January 13, 2017, - 3:37 pm

Wknd Box Office: Patriots Day, The Bye Bye Man, Live By Night, Silence

By Debbie Schlussel

Some decent new movies in theaters today (I did not see Monster Trucks, as the screening was on the Jewish Sabbath and Sleepless was not screened for critics) . . .

* Patriots Day – Rated R: This re-telling of the Boston Marathon Islamic terrorist attack is much better than I expected, and that’s probably because director Peter Berg says he’s tapped into the Trump voter by making patriotic movies like this and “Lone Survivor” (read my review). Berg also wrote the screenplay (with another writer).

I expected this to whitewash Islam. It doesn’t.

In fact, there’s are a couple of scenes in the movie that does what I did, but the mainstream media still won’t: showing that Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, widow of jihadi Tamerlan Tsarnaev was in on the whole thing. We know she was, but she’s been painted as some sort of innocent victim. Not in this film. In fact, she lectures an interrogator about how her participation in the plot that murdered several and wounded hundreds, is just a matter “balancing” the “duties” of being an Islamic wife.

The film also shows the disproportionate concern that then-Boston FBI Special Agent in Charge Richard DesLauriers (he was Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI before that) had for Muslims and the usual fictional, non-existent “backlash” against them. DesLauriers (played here by Kevin Bacon) doesn’t want to call the Marathon bombing a “terrorist attack,” because he says it will harm Muslims. Then, when his agents and other law enforcement personnel locate the bombers’ mugs on video, DesLauriers doesn’t want to release the photos to the public for quick help in identifying and locating them, wasting valuable time and costing more lives. Again, he’s worried about putting Muslims under suspicion. (After all, the two brothers who did these attacks were not Muslim immigrants, but native-born Christians, right?) The photos were only released after someone on the team leaked them to FOX News and the network went with them. DesLauriers vowed to find the leaker, seeming more intent on that than actually finding the terrorists. Kudos to Peter Berg for showing us the FBI’s deadly political correctness.

(FYI, DesLauriers is now employed as Vice President of Security at the Penske Corporation in swanky Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. If what is in this movie is true, Richard Penske and his minions aren’t safe in this dhimmidiot’s hands. Since DesLauriers appeared here in the Detroit area to promote this movie, I can only assume he’s proud of his portrayal in the film as putting Muslims first before America’s national security, which probably cost the MIT police officer his life.)

The movie is pretty close to the real story, in terms of depicting the trail and activities of the Muslim Tsarnaev brothers, from their bombing of the Marathon to their murder of a young MIT police officer to their carjacking of a Chinese student and his Mercedes to their last stands in Watertown (a sanctuary and gun control city–facts not mentioned in the movie). And even though we know everything that happens already, it’s still pretty suspenseful and well done.

Mark Wahlberg plays a Boston cop who is at the Marathon. The problem is, he’s also everywhere else that the Tsarnaev brothers show up. . . as if he’s the only competent cop in all of Boston and its surrounding suburbs for the next three or four days. It’s like watching Forest Gump Investigates Terrorism. Wahlberg’s Boston cop shows up everywhere, from the Marathon to the FBI investigation to the carjacking aftermath, to the Watertown shootout with Tamerlan, and then to the boat where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is finally captured. Not believable. Not even close.

There are a couple of other things I could have done without. When the Tsarnaev brothers are about to leave to the Marathon to wreak their carnage, Dzhokhar hesitates, asking his brother, “But what about Martin Luther King, Jr.?” PUH-LEEZE. As if that ever happened. There’s no evidence of it, and we don’t need a movie to soften his image and act as if he’s down wit da civil rights struggle. He’s a cold-blooded, black-hearted mass murderer. Nothing less.

I also had no use for speeches by the real life survivors at the end, chanting empty slogans like, “Boston strong,” and “we will defeat hate with love,” or “we will be the ambassadors of peace.” Um, how has that peace, love, and Boston strong BS working for the victims of Pulse in Orlando or of the Christmas party in San Bernardino? The carnage and torturous wounds will stop when victims stop being victims and call out who took their legs: MUSLIMS. It’s hard to watch a woman who lost both her legs and her husband who lost one of his refusing to face that Muslims did this and that preaching, “we are the ambassadors for peace” will not stop that from happening to someone else.

Other than that, though, I thought the movie did a very good job of telling a story–a real-life story–and not lying about who did it and why.


Watch the trailer . . .

* The Bye Bye Man – Rated PG-13: This horror movie is getting mostly horrible reviews from other critics. But for a thriller, I enjoyed it and thought it wasn’t bad. It’s not the greatest supernatural thriller, but it’s okay. And I’ve seen a lot worse. This is scary and suspenseful, if not that much different from other haunted house movies. I enjoy movies that focus more on scaring you psychologically than with blood and gore. This tries to do that, though there is ample blood and gore. It’s not for kids. I screamed a couple of times, and it’s good until nearly the end (when I started to laugh at points that probably aren’t aiming for a laugh, like when some silly-looking animal crawls in from a door in the bedroom).

Also, this has a cameo by a completely unrecognizable Faye Dunaway (who turns 76 tomorrow). Remember her? In other trivia, the female lead in this movie is played by Cressida Bonas, ex-girlfriend of Prince Harry, who hasn’t acted much. Gee, I wonder how she got the job.

The movie starts out by showing us a seemingly crazy man in 1969 Madison, Wisconsin literally hunting down, shooting, and killing various friends at their homes. He asks each of them if they told anyone “the name,” then guns them down with a shotgun. Then, things flash forward to the present day.

Three college students–a boyfriend and girlfriend (Bonas) and their male friend–rent an old house together. Soon, strange and creepy things begin happening. They hear weird sounds, see visions that aren’t real, and have doors open and close by themselves. On top of that, the woman becomes very sick. The boyfriend, Elliott, suspects something is wrong with the house, that it’s haunted. But it turns out that the haunting is caused by uttering, “The Bye Bye Man,” the name of a demon who pushes people to murder others. Every time the name is repeated, the person who hears it becomes afflicted and also tries to kill people. “Don’t think it, don’t say it” is the oft repeated mantra of this movie (could also be the mantra of Obamacare–don’t think it, don’t say it).

Elliott investigates to try to find out why this is happening and how to stop it, before more people get killed. What could go wrong?

I laughed when Dunaway’s character nonchalantly hands Elliott a gun and matter-of-factly tells him that all he has to do is kill his friends and himself, and then all of his problems will be solved. I also thought it was weird that a giant three story house is rented to just three kids and that on the inside it appears to only have about five or six rooms. What happened to the rest of the house? They don’t tell you, and it’s not part of the plot, just bad location selection for the exterior shots.

There’s nothing new or different here. But it’s supposed to be a low-budget horror flick. And for that, it does the trick.


Watch the trailer . . .

* Live By Night – Rated R: This silly gangster movie was written by Ben Affleck, and it shows. (He also directs and stars.) The story is long, stupid, and pointless. Or, rather, I should say the stories. There are so many things going on in this jam-packed waste of time (that exceeds two hours for lack of proper editing), that it’s hard to keep track. So many characters, so many killings, so many damsels in distress (at least three). So many cities–Boston, Tampa, Miami. Oh, and soooooo many bad accents. Not the least of which is Ben Affleck–who is from Boston–doing a horrible Bostonian accent. Just awful. Oh, and by the way, this movie has every single cliche from every mob movie you’ve ever seen. Yaaawn.

The only cool thing about this movie–and it’s not actually cool, but something that reminded me of my youth and how fast time flies–is the cameo by an old fat guy who reminded me of someone I know. No, someone I’ve seen. Is that really the guy from “Sixteen Candles”? Anthony Michael Hall? Nah, can’t be. So I waited until the credits rolled, and sure enough, it’s him. Damn, he got paunchy. And speaking of has-beens from the ’80s and ’90s, Max Casella–Vinnie from Doogie Howser, M.D.–also makes an appearance. You wouldn’t recognize him either. Nor would you recognize any semblance of a plot, though there are may half-assed attempts.

Ben Affleck is a Boston bank robber and crook. And his father is Boston’s . . . head cop. Affleck’s father knows what he does for a living and doesn’t do much to stop it. Affleck is in love with a beautiful blonde Irish chick, but she’s the girlfriend of a big-time Irish mobster, so she’s supposed to be off-limits. Affleck is solicited to work for the head of the local Italian mafia, but he explains that he’s not a mobster, just an independent criminal. But the Italian guy tells on him to the Irish mob chief, and then the Irish mob chief gets mad that Affleck is sleeping with his girlfriend. Affleck is about to be killed by the mob boss when he’s rescued, but he thinks the girl got killed.

Affleck gets jammed up and sent to prison for cops dying after a botched bank robbery. When he gets out of prison, he decides to join the Italian mobster boss and bootleg alcohol during the depression, when this takes place. He moves to Tampa to do this and he marries the sister of a Black cuban who is helping in their bootlegging and cigar racket. As if that’s not enough, there’s also an easily-bought-off police chief, the police chief’s drug-addict-turned-Christian-preacher daughter, and the Ku Klux Klan–all getting in the way of business.

The whole thing is such a waste of time–mine and yours.


Watch the trailer . . .

* Silence – Rated R: Martin Scorsese picks a very noble and important subject for this movie. But he does the topic a disservice by making a movie that is waaaaay tooooo loooong–nearly THREE HOURS!, too slow and boring, repetitive, and extremely brutal. The topic is Japanese mass murder of Christians in the 17th Century. Based on a fact-based, historical novel, the movie tells the true story of Japanese intolerance to the existence of Christian converts in the country in the 1600s.

The story follows two Jesuit priests (played by Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver) who leave the Vatican to go to Japan in search of a lost priest (Liam Neeson). The lost priest went to Japan to minister to Catholic converts there. The two men spend most of the movie hiding in bushes watching as Japanese Christians are tortured and brutally murdered by the Japanese rulers and their minions. That’s on top of the persecution the Christian Japanese have already endured. Those who refuse to denounce Christ and Christianity are beheaded, crucified, drowned, starved, and endure a number of other very brutal methods of killing practiced by the Japanese. Occasionally, the two priests minister the Japanese Christians, but mostly they are hiding and watching. Their true mission is to find their missing colleague.

Eventually both priests are captured and dealt with even more brutally. And eventually, the priest played by Neeson is also located.

While Garfield is very good in his role as one of the priests, his dedication and faith well acted, I didn’t care for Adam Driver, whom I think of as a comedic, screwball actor and also as a Star Wars figure. I couldn’t help but laugh each time I saw him, despite the somber, serious tone of the movie. Also, he does a terrible foreign accent.

Scorsese and his editor failed in this exercise. Either he should exercise brevity . . . or stick to making mob movies. He’s good at depicting the mafia on film and garnering our edge-of-the-seat interest in them. Religion, not so much. It’s great if you’re having trouble sleeping. I dozed repeatedly while watching this and missed nothing.

This is supposed to be Scorsese’s “passion project” and an ode to his religion. He met with the Pope recently and showed him the film. But this is the same guy who made 1988’s “Last Temptation of Christ,” which depicted Christ imagining himself in sexual situations, predictably drawing outrage from Christians. Now, it seems, he’s trying too hard to cover that up and make Christians forget.

To no avail.


Watch the trailer . . .

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses

Debbie, thanks for the review: I’m probably gonna watch ‘Patriot’s Day’. Not sure whether I should stay for the end, where the victims exhibit their Stockholm Syndrome, or should I say Grozny Syndrome.

The same Grozny whose destruction Marco Schmoobio Boobio Rubio lamented while grilling Rex Tillerson. Funny how our anti-Russian politicians are so fond of supporting Jihadist campaigns when it comes to Russia, be it in Chechnya, or in Uzbekistan, where President Bush’s missteps cost the US an ally in the form of an anti-Islamic regime in Tashkent.

One thing about the reference to MLK Jr: why would a Chechen, who shares NOTHING w/ MLK, have anything to say about him? EVERYTHING would be different – race, ethnicity, religion, beliefs (in violence vs non-violence). It would be like a Japanese Kamikaze pilot saying WWJD before launching such an attack on a US warship.

The comments of the victims that you cite reminds me of a quote I once heard from Lee Rodgers on KSFO in San Francisco, who said ‘Slit my throat if you must, but please don’t call me a racist’.

Infidel on January 14, 2017 at 12:29 am

Oh, I will wanna comment on the “Patriots Day” film…soon after the Jihadi Bombing, bone-headed Boston kept blurting out “Boston Stong!” like an insane myna bird. Nope. I’ll tell the truth and it’s not hard to figure out…Moon-Batty Boston will NEVER, EVER be strong when it comes to Jihad and the un-PC truth. Know that first…More later…

Skunky on January 14, 2017 at 12:48 am

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-breakfast-club-star-attack-20161128-story,amp.html?client=safari it appears Anthony Michael Hall is a bit of a hothead.
Thank you for your invaluable movie reviews, Debbie!

DinaK on January 14, 2017 at 10:21 am

In addition to being a terrible actor, Mark Wahlberg is a racist thug, and his movies should be boycotted so that Wahlberg fades off into obscurity.

It is interesting that Wahlberg always want to do movies were he has a gun, and he is barred from possessing any firearms due to his status as a felon. In 2014 Wahlberg attempted to get his felony conviction pardoned so that he could become a reserve deputy, something a number of stars have done so that they could ostensibly carry concealed firearms (something that is almost impossible in California) and own fully automatic weapons. Lou Ferrigno is a reserve deputy in California, and being completely deaf he should be barred from law enforcement, but it appears reelection donations overtake defined standards.

King David on January 14, 2017 at 12:32 pm

So cool that this was like a BOSTON movie special this week. LOL that even Ben Affleck can’t do a proper Boston accent…he’s so over-rated and I get distracted by his over-sized bouf-head. I have never been impressed by that bore.

I actually have more QUESTIONS RE: the Boston Marathon Jihadist bombing than answers…WHY hasn’t Frau Mooooslima Tsarnaeva been charged? Why do women STILL get off on lesser charges than men? I see see this in Law Enforcement and it annoys me. Supremely. Those who followed this case and know their Jihad (which means like 10 people total…) know she was handled with kid gloves and I wanna know WHY. DS, local reporter Michele McPhee wrote a book on the case (and really, if you wanna hear a very strong and discordant Boston accent, listen to her radio show…no doubt where she is from, LOLOL!) and I haven’t read it because I know she is a good True Crime writer but I do NOT trust her on Jihad. I barely trust her on Conservative issues…she has come around over the years but she wasn’t always a “Conservative” (I used to have email battles with her when she had an AM show here). You should read it and review it but I trust you may not be impressed. You are not even on the same planet as her when it relates to Islam…so you may be vexed at how ignorant she is on Islam in comparison but I do know she is a good True Crime author (and that is where she gets my deepest praise…).

Watertown IS ruled by moonbats. I was brought up there and moved back in 2004…moved out in again in 2010. The street the cops seized looking for those Jihadists showed my family’s old apartment we moved out of in 1980. The place where Joker Jihadist hid in the boat is well known to me and a hop, skip & a jump from Watertown High School. When I lived there from 2004-2010 I DID go to Town Council Meetings and stopped because MoonBat Libtards ran the town. I didn’t have a chance in hell. I still love it but I grew up there…others may not like it if not for that ingrained nostalgia. It was so silly they would protest Pearl Harbour Day and wanna apologize to the Japs. The aging hippies who were in charged looked exactly how they would in central casting. Futile.

The “Boston Strong” here is ANNOYING. It started right away and all it ever was WAS dopey lip service. There are even t-shirts that make me roll my eyes as soon as I see the blue and yellow colours. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one…they remind me of how clueless & dhimmified Boston is. Even “Pepsi” trucks sported the dopey phrase. You don’t see as many anymore but you will see them mostly now at the gym…

Boston is the LAST place that will EVER get tough on Jihad. What a bloody laugh. No, I will NOT be seeing that stoopid flick with a Zelig-like Marky-Mark. I don’t like him either. Boston likes to play up itself as “Boston Strong” but it is “Jihadi Weak” and shall always be…it’s Libtard Central…that is WHY we were hit! Look into what deadsy Mayor “Mumbles” Menino did for the Moooooslims & their Mosque! “Jihadi Weak!”

Don’t be taken in by the phony. Even the victims are big phony-balonies…someone I know has an occupation where they take care of people in distress…one of the people was a Nurse who had to deal with a survivor (a female one) and whenever you see this chick in front of the cameras she is gracious, sweet and calm but in hospital she was NASTY & TERRIBLE to EVERYONE. LOLOL, everyone today is such a throbbing fraud! She treated her Nurses terribly.

BOSTON STRONG! More like “Jihadi Weak”!!! As DS likes to say “Don’t believe the hype”. BOSTON WRONG!!

Skunky on January 14, 2017 at 8:22 pm

    ‘BOSTON STRONG! More like “Jihadi Weak”’


    DS_ROCKS! on January 17, 2017 at 12:21 pm

Skunky, just watched the movie, and it was just as Debbie described. I didn’t feel remotely sympathetic towards ‘Kathy’ or Karima, particularly given the fact that nothing was found against her and she was let off.

I dunno whether I should say what happened, given spoiler rules, but then again, the broader outline of this event is well known. But during the carjacking of the Chinese student, I found it bizarre that Tamerlan was a 9/11 Truther: haranging his hostage about the ‘facts’ on 9/11, namely that the US government did it. Given what he just did, he should have been proud of his 9/11 co-religionists: if he was proud enough to tell his hostage that he did the Marathon bombing, why would he deny that Muslims like him did 9/11?

Aside from all the usual denials about the Islamic underpinnings of Jihadist terror, one thing this movie reinforced in me: my situational support to Russia (in this case, when it comes to them battling Islamic separatists, be it the Chechens, the Tatars, or whether it comes to supporting the Tashkent regime in cracking down on Uzbek Jihadists). No, I don’t support Russia being behind Iran’s plans to acquire nukes, but when it comes to them fighting any Muslim forces, be it in Chechnya or Syria, I’m completely with them

Infidel on January 15, 2017 at 1:16 am

Debbie’s complaining about Silence being too long reminds me of what Shawshank Redemption director Frank Darabont once said in an interview about complaints from Leonard Maltin about *that* movie being too long: “I don’t want to be dictated by the short attention spans of the MTV crowd. Maybe Leonard’s right. Let’s ban all movies over two hours. Just burn the negatives and never make another movie over two hours. So we’ll lose Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Schindler’s List. But at least Leonard’s ass will not be numb.”

BR: Nice try, but no cigar. You clearly didn’t see this bloated bore and waste of time. I have a very long attention span, in fact . . . when the movie’s interesting. This was a complete bore that was endlessly repetitive and slow for no legitimate reason. It wasn’t my attention span. It was the fact that Scorsese is conceited and failed to edit his movie. This is no Bridge on the River Kwai or Schindler’s List, both of which I watched without boredom to the very end. Not even close. This was a crappy movie that short-sold an important topic because it was filled with fat and very little meat. DS

Brad Ribelin on January 15, 2017 at 1:30 pm

    No, I actually did see Silence. It was brilliant. You just can’t handle the complex plot of the movie. You are also ignorant of the facts. If you looked up the facts on its production, you’d know that Paramount actually *forced* Scorsese to edit his movie down to two hours and 41 minutes, so this idea that Scorsese chose not to edit it down is misinformed. You don’t like it because you don’t like movies that are quiet and philosophical, movies that actually urge the viewer to look within one’s self, that take you on a spiritual quest. Meanwhile, you think movies like Battleship are masterpieces.

    BR: Nope, it actually wasn’t complex at all. It was very simple with a lot of fat and very little meat, as I’ve already noted. In fact, the reason it was repetitive and boring is that it was so simple and said so little, that it had nothing to do other than to keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again. That you think that’s brilliant is a statement about your own simplicity and lack of complexity, not my (non-existent) inability to handle a complex plot. That anyone “forced” a man to make a boring movie shorter and he still couldn’t make it less than 2 hours and 41 minutes shows how conceited and inartful he is. Nothing I said about his editing was incorrect because he clearly still couldn’t edit the movie. It’s still way too long, boring, and extremely repetitive. Nothing complex or deep about that unless you’re a pretentious fool. I guess you’re telling us that you are that in spades. Some of us don’t need constant repeats of the same thing to get it. Apparently you do. 2 hours and 41 minutes is NOT editing. It’s a person saying that his blah-blah-blah is more important than entertaining the viewer and effectively telling an important story. I never said “Battleship” was masterful, but it definitely was a whole lot more interesting than this movie, which says how bad and boring this was, not how good Battleship was (though this movie is so bad, it kinda makes Battleship look like a masterpiece, which is hard to do). I love quiet, philosophical movies. This was hardly that. Not even close. It was just repetitive, and quite loud actually. It repeatedly hit you over the head with the same old thing over and over and over again. This could have been a spiritual movie, but Scorsese took the spiritual and massacred it. Can’t help you to get it. You either get it or you don’t. You don’t. DS

    Brad Ribelin on January 15, 2017 at 4:46 pm

      So Brad I take it you don’t think that Battleship was a masterpiece.

      Ken B on January 15, 2017 at 8:37 pm


        Silence, on the other hand…

        Brad Ribelin on January 15, 2017 at 8:54 pm

          …Is golden…LOL!

          Ken B on January 17, 2017 at 11:13 am

Why does Martin Scorsese make a film about Japanese persecution of Christians after flirting with the pope?
My money is on the possibility that it cultivates an attitude of fatalistic acceptance regarding contemporary atrocities suffered by Christians at the hands of ISIS.

MK: Funny you should say that because as I watched this, I thought the torture-murders of Christians by the Japanese in this film closely resembled ISIS-style torture. And I wondered why he would make a movie decrying this rather than a modern-day movie about how Christians are treated by ISIS. That would have been more meaningful. So, Amen to your comment. DS

Mochizuki Koga on January 17, 2017 at 4:29 pm

Debbie wrote about “Patriot’s Day” —

“I expected this to whitewash Islam. It doesn’t.

“In fact, there’s are a couple of scenes in the movie that does what I did, but the mainstream media still won’t: showing that Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, widow of jihadi Tamerlan Tsarnaev was in on the whole thing. We know she was, but she’s been painted as some sort of innocent victim. Not in this film. In fact, she lectures an interrogator …”

That interrogator happens to be a hijabbed Muslima. Thus, Peter Berg is doing what so many in the Counter-Jihad do: affecting to be oh-so tough on the problem of Islam and the Minority of Extremists, but with the other side of their mouth in various ways telegraphing an acquiescence to the presence of multitudes of Muslims in our society because, after all, many (most?) of them just wanna have a sandwich, and even are “on our side” — like the Muslima Interrogator Good Cop against the Bad Cop (the widow of the jihadist she’s interrogating).

There’s no way in hell that a mainstream Hollywood movie (and you can’t get more mainstream than Peter Berg, Mark Wahlberg, Kevin Bacon, etc.) is not going to whitewash the Islam angle on the Boston Marathon jihad. But they will manage to apply that whitewash in such a way as to fool many in the Counter-Jihad who haven’t graduated to the epiphany that All Muslims are the problem, not just the “Salafist Islamist Wahhabist Extremist Etceterists” .

H: WRONG. The interrogator is clearly NOT a Muslima and removes the headscarf and stops the Muslim BS immediately upon leaving the interrogation room. You will be hard-pressed to find a mainstream full feature movie to go as far as this one did about the wife’s guilt. In fact, this goes farther than any press account in showing she was in on it. I wasn’t fooled for one second about Muslims and have always said they are the problem–all of them. So I don’t know who you are lecturing here. DS

Hesperado on January 17, 2017 at 6:13 pm

Debbie wrote:

“I thought the movie did a very good job of telling a story–a real-life story–and not lying about who did it and why.”

Did the movie say that the Boston Marathon jihadists were Muslims (the who), who did it because they were following the fanatical dictates of mainstream Islam, the same mainstream Islam of all Muslims (that would be the why)? If the movie didn’t explicitly and centrally document & dramatize both this how and why, then it lied.

H: The movie made no attempt to hide that they were Muslims and acknowledged that they were and that she, the wife, was a “wife of a Muslim.” The movie was about that day and the few following days when they tried to catch the guys behind it. The movie made no pretense about any of that and it was true to the chain of events. You’re never going to get what you want from Hollywood. This is pretty close and far better than most others. The movie did NOT lie. It appears that you did NOT even see it, since you incorrectly wrote that the woman who interrogated the wife was a Muslima, and the movie makes clear she wasn’t and was just pretending. Also, STOP using my site to pimp other sites that steal from me and refuse to link to me (those references have been deleted). DS

Hesperado on January 18, 2017 at 5:29 pm

    slight correction to my last sentence: “both this how and why” should be, of course, “both this who and why”.

    Hesperado on January 18, 2017 at 5:46 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field