I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post Reply
User avatar
JonBailey
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:12 pm
Location: Boise, ID

I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by JonBailey » Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:46 am

They were my grandfather's.

In the back of each edition were advertisements for "hunting dogs".

There was everything listed from American foxhounds to retrievers.

Prices like $55 or $60 for a pedigreed puppy (or were these adult dogs? .... my memory is vague there) were common listings way back then.

Now, whether these were trained finished dogs, I can't really recall.

Boy, have times really changed.

Hunting and dogs has turned into a real money game, I mean a bottomless pit.


Is Outdoor Life or other hunting periodicals a good source for today's dogs?

My grandfather also taught me that back in early American history, hunters did not tolerate unruly dogs.
Dogs prone to errors in the field or dogs who did not mind, were likely to have been shot by their masters.

For example, a dog might be trailing a mountain lion and run into deer tracks that cross it. The stupid dog
might start trailing the deer instead of the lion and that would make a lion hunter quite angry, indeed.
There are many cartoons about hunters with stupid, incompetent dogs.

Hunting dogs nowadays cost a king's ransom with all the care, vet bills, training, tech gear and puppy-buying costs calculated, not to mention precious time and energy.
You can't just get impatient and up and shoot the stupid dog that turns out bad. Investing in a dog
is a big gamble these days.
"Let Hercules himself do what he may, the cat will mew and dog will have his day." - William Shakespeare

averageguy
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:07 am

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by averageguy » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:02 am

Yes the price of dogs has gone up. As have vehicles, HealthCare, Housing, Gasoline ....

If a dog running a deer makes it "stupid" they are all "stupid". I have never had a good hound or Vdog that would not run a deer full tilt until trained otherwise.

No Breeder of the dogs that interest me advertises in the Outdoor Life currently. Some did in the 70s however. The Best Breeders today get enough inquiries they have a waiting list a year or more in advance for their planned breedings. Less established Breeders use other Marketing Channels most often, their own Websites and or FB Pages, Breed Club Websites and FB pages, Hunt Test Organizations Websites.

User avatar
JonBailey
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:12 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by JonBailey » Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:43 pm

averageguy wrote:Yes the price of dogs has gone up. As have vehicles, HealthCare, Housing, Gasoline ....

If a dog running a deer makes it "stupid" they are all "stupid". I have never had a good hound or Vdog that would not run a deer full tilt until trained otherwise.

No Breeder of the dogs that interest me advertises in the Outdoor Life currently. Some did in the 70s however. The Best Breeders today get enough inquiries they have a waiting list a year or more in advance for their planned breedings. Less established Breeders use other Marketing Channels most often, their own Websites and or FB Pages, Breed Club Websites and FB pages, Hunt Test Organizations Websites.
Well, if a hunter wants his hound to track a cougar, the dog should not be distracted by any crossing animal tracks of beasts of a different fur (modeled after birds of another feather).

Hunt test organizations and local hunt or retriever clubs might be a good lead on a good dog.

I found a Golden Retriever breeder website online which the owner was pictured in hunting clothes holding a shotgun. Dogs bred by people who actually hunt.

I would avoid a puppy farm (mill) at all costs. The quality of BYB dogs for hunting might be questionable.
"Let Hercules himself do what he may, the cat will mew and dog will have his day." - William Shakespeare

averageguy
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:07 am

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by averageguy » Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:40 pm

JonBailey wrote: Well, if a hunter wants his hound to track a cougar, the dog should not be distracted by any crossing animal tracks of beasts of a different fur (modeled after birds of another feather).
I have hunted Cougar with hounds so not a theoretical discussion with me. You missed my point entirely. Dogs will chase deer. It does not make them "stupid" as you termed it. It makes them normal and you had best plan on training yours not to chase deer, as we all do.

I subscribed to Full Cry Magazine for years and read an article a long time ago about a study done at UNIV of GA where they monitored the brain waves of well bred coonhounds when various scents were passed under their nose. Coon was way down the list of brain wave activity behind Deer, Coyotes, Rabbits. Dogs must be trained to not run trash as ignoring them is not something that comes naturally to them and has nothing to do with intelligence or lack there of.

User avatar
JonBailey
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:12 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by JonBailey » Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:20 pm

Sorry, maybe ill-trained hounds are prone to chase the wrong game.

Moreover, according to my grandfather, hunters in the olden days would shoot their dogs
for undesirable performance in the field regardless of whose fault it was. Perhaps bad
dogs were a result of bad masters.

Perhaps, hunters once confused ill-trained dogs with incompetent dogs.

Ill-training is something I would think to be on par with human error.

It takes competent humans to train good hunting dogs.

I'm no hound hunter and never have been so I don't know the method of the madness

to keeping hounds on the right track when trailing game. I guess the trainers have something

up their sleeves I don't know about.
"Let Hercules himself do what he may, the cat will mew and dog will have his day." - William Shakespeare

cjhills
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2529
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:37 am
Location: aitkin,mn

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by cjhills » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:53 am

It was not only in the seventies that washout dogs got shot, they still do. Some just get left on the northern prairies.....Cj

User avatar
JonBailey
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:12 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by JonBailey » Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:24 pm

cjhills wrote:It was not only in the seventies that washout dogs got shot, they still do. Some just get left on the northern prairies.....Cj

My grandfather was probably referring to times before the 1970's about angry hunters who would put their washout dogs down.

I would never put my dogs down should they fail the field despite hard work, time and money into training.

They would at best live out their days happy and healthy as just wonderful pets in that case.

I would seek out good breeders for pups especially bred for hunting to minimize the risk of failure.
"Let Hercules himself do what he may, the cat will mew and dog will have his day." - William Shakespeare

birddogger2
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:15 am
Location: Lower slower Delaware

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by birddogger2 » Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:37 pm

JonBailey wrote:They were my grandfather's.

In the back of each edition were advertisements for "hunting dogs".

There was everything listed from American foxhounds to retrievers.

Prices like $55 or $60 for a pedigreed puppy (or were these adult dogs? .... my memory is vague there) were common listings way back then.

Now, whether these were trained finished dogs, I can't really recall.

Boy, have times really changed.

Hunting and dogs has turned into a real money game, I mean a bottomless pit.

JonB -

In 1970, I bought a full size Chevrolet Impala Custom with all the bells and whistles for $3500. That was a top of the line Chevy at the time. I also was a recent college graduate with a degree in Analytical Chemistry and I was making $8000 a year. And that was a pretty decent starting salary. Gasoline was about 25 cents a gallon...for high test. You could go out on a date, have a steak dinner for two and a bottle of wine for $25. I bought a Belgian Browning A-5 20 ga., 3" magnum shotgun for just under $200...brand spankin' new from a local store.

Oh and I was able to save almost $2000 a year since I was living at home.

The prices you quoted were very likely puppy prices.

Times have changed.

RayG

User avatar
BuckeyeSteve
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:09 am
Location: Valencia, PA (north of Pgh)

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by BuckeyeSteve » Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:02 pm

Yep... you go back far enough and we also bought and sold people, placing no value on their individual lives or rights. We chained mentally handicapped children in basements because they were an embarrassment. We poisoned indigenous people so we could take what we wanted from them. We killed off species with total disregard for conservation or value for life. We still continue to bulldoze and burn rain forest to make more "valuable crop land". We've removed 90% of american wetlands for farming. We're about to sulfur mine the boundary waters. WVa just removed the law about 15 years ago that limited the size of stick you could use to beat your wife to the diameter of your thumb. And yes, we shot dogs instead of recognizing our own failures in training - again with no value on individual life. They were just a tool. People, both historically and in the present, can be real a**holes. Some of that is just indicative of the times we lived in, some is innate human nature that we may never evolve out of. Probably best to not always look at history as "good" and progression as "bad".

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by ezzy333 » Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:53 pm

BuckeyeSteve wrote:Yep... you go back far enough and we also bought and sold people, placing no value on their individual lives or rights. We chained mentally handicapped children in basements because they were an embarrassment. We poisoned indigenous people so we could take what we wanted from them. We killed off species with total disregard for conservation or value for life. We still continue to bulldoze and burn rain forest to make more "valuable crop land". We've removed 90% of american wetlands for farming. We're about to sulfur mine the boundary waters. WVa just removed the law about 15 years ago that limited the size of stick you could use to beat your wife to the diameter of your thumb. And yes, we shot dogs instead of recognizing our own failures in training - again with no value on individual life. They were just a tool. People, both historically and in the present, can be real a**holes. Some of that is just indicative of the times we lived in, some is innate human nature that we may never evolve out of. Probably best to not always look at history as "good" and progression as "bad".
There is no way I am in a position to call anyone an a**hole because their standards are different than mine and even more of a reason they lived in a different time that view life much differently, but certainly not worse. Have to remember we are living in a culture that just kills unwanted babies and they didn't do that back then.
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

cjhills
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2529
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:37 am
Location: aitkin,mn

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by cjhills » Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:37 am

ezzy333 wrote:
BuckeyeSteve wrote:Yep... you go back far enough and we also bought and sold people, placing no value on their individual lives or rights. We chained mentally handicapped children in basements because they were an embarrassment. We poisoned indigenous people so we could take what we wanted from them. We killed off species with total disregard for conservation or value for life. We still continue to bulldoze and burn rain forest to make more "valuable crop land". We've removed 90% of american wetlands for farming. We're about to sulfur mine the boundary waters. WVa just removed the law about 15 years ago that limited the size of stick you could use to beat your wife to the diameter of your thumb. And yes, we shot dogs instead of recognizing our own failures in training - again with no value on individual life. They were just a tool. People, both historically and in the present, can be real a**holes. Some of that is just indicative of the times we lived in, some is innate human nature that we may never evolve out of. Probably best to not always look at history as "good" and progression as "bad".
There is no way I am in a position to call anyone an a**hole because their standards are different than mine and even more of a reason they lived in a different time that view life much differently, but certainly not worse. Have to remember we are living in a culture that just kills unwanted babies and they didn't do that back then.
Actually they did kill unwanted babies back then also. It was done in back alley drs. office, with no real regard for the mothers health. Times don't change a whole
lot...……….Cj

User avatar
BuckeyeSteve
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:09 am
Location: Valencia, PA (north of Pgh)

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by BuckeyeSteve » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:06 am

ezzy333 wrote:There is no way I am in a position to call anyone an a**hole because their standards are different than mine and even more of a reason they lived in a different time that view life much differently, but certainly not worse. Have to remember we are living in a culture that just kills unwanted babies and they didn't do that back then.
I don't mean that to be disrespectful to anyone.... I understand people have different values, and I stated that it was a different time and those decisions were more acceptable in a different time.... However, my examples were to liken the activity of killing a dog for something as ridiculous as chasing a deer to many of the other horribly wrong things humanity has done over the ages. The positive of the message is that our culture progresses. I know if you get into certain areas of the country they may progress slower than others, but overall as a society we are becoming less heartless towards. We have always been a species ruled by the physically strongest among us, and fortunately that has been slowly changing in the last few hundred years and empathy is becoming more prevalent. In listening to the good people on this site, you hear over and over the concept of being gentle with dogs and helping them learn without a hard hand. That is a good thing that in 2018 we largely treat our animals better than we did 50 or 100 years ago.
I'll mostly avoid the whole abortion subject that was brought in there..... but I will say I'm not the one whose rights are infringed on so therefore I don't impose myself on other's difficult life decisions.

averageguy
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:07 am

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by averageguy » Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:44 pm

I am not one to have my rights infringed upon either, but I know wrong from right, and am willing to speak for those unable to do so. Killing 800,000 healthy babies a year is hardly progress, but it is a result of those claiming to be "progressive". Beat or kill a dog today and you will go to jail (as you should in most cases), but killing healthy babies is touted as a "right" or a "choice" or the most blatant spin propaganda of all a "Women's Health Issue". I did not bring it up, but Snuffing out Human Life is what Abortion of Healthy Babies is.

A hunter who legally kills a lion or a giraffe will have their lives threaten and ruined by mob rule from the same people who are zealots in upholding the killing of 800,000 healthy babies a year. Our values have changed but that is far from the same as they are now correct or improved.

User avatar
BuckeyeSteve
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:09 am
Location: Valencia, PA (north of Pgh)

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by BuckeyeSteve » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:51 pm

averageguy wrote:I am not one to have my rights infringed upon either, but I know wrong from right, and am willing to speak for those unable to do so. Killing 800,000 healthy babies a year is hardly progress, but it is a result of those claiming to be "progressive". Beat or kill a dog today and you will go to jail (as you should in most cases), but killing healthy babies is touted as a "right" or a "choice" or the most blatant spin propaganda of all a "Women's Health Issue". I did not bring it up, but Snuffing out Human Life is what Abortion of Healthy Babies is.

A hunter who legally kills a lion or a giraffe will have their lives threaten and ruined by mob rule from the same people who are zealots in upholding the killing of 800,000 healthy babies a year. Our values have changed but that is far from the same as they are now correct or improved.
Everyone has a right to their opinion....one of the things that makes America great. I will point out that it is extremely illegal to kill babies, and if anyone kills a baby in America it is national news and there is always public outrage. I assume you're referring to 800,000 abortions, not the killing of "800,000 healthy babies". The best way to minimize the number of abortions would be for all of those who want to make life changing decisions for other people would be for them to put their money where there mouth is and volunteer to financially support the mothers and children in question. I would venture to say, with zero research in to this for data to back up my belief, that the majority of abortions are brought about by financial situations. Giving some prospective mothers who can't both work a low paying job and afford childcare, and happen to not be independently wealthy, $20,000 a year for the next 18+ years out of your pocket would change a lot of minds. I'd expand my unsubstantiated guesswork to say that not a lot of women go out and get pregnant on purpose for the joy of having an abortion. I've never had an abortion myself....lacking the required bits and pieces to allow the situation to begin with....but I'd assume that it's a difficult and often times devastating decision for a woman to have to make, so I try not to call these women murderers.

Holy crap... this was a thread about whether or not dogs are too expensive today to shoot for chasing deer.

averageguy
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:07 am

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by averageguy » Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:09 pm

Birth Control is Free. Use it.

Adoption is the only humane solution for those who cannot master self control and or the extreme complexity of using a condom.

Shoot a pregnant woman and kill her and her baby and you will be tried for two counts of homicide. Kill her and her baby in a drunk driving accident and you will be tried for two counts of vehicular homicide. If your baby is born prematurely it is termed to be a baby and huge resources will be used to preserve it's life. Have a stillborn baby and there will be a funeral in most cases and a period of mourning.

Semantics of fetus vs baby is what your argument rests on.

Meanwhile a human life is snuffed out to the tune of 800,000 times a year.

I use the term Healthy Babies because that is what they are until they are killed via abortion. The differentiation I am drawing attention to is between a legitimate life threatening health problem for the baby or the woman vs killing a healthy baby because it is too inconvenient to carry it to term. A very tiny fraction of the 800,000 abortions are due to a legitimate health concern.

Adoption solves the financial burden for the woman involved without sacrificing human life. Or we can just kill another baby if that is too much bother.

User avatar
BuckeyeSteve
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:09 am
Location: Valencia, PA (north of Pgh)

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by BuckeyeSteve » Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:55 pm

averageguy wrote:Birth Control is Free. Use it.

Adoption is the only humane solution for those who cannot master self control and or the extreme complexity of using a condom.

Shoot a pregnant woman and kill her and her baby and you will be tried for two counts of homicide. Kill her and her baby in a drunk driving accident and you will be tried for two counts of vehicular homicide. If your baby is born prematurely it is termed to be a baby and huge resources will be used to preserve it's life. Have a stillborn baby and there will be a funeral in most cases and a period of mourning.

Semantics of fetus vs baby is what your argument rests on.

Meanwhile a human life is snuffed out to the tune of 800,000 times a year.

I use the term Healthy Babies because that is what they are until they are killed via abortion. The differentiation I am drawing attention to is between a legitimate life threatening health problem for the baby or the woman vs killing a healthy baby because it is too inconvenient to carry it to term. A very tiny fraction of the 800,000 abortions are due to a legitimate health concern.

Adoption solves the financial burden for the woman involved without sacrificing human life. Or we can just kill another baby if that is too much bother.
In turn I will point out that your argument rests on the fairy tale that there are 800,000 people out there every year looking to adopt a mix of children of various ethnicities and health conditions, and that every woman has the financial means to go through a pregnancy and childbirth (30-40K?). You also assume condoms never break, no one is ever molested or raped, no mother's health is ever at risk, and every baby if just born, would be born into a wonderful life. Have you ever tried being a crack baby or heroin baby? Once again....I'll go on a limb and say it's probably not the best -- but of course I'm just speculating.

If you kill a pregnant woman, YOU are stopping a wanted future baby and taking something the mom-to-be cares about more than anything else. That is a far cry from an impoverished 17 y/o with no means to support her baby having to make a decision that only affects her. A stillborn baby is a baby....no one is saying that 9 month pregnancies should be open to abortion. There are time limits for a reason.

I will change my opinion when enough people who like to thrust their holier-than-thou, perfect, mistake-free-lives beliefs onto other people step up and take over the financial stresses of birthing and raising a child. I don't see it happening.... it seems to me that most of the people who are so passionate about that opinion do little to help people in need. They tend to just stand atop their ivory towers and throw insults at those of us who aren't as perfect. If I could ask one more question while you are educating me...if you don't mind a personal questions... how many black autistic babies with heroin dependency have you adopted so far? Just curious. You seem to be a fairly average guy, so I'll extrapolate the population wide answer from your number.

averageguy
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:07 am

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by averageguy » Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:02 pm

I see when your argument is refuted with fact you resort to name calling. Of a person you have never met. Done with you Bucky.

User avatar
Sharon
GDF Junkie
Posts: 9114
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: Ontario,Canada

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by Sharon » Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:03 pm

JonBailey wrote:They were my grandfather's.

In the back of each edition were advertisements for "hunting dogs".

There was everything listed from American foxhounds to retrievers.

Prices like $55 or $60 for a pedigreed puppy (or were these adult dogs? .... my memory is vague there) were common listings way back then.

Now, whether these were trained finished dogs, I can't really recall.

Boy, have times really changed.

Hunting and dogs has turned into a real money game, I mean a bottomless pit.


Is Outdoor Life or other hunting periodicals a good source for today's dogs?

My grandfather also taught me that back in early American history, hunters did not tolerate unruly dogs.
Dogs prone to errors in the field or dogs who did not mind, were likely to have been shot by their masters.

For example, a dog might be trailing a mountain lion and run into deer tracks that cross it. The stupid dog
might start trailing the deer instead of the lion and that would make a lion hunter quite angry, indeed.
There are many cartoons about hunters with stupid, incompetent dogs.

Hunting dogs nowadays cost a king's ransom with all the care, vet bills, training, tech gear and puppy-buying costs calculated, not to mention precious time and energy.
You can't just get impatient and up and shoot the stupid dog that turns out bad. Investing in a dog
is a big gamble these days.
............................

Lets get back on topic gentlemen please.
" We are more than our gender, skin color, class, sexuality or age; we are unlimited potential, and can not be defined by one label." quote A. Bartlett

User avatar
BuckeyeSteve
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:09 am
Location: Valencia, PA (north of Pgh)

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by BuckeyeSteve » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:01 am

averageguy wrote:I see when your argument is refuted with fact you resort to name calling. Of a person you have never met. Done with you Bucky.
I re-read my entire post and didn't find a single incident of fact in your reply or a single name called in mine.....so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Please re-read.

User avatar
BuckeyeSteve
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:09 am
Location: Valencia, PA (north of Pgh)

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by BuckeyeSteve » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:03 am

BuckeyeSteve wrote:
averageguy wrote:I see when your argument is refuted with fact you resort to name calling. Of a person you have never met. Done with you Bucky.
I re-read my entire post and didn't find a single incident of fact in your reply or a single name called in mine.....so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Please re-read.

I am, however, admittedly snarky on these issues when I get into them. So I'll apologize for that part.

JONOV
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:26 am
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by JONOV » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:41 pm

Regarding Money and Hunting...I heard a joke, I think it was on the Hunting Dog Podcast from a lab trainer her was interviewing. "My Daddy told me duck hunting today costs the same amount as it did in 1968. Every Penny you got."

These comparisons are tough in my mind. The only real difference seems to be access to hunting land.

Everything else, big picture wise, seems to be a push. Cleaning out my grandparents place we found the sticker for his Ford Bronco in 1969, and his tax returns. It was top of the line and nearly $7,000, which was a lot of money in 1969. But, he paid over 50% income taxes as a doctor.

Mountaineer
GDF Junkie
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:23 pm
Location: State?...The one where ruffed grouse were.

Re: I had some 1970's editions of Outdoor Life magazine.

Post by Mountaineer » Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:47 pm

Good grief! :roll:

Oh well, I do find the implication that the 1970s equate to old is...interesting. :)

Post Reply