I´m weirdly Ok with that :)

Indeed

This Got 13 likes in 1 min

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/eoh5inqAaYWLyoU.html ......

no yes actually no hmmm yes NO yesss NOOOOOOOO REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE -weird comment 2021

Argument from Ignorance goes both ways. Though the rules of logic dictate the burden of proof is on the person making positive claims.

@@Feroste sick

Hempel's Raven Paradox.

Unlike Subaway's fish

This is too deep for me

Yep

This is iconic

It's not a new line that MatPat came up with, but it is very fitting.

@@efulmer8675 Where is it from originally?

WELL SPOKEN, SIR!!

Lol 😆

Lol 😆

Lol 😆

That profile tho

@@maksssglatkikkk9129 no

I mean I saw a Subway add, before the video played. I think that counts.

Honestly it would be nice if they remain unsponsored by them. If they became sponsored, there could be potential pressure to be on Subway's side regardless of fact.

It's philosophy 101: the hasty generalization fallacy. I'm stoked he said it but he didn't make it up.

well id rather not.. it would make mat pat look like a mouth piece for subway and might damage how people see these theories

That wouldnt work cus that would lead to bias and make the results less trustworthy

And even if they do so, they would run faster than light to brand it to themselves and charge a lot of money from it. Seriously: if lab meat is a really LOCO thing, then lab tuna would be a celebration bigger than new year 2000 itself (y'know, for the Y2K thing that all computers in Earth will die but didn't happened)

hi verified

what's up checkmark?

Didn't think I'd see you guys here?

Reaction?

Just finished watching your offensive family guy jokes reactions! Love your channel !

@thx shut up bot If you're a bot

AMONG?!

@@diamondnator UKposts COMMENT SUS

You’re welcome! :D

Lies...decetion. Fish burger! Hotel trivago?

That's actually a brilliant idea. Though I can't say I've met anyone with a fish allergy. Shellfish, sure. But not just fish in general. I knew one guy that claimed he was allergic to fish, but we pretty easily proved that was a lie.

@@GeneralNickles that is so ominous 😭😭😭😭 what did yall do

@@insidethebox2470 we got him to eat some fish. I forget what we told him it was, but it was actually tuna.

@@GeneralNickles so mean :(

Please, someone, get the likes at 69

Probably whole milk, if it could be kept refrigerated.

Raw whole milk. Milk (specifically raw whole milk) And whole wheat berries are the only two foods that have all the ingredients necessary for life.

@@jubileeYAVEL sounds interesting! what are whole wheat berries? is it what's inside the grain, without the shell?

Potatoes. There is already a theory about that.

Sushi. You get rice, various seafood, and seaweed.

That and all of the other ingredients in the tuna salad mix were among my thoughts for why labs would refuse to participate. Besides, subway probably is using their business records in the lawsuit as their defence to show they are sourcing tuna. Then all of these gotcha articles and declining sales (across the board and for just tuna sandwiches) would be the perfect set up for a counter suit for damages

I'm all for this concept, as it holds up. So my question is, how could another lab then definitively later state that it did in fact find *intact* tuna DNA to "prove" the tuna was real? That's where it actually makes me doubt the validity. I was with the argument of the DNA testing being a bad way to find the answer, but for another lab to actually find DNA? There are so many questions that arise.

@@allanreele8352 I haven't actually looked at the methods of either of the companies, but there are certainly ways to verify the presence of partially destroyed DNA and species in samples (think of how we're able to look at Neanderthal DNA). If a company says they have a specific test for a fish species, they are likely doing a simple PCR test, similar to how COVID saliva tests are done. This looks for a small fragment of identifiable DNA in the sample, which more likely to be missing in a highly degraded sample. A more thorough test could involve a survey of all of the DNA in the sample. I don't get into the details, but this is much more expensive and probably wouldn't be affordable on a single NYT article budget. Although I doubt the other company did this, so maybe they just did PCR but checked for more specific fragments? It did say they specialized in fish. I find it believable, personally.

@@tomhodder8904 yea I was gonna say pcr/gel electrophoresis thing is tho with aged samples ( Neanderthal bone fragment ect) a lot of them having living phylogenetically comparable relative with which dna is shared so I think because the dna is so degraded in the tuna they’d have to rule out what it’s not first through comparison to other suspected animal types

Thank you. I was trying to remember that quote for the last 15 minutes.

Mario vs Sonic

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hXmpiYWjrW5popc.html

Um, that quote was originally from Mark Twain. So, you not only spread a truism about information, you demonstrated it as well.

i see what u did there

Yea

"Educate yourself" is another laughable one.

We just need to bring back Rule 32 - pics or it didn't happen

@@purpleguy319 i had a guy try to tell me that snakes size up thier prey not long ago, he said that exact thing

idiots in among us be like:

And why didn't subway get ahead of this and show it?

@@grod805 because the tuna scandal itself is making Subway a lot of money having people “Try it out and see if it’s real” Subway knew the evidence wasn’t gonna cut it so they can just ride with the wave and make some money

@@username2323 I'm Catholic and during lent I would always get the tuna sandwich. I will never step foot in a Subway again for fooling us this way

I’ll ask TheOdd1sOut about this.

@@grod805 the video proved the tuna is tuna? And like only a couple of minutes in, Subway straight up posts that tuna is real. If the statement that tuna is not real is a truly proven statement, then the whole Subway industry would be closed. Also this whole video is about how the tuna IS tuna…

Kinda yeah.

Can we order Subway?

I do 🤣

Yes, but not from Subway! I’m picky about my tuna mix!

Meeee

@Kflffk F What the bloit does this have to do with the comment or video? stupid link bots.

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/kWeIqKGbg4dnsYE.html ...

Hard, cold facts.

Absolutely Though it's just reaaaaaaally sad 😞

Bruhhhhhhhh you hit it right on the head my dude

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/eoh5inqAaYWLyoU.html ......

I’d imagine they were all just commenting quickly to join the hype train that is being “first” on an internet comment section.

The people commenting that aren't watching the video.

"59% of UKposts comments are written without having watched the video first"

@@Silentgrace11 yeah kids these days well I'm the same anyway

Longer than that. NYT is a joke.

@@PRDreams Agree.

@@PRDreams Well, pretty much no news organization is credible when it comes to politics.

Not ever

To be fair I've seen a good share of questionable content from main stream news sources including the New York Times. On the other hand the theory channel videos tend to either be seriously researched (like this one) or obvious jokes (like Kirby or Mario being evil which makes for fun videos but obviously don't hold up).

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hXmpiYWjrW5popc.html . .

Correct

Yes?

That proves his point even more.

Lol

🤣🤣🤣

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hXmpiYWjrW5popc.html . .

Me too please

Fish cakes

LOL

Because kids would eat lots of food till they're full to the brim, going swimming directly after and not realising they've became too tired to make it back to land and drown. You need to give your stomach some time to digest before exercising again.

Eating stimulates digestion and so does the pressure of being immersed, so keep the kids out of the pool for a while and encourage them to go to the bathroom if needed. When a brown shark is spotted in the pool the party is over. 🏊 💩

That one's not a myth. Eating and being submerged in water both push your system to poop. No one is worried about what you *just* ate, but what you ate *yesterday*.

I dont get it

@@RandomMeta the sponsored ad at the end is about a food service and nonstop suggested it would’ve been funny if matpat had said “the tuna is actually tuna” in the ad to reference the theory

I WAS THINKING THE EXACT SAME THING

Missed opportunity to hold the NYT accountable for pushing fake news.

actually it’s happened 7 times, but nice reference :P

Yooo Phineas and ferb is the best

I GREW UP WATCHING THIS STUFF

Me reading this: *happy noises*

I READ THIS IN DOOFENSHMIRTZ VOICE-

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/eoh5inqAaYWLyoU.html .......

Same

@@lfkkkfk862 Hold up, did you and the guy below you "consume it" first?

@@theemeraldking3251 those are spam/ad/fhishing bots, report them whenever you see them

@@deniz4876 just join me in the crusade of reporting them all, I've been doing this for the past like 10 minutes lmao

Yep, besides why the heck do they cook the Tuna? When I make Tuna Salad sandwiches at home I just open the can Drain and Rinse the Tuna then toss it in the bowl and mix in my ingredients. The Tuna doesn't get cooked before processing/canning it. Also the process they use to can it is very careful about any heat near the Tuna.

@@morrigankasa570 The canning process cooks the tuna

@@josephpyott9408 not always depends on the brand/quality. I have had cans of Tuna that the Tuna is same color as a fillet of frozen tuna. Still Pink and stuff when Tuna gets cooked it changes color to a whitish/gray color.

@@morrigankasa570 they probably used can tuna that was cooked

@@morrigankasa570 No. It's always cooked. The canning process needs heat to pasteurize the contents.

Certain groups of people who don't believe in scientific tests at all: "..."

No lab worth it's salts would have taken this on to begin with. It's well known the canning process makes conclusive DNA results impossible. It's all BS. The only way you could know if subway is actually using tuna is to find the company that provides the product and litteraly observe if it is buying/catching and delivering Tuna.

@@exturkconner if you dont test the fish before it got processed its like looking for wheat DNA in toasted bread. And if you dont find any to just claim: bread dont contain no grain...

Its just as plain as lying about having shoes made of gold but wont want to bring it to school because it mgith get dirty

Nothing new here.

The scary part is how few realize this...

At this point, you have to wonder whether Subway thinks they can win a libel lawsuit. This seems to be getting close to the actual malice standard

@@briggyb exactly, you can't trust any news anymore sadly

they need clicks

I love you

Mackerel tastes good tho

If it was a fake/overly processed meat this is the best replica of all time. We aren’t that advanced yet imo

it is though

@i Play Sometimes that video was halal 👍🏿☪️

@@zyncwargaming179 you're wrong say, for example, you have 100 people in a room. Somebody says 1 of them has a weapon. If you check half and don't find it does that mean there is no weapon and he was lying? No, there are 50 more people!

Nevermind Tuna where's the Beef in my Taco Bell Taco

@@Scotch_Bingington i have a feeling it might be somewhere we forgot

Lol imagine having a funny and nice brother

Watch your back he might try to take you out for knowing too much.

you might want to close your door at night from now on

The Eat Fresh Conspiraaaaaaacy.

a.k.a. he doesn't know either

those are some very old words, treat them gently.

Those words of wisdom that are mostly known from a Boondocks episode where they were used to point out how unwise a crazy asshole was.

@@masterlinktm Their strength endures. We can throw them around a bit no biggie.

I was scrolling through the comments and read this right at the time matt pat say it lol

KJV John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/ZZOBdaFubpWq0nk.html😃😃.

So canned tuna.

Worked at Subway as a teenager. It’s just canned tuna.

We used artificial crab when I worked there but I'm pretty sure the tuna was tuna.

@@thehat4244 To be fair most places use artificial crab cause crab is very expensive. It'd be crazy if they had real crab lol

Science those bubbles!

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hXmpiYWjrW5popc.html . .

This...is a great idea.

That theory would blow me away!

I wonder if the breath will have an affect on the bubbles blown >v>>

Rly tho that’s Wuts gonna happen 🤣🤣

Next episode: subway cheese is really styrofoam!

Used to be. The BMT sandwich is named after the Boston-Manhattan Transit, one of the places they used to be in.

Breaking news! Subway's lettuce is actually cabbage

Breaking news, Subway’s Parmesan cheese is Cocaine.

I think it's the "nothing to see here."

Yup! Nothing to sea here…

@@coppermoth6069 Oh no don't say that, Mattpat's dad jokes will start to spread into more titles if you encourage it! XD

@@michellerabey6637 dadpat jokes will spread as covid my guy

I agree but this still problematic. If fish dna breaks down and becomes indistinguishable from other fish while heated. Then they could in theory be selling trash fish as tuna and marking the price up for Tuna and false advertising for tuna. That is assuming what MatPat has here is accurate. They could take a fish like the Orange Roughie and sell it for tuna, there are a lot of places that mislead buyers on what a fish actually is. Restaurants often sell fish that is not the fish they are saying it is. Simply because the buyer doesn't know better. But lets be clear here. Even if it was a different breed of Tuna, thats still a scandal. They advertise as using two of fifteen species and only those two. So if they use the other kinds that is still a straight up lie being told to the consumer who cannot really defend themselves from such false marketing and claims.

​@@TheLastSane1 I find gaps in this theory. You said that the common buyer can't tell the difference between good fish and bad fish. Why would Subway use bad fish and say that they use good fish, when it won't bring them ANY advantages and possibly get them in trouble? The common consumer wouldn't be able to tell that Subway is saying they use good fish, and probably not be able to tell that the fish is bad. If Subway actually used bad fish, there is no point in saying their fish is good when they get no additional profits because the common buyer won't understand that they are saying they use good fish. Plus, like I said it will get them in trouble. All in all, there is no reason for Subway to do what you said, which was use a different fish than they are advertising. You could argue that they could do it trick people, but you said yourself that there is no difference between tricking them and not tricking them because the consumer cannot see what kind of fish is good, and what kind is bad. My point is that if Subway did what you say they could do, it would be a lose-lose situation for them because there is no advantage and only disadvantage. And there is no advantage because the common consumer can't see if something, aka the fish, is good or bad. *If you have read to this point, I think you can see where I am going with this.* _Your theory's logic can also go against your theory at the same time, so this why I am having doubts on it._

@@thatguynamedgeorge9218 Well there is the marketing angle of it. Advertising Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna which are two of the more expensive tuna, they are suppose to be higher quality, etc. If a company said they where giving you real gold and instead were giving you fools gold, you might notbe able to immediate tell the difference if you had no experience with either the company would definitely claim it was real gold if there was a way for them to muddy up tests to make sure you could never prove its not. Using lower quality fish (Trash fish is a industry term the fish are still edible just not as well bought) means its likely to be less expensive. You could buy more of say Orange Roughie per lbs per dollar than quality tuna. So if they are spending less money on the fish, but then can sell it as if its the higher quality fish they make money and save money. The rule of thumb in business is never pay more than you absolutely have too. I have an associates degree in business management, I am going off what I have learned only.

@@TheLastSane1 Although within legal loopholes. They could mix those expensive varieties with cheaper varieties and only be 51% of the expensive kind and still can legally/technically claim it is that.

@@morrigankasa570 This is true, but it would certainly hurt their public image now wouldn't it? My point remains that the process that MatPat says clears them could just as easily be used to cover for their mis-direct.

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/eoh5inqAaYWLyoU.html .n...

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/eoh5inqAaYWLyoU.html ......

write that down write that down!!

Matpat when someone breathes: *interesting*

XD

I blame paywalls for this phemonena, personally.

*ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hXmpiYWjrW5popc.html* . ..

@TommyInnit 🅥 Fake Checkmark.

I don’t want to come back I want to stay dead

@@InvestmentIdea bot

@zisco bot

It's a well-known expression is statistics. It's something everybody should already know so the fact that so many people are impressed with it is quite worrying.

@@arandombard1197 how’s that worrying

@@arandombard1197 naw I'm not impressed with it, I'm just basically saying he's correct

@@letterh9900 Because it means the majority of people (or at least the majority commenting and however representative they are of the real world), know very little about statistics and the validity/significance of information being presented to them.

@@arandombard1197 A large portion of his audience is probably children, so its understandable they wouldn't know about stats.

yeah, they could've just went "show me how you prepare the tuna" to a Subway employee and the issue would be solved. But where's the fun in that

As an up until recently subway employee, I'm not sure how you're so certain, at least at my store, it came pre bagged and cooked, and labeled as tuna, but that doesn't inherently mean it is/was tuna, it could have been mislabeled, not saying it was or wasn't, but I wasn't so quick to dismiss the claims.

The only people really qualified to answer the question are the people who pack and cook the tuna.

@@LanceAtlas Honestly, I think anyone who tastes it should be able to tell it's real tuna. If Subway was capable of making something taste like tuna, that wasn't tuna, not even fish ... that would be quite the accomplishment.

@@SilvyReacts I was more just agreeing that a subway employee who gets it out of the bag isn't fully qualified to verify its prepackaged authenticity, but the packing personnel would be better qualified.

I just saw this. According to the suit, 19 out of 20 Subway locations in southern California sold tuna-less tuna.

Can people just counter claim these ashole

Ba dum tiss

The times has really gone downhill since it's glory days. They still get some stories well full of nuance but there definitely has been a degrade and full blown bias in a lot of their more recent stories; especially when it comes to the political.

This way🚪

Sub par just like their sandwiches

@@cptbluehawk574 The times doesn’t make sandwiches?

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hXmpiYWjrW5popc.html .

They do post retractions, corrections and such. Usually months after the original story has circulated and become gospel.

@@BillLaBrie The sad thing is that it's always been that way and generally known by the public to be that way with several variations of "front page lie, page 9 retraction" in common usage. But people of every generation somehow get the notion that the news media was a bastion of truth before they were born.

@@Merennulli I don't believe news articles due to them prioritizing fear-mongering and click-baiting since they're desperate for people to see them, but I don't want to search for months about if a source is legitimate for an essay. (I do believe in science, just not the information news sources say)

@@buttercupkat Also they only tell storys that fit their political agenda. I favor Fox News because they fit my views better but still do other research afterwards from other sources and find that 90% of the time despite the Bias Fox News is actually telling more of the truth then others.

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hXmpiYWjrW5popc.html

I would agree, that would make thi ngs better, but would also kind of be impossible and also for those who live in the US would go against the constitution in freedom of press

@@tabithal2977 how so? it's asking that they be responsible with how they frame stories instead of saying what they can and can't report on

@@josephwatkins1190 yeah, but the ability to censor or change new articles, even if it's just the headlines, is going to raise a few constitution eyebrows.

@@neonbunnies9596 not really, the fairness doctrine was upheld by the supreme court. It only died because Reagan made the FCC stop enforcing it.

This needs to happen

This needs to happen

59% of links on Twitter were shared without even reading the article first? That's terrifying. That's some dangerously bad information hygiene.

@@ToyKeeper One thing I learned is to take EVERYTHING you see on Twitter with a grain of salt. It's legit the fastest way to lose brain cells if you aren't careful considering their collective IQ of 8.

@@Endershock1678 I'm looking out the window in horror because the storm is worse than I realized... and you're telling me to use an umbrella. But no, I have no plans to go there. I mean, yeah, an umbrella would help... but I'd still get all wet. And the umbrella doesn't help when the storm turns into a flood and carries my house away. Twitter breeds bad behavior, by design, because it's built to optimize low-effort engagement... which means conflict and disinformation. It's a problem which needs to be fixed, not just avoided. Because the effects hurt all of us, not just the people who participate there.

Underrated comment

A similar theory what's the most food you can get for the least amount of money from various fast food restaurants barring coupons, promos, offers, etc. This does not take away dollar menus and such as those are constants on the menu while promos, coupons, etc are limited use and constantly changing

My guess is taco bell since it's probably the most bang for your buck without rewards and it has a pretty decently rewarding programme

This is a good one

isn't "most optimized" redundant? :D

The simple answer? If you always go there anyway, its a good rewards program. If you don't normally go there, if you choose it only for the rewards program, its worthless. Same with any sort of rewards program anywhere. Why? Because in general, its a fair amount of money to save pennies. If you would be going there anyway, then that's fine. You are, over time, saving money just because you're there anyway. They would already be getting your money, so you're getting a bit back here and there. Never serious amounts because its always cheap food or drink items and often times are far from their best items, so if you go all of the time anyways its very unlikely you'll even want what they offer, but that's a little more tricky to tell. But if you are going just for the rewards program, they've caught you. Now you are spending money specifically with the idea of trying to save money, its counterintuitive. Like BOGO sales and stuff. They have convinced you to spend more than you would have otherwise, or even redirected the same money you'd have spent just to them instead of elsewhere (in which case it likely won't be what you want anyway). I'll just use one specific example. The McDonald's coffee rewards. Buy enough coffees and get a free small coffee. If you buy McDonald's coffee every day anyway, great. You're not spending anything more than you would have without the rewards program, and every now and then you get a free coffee. A free *small* coffee. And if you drink a lot of coffee... Well, odds are even the day you get a free one, you'll still be buying another just because its only a small. But if you normally have a small anyway, then you are saving a couple bucks. Its a very small savings, but you were getting that coffee anyway. But if you decide to start getting McDonald's coffee just for that rewards program... Well, either you're now buying a coffee that you wouldn't have bothered with otherwise, meaning they convinced you to buy something you didn't need or want so you can get something. Something you, again, didn't really want except that it was free. And if you would have bought a coffee anyway, just from elsewhere... Well, odds are its because you don't like the McDonald's coffee anyway, at least not as much as what you'd normally get. Whether because its not as good in taste and quality or because its not as good in value. So now they've redirected your payment from what you actually want to something that's not really what you want, again just so you can get something you don't really want for free. Or try Subway. Earn 4 tokens for every dollar you spend, and at 200 tokens you get $2 off (in Canada, at least, reward might be different elsewhere). If you always go to Subway, great. You're spending the same amount anyway earning the discount and then you get a cheaper order now and then. This means you either save money on what you normally buy, or maybe convinces you to try something else using the discount. Either way, its money they would get anyway for a bonus you wouldn't get otherwise. But if you prefer Mr. Sub or Quiznos, or even don't like subs as much as burgers and prefer McDonald's... Well, what's the point? Very easy to get rewards, and it doesn't matter what you order there. But if you are only going for that reward, you don't care for the food enough for it to be worth it. Not to mention even if you do like Subway, you just don't go very often, the rewards expire after a few months, encouraging you to go more often than you would otherwise. Overall, you're spending more money than you would normally or buying something you don't want as much instead of something you want more just to save $2 now and then, but would save more money by not going, or are selling your enjoyment for $2 by getting what you don't actually want. That's just one specific example, but its the same idea everywhere. If you go there often enough anyway, pretty well all are good, as they'll never give one of their best items or a massive discount, but its money you would have spent anyway, making it negligible at worst and a small bonus at best. But if you are picking something specifically for its rewards program, you're losing every time. The only comparison between them all at that point is which has you losing the least. If you're going pure monetary value, the only objective factor, the better option is pretty well always going to be to ignore rewards programs in your decision making. The only thing that ever makes them worth it is completely subjective, a question of "do you like going there enough that you would spend that money anyway?"

*ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hXmpiYWjrW5popc.html* . ..

Lol, yeah

Lol true

You haven't even watched all the way through yet

Right

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/eoh5inqAaYWLyoU.html .....

lol

Yeahhh, it really is just a cantuna-ation of the dad jokes

That's the reason I tuna in

*Dad pat is the whole reason food theory exists" change my mind

That's wrong, but that's not.. wrooong.

I don't know though. Are people who are allergic to tuna only allergic to tuna?

Morally wrong, but it's fine because it's for science.

@@Haunted2077 dont people have like anti allergy things on them to like stop allergic reactions? If he needs to use it then boom its a tuna sandwich.

It is not the 1800's; that is not how we do science anymore.

You’re confusing biased with not credible, but yeah I agre.

@@MagicalBread If they're sufficiently biased, they are by default not credible. Bias creates an imbalance in information vs agenda.

@@haku8135 True. But there is a slight difference. For example, just because someone is biased doesn't necessarily mean they are lying or wrong. However, a good news source should be a balance as possible, or at the least direct and honest with their intent. especially when dealing with facts vs opinions.

@@haku8135 Everything has bias. There's no meaning to what you said.

@@weirdofromhalo facts do not have bias. Unbiased reporting is a thing, just because you can't comprehend being impartial doesn't make it nonexistent.

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hXmpiYWjrW5popc.html .

Wouldn't that just be fishpat?

First

@@cooperlie907 why do you want to be first in a reply section of a verified person

@@preservedforhistory8766 first

I mean, they could easily swap out some of the tuna with akamanbo

OH YOU!

I think coffee just needs to be made from coffee beans, and tea is too nuanced for me to get into. People just like to label things like other things due to similarities and nothing else

@@Trebord_, tea is hot leaf juice and coffee is hot bean water

@@Doublemonk0506 "how could a member of my own family say something so horrible"

i thought tea had caffeine too, or maybe just the brand i buy

Many teas have caffeine too. And not all tea is made from the leafy part of the plant; sometimes it’s the flower or roots.

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/ZZOBdaFubpWq0nk.html😑

*reeled

@@ChrisPhelior **Corrected