but not the vast steppe and forest of Siberia, the deserts of Australia or the tundra and ice of the polar regions.

          • spaceflight on 25/05/2019 - 12:23
            +10

            @Gamer Dad Reviews:

            Per capita is the wrong measurement to use.

            But it's the best we have.

            Because if you think about it, the whole problem to begin with was caused by human overpopulation.

            Overpopulation is only a problem because of the environmental issues with it.
            If we did not use fossil fuels a major issue with what we see as overpopulation (pollution) would not be there.

            So why should you measure on a per capita basis when that just rewards the countries who irresponsibly allowed over-population to occur?

            It doesn't reward overpopulated countries.

            It rewards countries who import because it transfers their manufacturing emissions to the exporting country. These countries happen to be the overpopulated countries because their population growth had been driven by their economic growth that is driven by the demand from importing countries.

            The correct standard of measure to use is emissions intensity per square km

            That's a meaningless measurement.

            Emission intensity or emission per unit of GDP would is better as you can determine how efficiently those emissions are being consumed.

            Emission intensity (also carbon intensity, C.I.) is the emission rate of a given pollutant relative to the intensity of a specific activity, or an industrial production process; for example grams of carbon dioxide released per megajoule of energy produced, or the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions produced to gross domestic product (GDP).

            Because land area is a constant, and a fair, unbiased and unchanging yardstick.

            Again that's pointless.

            What would it mean if you had a very low emission per km but all you did was burn oil straight from the mine.

            It would also make high density living places like Hong Kong and New York look bad when it's actually a less polluting way of living because high density living uses less transport.

      • thesaver on 25/05/2019 - 11:16
        +1

        Agree with Sli let's vote him up

      • spaceflight on 25/05/2019 - 11:20
        +7

        China is the world's largest market for both photovoltaics and solar thermal energy. Since 2013 China has been the world's leading installer of solar photovoltaics (PV). In 2015, China became the world's largest producer of photovoltaic power, narrowly surpassing Germany. In 2017 China was the first country to pass 100 GW of cumulative installed PV capacity.

        • inamberclad on 26/05/2019 - 10:25
          -1

          Would be so cool i.e $$$$$ rewarding if a smart aussie outfit like csiro created new tech that can be used in those pv systems. Similar to wifi tech, or intel.. qualcomm

      • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2019 - 12:47
        -2

        Ozbargainers are mostly lefties don't waste your time on these bunch

        • alidli on 25/05/2019 - 15:18
          +10

          At least them lefties can construct a proper sentence

          • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2019 - 16:09
            -1

            @alidli: Looks like I scrubbed one lefty off the ground already

    • eggboi on 25/05/2019 - 10:56
      +13

      Order as many as possible then remove the slogans from the shirts and donate to charity, put the stickers in soft plastic recycling. Help out the environment and the poor at the same time as wasting these fools’ campaign funding.

      • ripprind on 25/05/2019 - 11:09
        +3

        Is theare actually a successful way to remove the print ?😮
        Other than soaking in a bath of chemicals?

        • JediJan on 25/05/2019 - 16:07
          +2

          Good question.

        • Tushie on 25/05/2019 - 19:46
          +2

          There is! I've done it before with isopropyl alcohol and scraping it with a knife. It came off easily but there was always an outline of where it used to be.

    • djtranny on 25/05/2019 - 12:05
      -1

      LOL, that is all

    • jv on 25/05/2019 - 12:14
      -3

      Coal releases high amounts of carbon

      Which is needed by plants to live.

      It’s part of the life cycle….

      • giventofly on 25/05/2019 - 17:06
        +7

        Amazing how you accept the science of how trees work but reject it for the warming of the planet.

        • jv on 25/05/2019 - 17:41
          -1

          Yes

          The ‘ol science vs religion debate.

          These doomsday cults never end well.

          • dec1an on 26/05/2019 - 20:06
            +1

            @jv: Yes if only there was some kind of scientific body that nations around the world appointed their best experts to… and then that body came together, perhaps in three working groups (to assess past climate, projections and policy responses) so that governments could figure out what to do…

            If only.
            Oh well. I guess we'll just have to stick with the next best thing, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the meantime.

            • jv on 26/05/2019 - 20:09
              -1

              @dec1an:

              the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

              Cults infiltrate all levels of society…

              • dec1an on 26/05/2019 - 20:12
                +1

                @jv: I understand climate change is a really hard concept to grapple with. It overturns a lot of the things you've grown up believing to be true, like burning coal is good for humanity. But all the indicators are pretty well on track with where the early scientific projections suggested they would be. There are a lot of disciplines who've come together around the IPCC reports, and it's worth reading them, instead of dismissing them with these idiotic, vacuous quips.

                • jv on 26/05/2019 - 20:57
                  -1

                  @dec1an:

                  I understand climate change is a really hard concept to grapple with

                  Then you should understand the climate has been changing on this planet literally forever…

      • grr1701 on 26/05/2019 - 10:21
        +1

        That is the stupidest argument coal advocates use. There’s No lack of carbon dioxide for plant growth. However, if their environment changes due to an increase in carbon dioxide, they may not be alive to use “all that extra carbon”.

        • jv on 26/05/2019 - 10:55

          Plants will grow better.

    • Onysius on 25/05/2019 - 15:30
      +1

      Only 0.04% of the atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide.
      Humans contribute 3% of that 0.04% (i.e. 0.0000012% of the atmosphere)
      Australia contributes 1.3% of the 3% of carbon dioxide that humans contribute to the 0.04% of the atmosphere.

      So in total Australia's carbon dioxide contribution to the total makeup of the atmosphere is 0.000000156%
      Not exactly 3/5 of 5/8 of F%*k all, but it does come pretty close though.

      Also plants breathe Carbon Dioxide, and a higher percentage of CO2 leads to better plant growth - the results of which we are already seeing.

      • scupper on 25/05/2019 - 16:36
        +7

        Due to deforestation, there are not enough plants to actually consume the carbon dioxide. The give more carbon dioxide to plants reasoning only works if there is a bottleneck in the amount of carbon dioxide they need versus the amount they actually receive. What plants are increasingly needing is water. With droughts due to a warming climate, there is not enough water for the plants and they are dying, how much more efficient is a dying plant given lots of carbon dioxide?

      • Rogaor on 25/05/2019 - 18:37
        +4

        Australia contributes 1.3% of the 3% of carbon dioxide that humans contribute

        Australia population is equivalent to 0.33% of the total world population.

        So, Australia produces on average nearly 4 times more carbon dioxide than the rest of the world.

      • jv on 25/05/2019 - 18:56

        the results of which we are already seeing.

        Agreed. I had a great tomato crop this year…

      • grr1701 on 26/05/2019 - 10:29
        +2
        1. Plants don’t breathe.
        2. A small increase in CO2 MAY increase plant growth but may also kill the plants if it causes a change in their climate/weather patterns.
        3. It’s a shame coal advocates have little biological knowledge.
    • jason3w on 25/05/2019 - 21:04

      very much agree

  • Seedy seed on 25/05/2019 - 09:42
    +98

    Why does this seem more like op is a adani sock puppet rather then a user deal?

    • bxpressiv on 25/05/2019 - 09:45
      +1

      Who cares, even anti Adani people can just mod the materials and they've got some free merch.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2019 - 10:22
        +28

        I do the same with free Nazi gear. I just draw some feet on each arm of the swastika and pretend it's an Isle of Man flag created by someone who can't count.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2019 - 10:33
          +11

          I wear it inside out and pretend I'm buddhist.

    • Yapapi on 25/05/2019 - 09:46
      +21

      Check me out then. Member since 2014. Many popular deals and comments. Got my Not A Bot badge. Live in inner city Melbourne. No ties to Adani, nor did I vote for ScoMo. Just a big fan of free t-shirts and coal, two things that have immeasurably improved my quality of life.

      • sli on 25/05/2019 - 09:48
        +1

        The real question is who did you vote for?

        • Draupnir on 25/05/2019 - 09:50
          +12

          I don't think it's even a question.

        • Yapapi on 25/05/2019 - 10:03
          +11

          Liberal democrats, cause I love freedom nearly as much as bargains and coal.

          • Vote for Pedro on 25/05/2019 - 10:49
            +6

            @Yapapi: I see they did smashingly at the election.

            • pensionday on 25/05/2019 - 11:09
              +8

              @Vote for Pedro: So you blaze someone for supporting a party that didn't align with your right/left persuasion, but not for valid reasons; only their performance. Democracy at work.

              You just did the equivalent of slamming an indie band for not selling records at the rate of the spice girls; logically, spice girls must be better musicians.

              • Vote for Pedro on 25/05/2019 - 11:17
                +15

                @pensionday: I will treat anyone who supports a party that wants to water down our gun laws exactly the same way. You have no idea how happy I am that Australians rejected the trash coming from the LDP.

                And, for a party that supports free speech, you’re awfully critical of someone exercising it.

                • rokufan on 25/05/2019 - 16:16
                  +1

                  @Vote for Pedro:

                  And, for a party that supports free speech, you’re awfully critical of someone exercising it.

                  Actually, he is critiquing your logic not your free speech.

                  For a party that doesn’t care about people’s feelings

                  Is that their policy, or are you demonising LDP? I believe their argument is along the lines of: speech should not be restricted because some are offended - otherwise there is only approved speech, not free speech.

                  • Vote for Pedro on 25/05/2019 - 16:27
                    +5

                    @rokufan: Actually, I don’t give a sh*t what I’m being critiqued for.

                    Am I demonising a party that wants to allow everyone to carry a concealed weapon? Nah, they do enough of that themselves.

                    And as for feelings: “People who feel offended by other people’s comments should just choose another feeling” the Liberal Democrat senator, David Leyonhjelm, has said.

                    • rokufan on 25/05/2019 - 16:37

                      @Vote for Pedro:

                      Actually, I don’t give a sh*t what I’m being critiqued for.

                      You do apparently, as you misrepresented pensionday's reply.

                      For a party that doesn’t care about people’s feelings

                      Your quote above, and my reply, is in regards to free speech not guns.

                      “People who feel offended by other people’s comments should just choose another feeling”

                      Leyonhjelm was responding to the hysterical faux outrage of the Sarah Hansen-Young variety.

                      • Vote for Pedro on 25/05/2019 - 16:42
                        +4

                        @rokufan: So anything that doesn’t suit your argument is irrelevant?

                        I, and about 97% of Australians, take absolute joy that LDP is gone from Federal and most state politics.

                        Now choose whatever feeling you want. I’ve already chosen…joy.

                        • rokufan on 25/05/2019 - 16:47
                          -2

                          @Vote for Pedro:

                          So anything that doesn’t suit your argument is irrelevant?

                          Actually, I'm using the context of your comment I replied to because I can't read your mind and your other thoughts unless you express them.

                          Now choose whatever feeling you want. I’ve already chosen…joy.

                          Yes, I am delighted the people of Australia have returned the coalition government!

                          • Vote for Pedro on 25/05/2019 - 16:50
                            +3

                            @rokufan: J-o-y

                            LDP

                            G-o-n-e

                            • rokufan on 25/05/2019 - 16:55
                              -1

                              @Vote for Pedro: I'm guessing that is the only consolation you have from the election.

                              I'm not an LDP supporter, but I appreciate some of their libertarian arguments.

                              You beauty! Three more years coalition.

                              • Vote for Pedro on 25/05/2019 - 17:02
                                +1

                                @rokufan: J-o-y

                                For a bloke so anti government involvement, Leyonhjelm was so super keen to get on the 8 year NSW payroll. Shame it didn’t work out.

                                I might go buy a wicked campervan to park outside his house.

                • Onysius on 26/05/2019 - 00:00
                  +1

                  @Vote for Pedro: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of criticism of that speech.

                  • Vote for Pedro on 26/05/2019 - 07:49

                    @Onysius: Yes, and?

                    • Onysius on 26/05/2019 - 08:51

                      @Vote for Pedro: You were the one complaining that pensionday was being critical of your free speech, at the same time claiming that they were being hypocritical about supporting free speech.

                      And, for a party that supports free speech, you’re awfully critical of someone exercising it.

                      ergo "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of criticism of that speech."

                      • Vote for Pedro on 26/05/2019 - 11:33

                        @Onysius: And now you’re critical of me being critical of pensionday being critical of me. This could go on forever :-)

              • Vote for Pedro on 25/05/2019 - 11:21
                +4

                @pensionday: And as for the Spice Girls - clearly more people supported their music (read: policies) and chose to buy (read: vote).

                Doesn’t say anything about talent. It’s about the music people like.

            • Vote for Pedro on 25/05/2019 - 11:26
              +5

              @Vote for Pedro: Thanks for the negs.

              For a party that doesn’t care about people’s feelings, it’s supporters seem to have hugely hurt feelings by a 8 word post.

          • serpserpserp on 25/05/2019 - 12:55
            +1

            @Yapapi: If I gave you a lump of coal to be my slave, would you? After all, you DO love it more than freedom…

        • pensionday on 25/05/2019 - 11:06
          -1

          That's not a relevant question.

        • alidli on 25/05/2019 - 15:45

          Maybe he voted for one of these carbon/ mining related candidates-
          Sean Allwood, Josh Burns, Julian Burnside, Marelle Burnum Burnum, Anthony Byrne, Peter Byrne, Amy Byrnes, John William Carmichael, Libby Coker, Damien Cole, David Coleman, Robyn Coleman, Don Coles, David Collyer, Perin Davey, Wendy Davey, Peter Furness, Deanna Kangas, Peter Killin, Rita Kuhlmann, Frank Rodolfo Nero, Tim Orr, Jan Pile, Keith Pitt, Jen Sackley, Declan Steele, Nina Van Strijp or Jason Wood.

      • donkcat on 25/05/2019 - 10:18
        +33

        If you love coal so much why don't you go and move to Traralgon near the Loy Yang coal power station and enjoy those higher rates of cancers, respiratory disease and other health issues

        • Konecs on 25/05/2019 - 14:09
          +7

          Hey I live near Traralgon, I have none of those issues. If it wasn’t for coal I wouldn’t have a job.

          • ameno on 25/05/2019 - 14:14
            +5

            @Konecs: Shh, the barista from Fitzroy is telling you how you should feel.

            • bmerigan on 25/05/2019 - 16:34
              +2

              @ameno: Some people are professional car thieves too. Shh, let them make a living.

          • donkcat on 25/05/2019 - 14:21
            +4

            @Konecs: It's not as black and white as that, you have an increased risk

      • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2019 - 11:03
        +7

        yep, free is good.

        But alas the coal mine isn't free, us taxpayers are helping bank roll it.
        I imagine your lib-dem values wouldn't agree on that.

        But to those who do hate it, they should be lapping these freebies up & waste Adani resources.

        • rokufan on 25/05/2019 - 16:21

          But alas the coal mine isn't free, us taxpayers are helping bank roll it

          No we are not.

      • Mikebriz on 25/05/2019 - 11:15

        Free coal? Count me in.

      • Seedy seed on 25/05/2019 - 12:05

        My comment is 6 times as popular and has been voted the right answer, this is democracy at work sir.

      • DryScissors on 25/05/2019 - 13:32
        +7

        Slavery also once improved quality of life. Just because something has helped you in the past, doesn’t make it right.

  • xeno85 on 25/05/2019 - 09:46
    +16

    I’m not too sure if the OP is sarcastic or being for real….

      • FireRunner on 25/05/2019 - 09:56
        +12

        As a child we’re you purposely naughty so Santa would give coal?

        • Yapapi on 25/05/2019 - 09:57
          +2

          I was definitely on some lists

      • JediJan on 25/05/2019 - 16:15
        +1

        Well we know what Santa (or is it the Behana Witch?) will put in his stocking for Xmas. One lump of coal coming up! ☹🔫

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join