Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1

    Who has been the biggest beneficiary of revisionist history?

    What wrestling figure (be it wrestler, manager, promoter, announcer) has benefitted most from revisionist history? As in they've been made out to be a bigger star or more successful than they really were in their heyday. My pick is The Fabulous Moolah. She was a mediocre wrestler, never a draw reportedly and blocked other women wrestlers' opportunities (including some of her own proteges). When New York legalized women's wrestling in the early '70s and MSG lifted the ban on women's wrestling, Moolah got the spot against Vicki Williams in the first women's match at the Garden. This was partly by design as she blocked other women (including Betty Niccoli) from working WWWF shows. In the mid-80s, she had a protege named Mad Maxine (some of you might remember) who WWE planned to have feud w/ Wendi Richter and appear in the Rock 'N Wrestling cartoon. Moolah called the office telling WWE Maxine was too green and took her spot in the cartoon. Next she prevented the chance of a Glamour Girls-Jumping Bomb Angels match at WrestleMania as she interfered w/ a planned title change. Not to mention her supposed 28 yr reign, which was really 10 and involved multiple title changes WWE didn't acknowledge when she sold the belt to them in the early '80s. Might be fair to say that Moolah only enjoys the legacy she has b/c of her closeness to the McMahons.

    Twitter: @libsuperstar

  2. #2
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    711
    Moolah's not a bad choice, she was undeniably THE key figure in women's wrestling for decades, but for mostly bad reasons. Even if you put aside the disputed claims of pimping out her students, she definitely sabotaged the women's wrestling scene time and again so she could stay on top. In 84/85, women's wrestling was a big part of why the first Wrestlemania was even able to happen, but Moolah got them to screw over Richter and pretty soon the title went away entirely. Presenting her in a good light hasn't held up well over the past few years as people go back and learn more.

    The first name that came to my mind was DX. They were a popular stable at their peak, but WWE has inflated their significance to a ridiculous degree, claiming that they started the Attitude Era before Austin, that the segment where they "invaded" Nitro was some major moment in the Monday Night Wars, and most ridiculously that they were a comparable group to the nWo at the height of their popularity, which is patently nonsense. The first incarnation of DX didn't make a significant impact until they were paired up with Austin and Tyson, and the Triple H led midcard version was popular but were never even close to the hottest thing in company, let alone being compared to the industry changing nWo. The "invasion" was a cheeky footnote at best. WWE has really gone all out to exaggerate their significance over the years.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    14
    HHH. The winner gets to write the history books, but he was never a draw, and like 6th? guy from the top in the Attitude Era (SCSA, Rock, HBK, Taker, Foley). When they all left/semi retired, and it was HHH/Cena/Orton every PPV, biddness was in the crapper. Best feud he was ever in was when Foley carried him to stardom.

    Sting. He was good, and I was a mark for mullet Sting going back to UWF Hot Stuff and Hyatt Intl, but people over hype him. I was even in on Crow Sting at first, buying a scorpion shirt at a Nitro, when all my buddies were getting NWO stuff. Like HHH he needed to be carried to good matches. Like HBK, he was heavily protected by his promotion. After he went into the rafters, he was junk. Off the top of my head, Flair matches and Vader matches were his only good ones. I can't think of a memorable angle he was in. Worthy champ, face of the franchise, but I pause at putting him on the pedestal that some people do. If he was really a great, when Hogan came in, he would have done whatever he could to shine and keep the top spot, instead he was happy to take the backseat and collect a paycheck.

    Jerry Lawler. If I gotta hear Cornette say one more time "He was so over in Memphis, he didn't need to go anywhere else," I'm gonna puke. Then next breath he'll tell ya Bruno couldn't draw outside the northeast. Oh, well the guy who sold out Sister Fister, Indiana every Monday was surely better than the guy who sold out MSG one Monday, then Boston Garden the next and Maple Leaf Garden the one after that. :eyeroll: Bleeding out the same 5k rubes for 20+ years is surely an accomplishment, but to put Lawler on a list of all time greats is a farce. Not a fan of his announcing either. He don't hold a candle to Jesse or Bobby as a color guy.


    Gary Hart. Loved his character, but if he was such an amazing booker, how come there wasn't a bidding war for him when World Class folded? Right place at the right time when the Von Erichs exploded on the world and couldn't draw flies after they imploded.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by mizfan View Post

    The first name that came to my mind was DX. They were a popular stable at their peak, but WWE has inflated their significance to a ridiculous degree, [B]claiming that they started the Attitude Era before Austin,[/B] that the segment where they "invaded" Nitro was some major moment in the Monday Night Wars, and most ridiculously that they were a comparable group to the nWo at the height of their popularity, which is patently nonsense. The first incarnation of DX didn't make a significant impact until they were paired up with Austin and Tyson, and the Triple H led midcard version was popular but were never even close to the hottest thing in company, let alone being compared to the industry changing nWo. The "invasion" was a cheeky footnote at best. WWE has really gone all out to exaggerate their significance over the years.

    Amen, brutha. The Attitude Era was born June 23, 1996, when Steve Austin got a live mic and bestowed upon us the 3:16 Promo. Anyone who doesn't recognize that must be an HBK mark w/ a signed copy of his Playgirl under the pillow.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    135
    DX isn't a bad shout, you know.

    I think Taker's been, if not a beneficiary of revisionist history, then at least a beneficiary of his modern history overwhelming his early history. He was absolutely dire for his first, what, 7/8 years in the business? Got lucky with the first HiaC match which gave him a single good match plus the great Kane feud coming out of it, but he didn't otherwise have matches that were objectively good until he was the American Bad Ass. And he didn't have regular great matches until he basically stopped turning up as a regular performer around the mid-00s. It's a funny one, though, I don't think there's much revisionist history around how poor he was in those early years, I just think people don't really bother talking about it when they talk about him.

  6. #6
    32B apparently SirSam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    411
    Shawn Michaels *ducks*

    Seriously though, Shawn is amazing and had a phenomenal career but along with the DX stuff alresdy covered I'd say individually he has benefited from the WWE wanting to paint one of their own not names Bret Hart as the greatest in ring performer ever. Shawn is right up there in the conversation but it is no where near as clear cut as WWE would like to claim it is.

    Believe me I once drunk the kool aid but now thigs like the fact him and Razor are given credit for innovating the ladder match irks me because it was something that was brought into the company by Bret from Stampede and the first match of its kind in the WWE was Hart and Michaels not Michaels and Ramon. It is a small thing but I feel like that is how the best revisionist history works, it doesn't change history, just changes the focus and emphasis enough to change the narrative.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by SirSam View Post
    Seriously though, Shawn is amazing and had a phenomenal career but along with the DX stuff alresdy covered I'd say individually he has benefited from the WWE wanting to paint one of their own not names Bret Hart as the greatest in ring performer ever. Shawn is right up there in the conversation but it is no where near as clear cut as WWE would like to claim it is.
    WWE is always going to want to push one of their guys as the best ever, and the fact is that people in the business, both inside and outside WWE, in that 95-95-97 era legitimately viewed Shawn as the best in the world even over and above Bret.

    He might not be the GOAT, maybe he is, but it's not an exaggeration to say that he was the best for a period, especially when people who weren't even in the company at the time thought that he was.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerkmala View Post
    HHH. The winner gets to write the history books, but he was never a draw, and like 6th? guy from the top in the Attitude Era (SCSA, Rock, HBK, Taker, Foley). When they all left/semi retired, and it was HHH/Cena/Orton every PPV, biddness was in the crapper. Best feud he was ever in was when Foley carried him to stardom.
    It's hard to say that Triple H was never a draw. It's not like business went into the shitter when Austin went down in 99 with Triple H and The Rock on top. You can put it on the shoulders of The Rock, but Rock isn't going to do business without a decent heel across from him.

    He gets credit, that I would argue he deserves, because he was the heel of the time. He might have been sixth from the top, but he was 1 or 1-A to Undertaker on the heel side of things by the turn of the century. And he was consistently a heel. He's never going to be a top drawing babyface in that period because he simply wasn't a babyface, but somebody has to be that hated antagonist and Triple H was happy to oblige and played his role well.

  8. #8
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    711
    Haha, lots to unpack here. I definitely think Triple H has benefited a lot from revisionist history, but I do also think it's possible to go too far the other way. I'd say he was more important to the Attitude Era than Shawn (since he missed almost all of it), and probably moreso than Taker too, who spent a lot of time doing lame Ministry stuff or working tag matches. He was never an established draw himself, but he could draw well when put with the top guy, as seen by his feuds with Austin, Rock, and Foley. Coach is on point insofar as HHH is a guy who played his role at the time and did a good job. I do think he drops in quality a lot after the first quad injury, and his title reigns got unbelievably grating over the 00s though, which is something that of course doesn't appear in the WWE approved history.

    I'm a known Sting detractor, but I have to admit he had one advantage over Michaels: he was actually consistently popular for his whole run. His list of great matches is pathetically short and his title reigns are pretty much all a bust, which is partly his fault and partly certainly not (Black Scorpion, anyone?). I also agree he rarely had anything to offer in the ring at all after taking a year off, and until late in his career (like, TNA late) he was a pretty painful promo. Ironically, he may have been at his best when he was not wrestling and not talking at all. But his popularity was real and enduring, god knows why, he was just charismatic and consistently pushed (more or less) in WCW as a big deal.

    I honestly have to disagree about Lawler, at least to a point. If anything I think history has been written to cover up the high quality stuff he did. His best work was regional, sure, but he kept Memphis running strong after almost all the other territories had folded up shop, which is no small feat. I've also seen my fair share of great Lawler promos and matches, so there's definitely something there. I don't necessarily agree with people who list him as one of the best ever, but I'm closer to them than to those who think Lawler was a shlub. I do think he's a pretty lousy commentator though, never liked him much in that role.

    Undertaker is an interesting one. I'm not sure the revised history claim is that Taker was having great matches prior to HBK and Foley later in the 90s, though they do tend to blur the lines when talking about the Streak, as if it were this great thing from the very start. I think you're right, Ollie, in that people just generally don't talk much about his matches from that era, because there's not a whole lot to say. I do actually really enjoy early Taker as a character though, with Bearer at his side and all, and it's fun to watch him plow through jobbers and have classic feuds. I'm watching the one that involved Jake Roberts and Ultimate Warrior right now and it's absolutely great (largely thanks to Jake, but still).

    Definitely agree on HBK. As great as he is, the fact that he is the WWE Approved Greatest Of All Time (TM) in the history books is a bit hard to justify. Lots of stuff in his past gets completely whitewashed from the general conversation.



    Amen, brutha. The Attitude Era was born June 23, 1996, when Steve Austin got a live mic and bestowed upon us the 3:16 Promo. Anyone who doesn't recognize that must be an HBK mark w/ a signed copy of his Playgirl under the pillow.
    Haha, I do really enjoy this comment.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by mizfan View Post
    Haha, lots to unpack here. I definitely think Triple H has benefited a lot from revisionist history, but I do also think it's possible to go too far the other way. I'd say he was more important to the Attitude Era than Shawn (since he missed almost all of it), and probably moreso than Taker too, who spent a lot of time doing lame Ministry stuff or working tag matches. He was never an established draw himself, but he could draw well when put with the top guy, as seen by his feuds with Austin, Rock, and Foley. Coach is on point insofar as HHH is a guy who played his role at the time and did a good job. I do think he drops in quality a lot after the first quad injury, and his title reigns got unbelievably grating over the 00s though, which is something that of course doesn't appear in the WWE approved history.
    I think that three things happen with Triple H after 2002.

    1) He comes back from injury noticeably larger and I think that impacts the way that he moves. He gets used to it, adapts, and starts moving a lot better later on, which I think you see in the following years when his work picks up quite a bit. He learned how to move with the added mass.

    2) He's already established as a top guy. He's no longer quite as hungry and, like so many top guys before him, takes a step back in the level that he's working at because he doesn't have to any more.

    3) He gets creative input. I don't mean that in the "he's trying to bury everyone" sort of way that many people accuse him of, but in the way that his view of creative, at the time nearly 20 years ago, was vastly different than WWE's go-to model. Triple H was an NWA guy, and Ric Flair was his idol. Ne tried to make Raw into a heel territory and it didn't pay off. People weren't ready to see such a major twist. I think that in the 16 years that have followed, his booking style has changed.

    Now, I'm saying this as a Triple H fan. When I was younger, Triple H was the guy for me even above Austin or The Rock.

    I don't think he was actively trying to bury all the babies to get himself over. He was trying to emulate Ric Flair as a heel reigning atop the promotion. Unfortunately, that gets hard when you're asking the same people to tune in every week without allowing the good guy to get his hope in.

    I also think that he doesn't get enough credit for his in-ring ability. Even after coming back form the quad injury he was so smooth and so good that he was able to make his opponents look good. Here's a guy who today works one or two times per year and yet gets in with Cena and GRR and tears it down in a basic, but technically great, MOTN.

  10. #10
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    711
    I do think there's a certain amount of anti-HHH revisionism on the fan side, which makes him one of the toughest guys to talk about or try to "rate".

    Solid point about Triple H's size/mobility. It's not like he only turned in stinkers after the injury, he found a way to still have a lot of good matches down the line.

    The "Raw as heel territory" argument is one that holds some water to me, though I still think there was also a political element. I also think the execution of that idea was just flat out bad at times, so even if the intention was good the way they told the stories often backfired. That's not necessarily Triple H's fault, though he did clearly have some influence on creative. I do think if it were anyone else, WWE would have switched gears a lot sooner, but oh well. There are good things about that era that don't get remembered too, and him hanging onto the top spot for so long did do a lot to make Batista a star almost overnight, so you've got that going for it at least.

    I never thought of Triple H as a carry artist, but he's got his share of successes too. Who would you say is somebody not very good typically that Triple H guided to a good showing?

  11. #11
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    31
    I think that he grew into the size, no pun intended. He came back, likely with rust, and now with a body that had probably 20-lbs more mass. He had to learn how that body moved, and I think that before too long he had it down and could still put on great matches.

    I think that 2002-2004 "Reign of Terror" was really the first we say of Triple H having a say in the book and despite being a student of wrestling and a great mind for it, he was inexperienced. He missed that Crocket was successful when he had the dominant heel Champion, but Dusty would beat him (how else was Flair getting to 16 reigns?), or Sting would come close, or Steamboat would come close, or Luger would beat him. That's where Triple H missed the mark. He was the dominant heel Champion but everyone except Goldberg and HBK (who eventually beat him) was Sting in '88.

    Some of that comes down to things that are out of his control -- the WWE model had moved past 60-minute time limit draws that make the challenger look like a million bucks -- some of it was probably him wanting to protect himself. But what he ultimately missed the mark on, if his influence on that timeframe is as big as some people believe, is that maybe RVD should have been Luger, Booker T should have been Sting (coming up short of the belt by inches instead of one Pedigree). Ultimately, that dominance was used to put over Benoit, but it could have established another two or three stars along the way without hurting the "heel territory" vibe, which I think was ultimately a mistake to spring very suddenly on a fanbase that had been accustomed to the babyface territory for 30+ years at that point.

    EDIT: I think that Triple H always seemed to make Jeff Hardy look better than he was. Even Goldberg, I think H did a good job of hiding many of his deficiencies. I would even say that he did a good job making RVD look like more of a threat on top than just the stiff flippy guy everyone likes who is over. In the end, not giving RVD at least a short run was the wrong call, in my opinion.

  12. #12
    Here's the problem; inexperience doesn't explain why Kane was presented as a necrophiliac or why Booker T was presented like a dork after Triple H was presented as, at best, racially insensitive during that feud. That bullshit was about intentionally trying to cool people off. You can maybe defend the RVD and Kevin Nash stuff as inexperience (although how one can explain why Kevin Nash, coming off two straight injuries and being past his prime, got several shots at the title aside from the fact that he was Hunter's best bud is beyond me) or him trying and not getting old school NWA booking but come on. Some of that wasn't just inexperience or the works. Kane was really over in the fall of 2002 coming back from injury, Booker was really over around Wrestlemania time and Triple H did everything he could to kill their momentum. There is no excuse for Katie Vick or that bullshit angle with Booker. None.

    I do agree that revisionist history has both helped and hurt Triple H though. Aside from his legendary match with Shawn Michaels at Summerslam 2002 (which was largely all about Michaels unbelievable return) and the triple threat at Wrestlemania 20, the only matches of H's that are worth anything (at least to me) are the Bryan match at Wrestlemania 30 and the Rousey match from this past Mania; he is vastly overrated in my book as a worker and a draw past Summer of 2002. That doesn't change that he was excellent in my book from 98-02 and was the best heel WWE had right up until he tore his quad. I feel sometimes people praise him too much because they think he was always the 98-02 guy or kill him because they think he was always the reign of terror guy. The reality is Triple H is a dude with many layers; aren't we all?

  13. #13
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    Here's the problem; inexperience doesn't explain why Kane was presented as a necrophiliac or why Booker T was presented like a dork after Triple H was presented as, at best, racially insensitive during that feud. That bullshit was about intentionally trying to cool people off.
    I don't think that Booker was him intentionally trying to kill the guy. I don't believe that there was ever a plan to put the belt on Booker T, and I believe that the racially insensitive stuff was intended to get heat on Triple H and nothing more (and I think that it was in poor taste). But Booker was never getting that belt and Triple H didn't go out of his way to kill him. I think that they had about an 18 minute match in the middle of the card, that finish was exactly what Vince wanted it to be, and that perhaps if they'd had five more minutes and were higher up the card it would have been different.

    When it comes to the Kane stuff, I am willing to believe Bruce Prichard. Apparently, he and Triple H wanted to play the funeral parlour segment over the top and campy so as not to completely murder Kane and make a downright offensive angle, but Vince made them play it completely straight and then pushed on that side of things. You can have the boss's ear, but as has been my experience in wrestling, you have to pick your battles or you're going to have a nervous breakdown.

    It doesn't help that the whole angle was doomed. From the trunk popping open after Kane locked Triple H in there and sped off to Vince forcing their hand on that notorious segment. I think that 2002 Kane was, as he was so many times later, a big guy they put your fairly fresh Champion with as a put over guy. Nothing more, nothing less and not going to be the World Champion.

    Hindsight being what it is, I would have preferred to see the Kane and RVD matches flip flopped with Triple H beating Kane convincingly in September and RVD winning the belt in October. Then Triple H can win it back in the Chamber, he and HBK are tied 1-1 and can still have their three stages of hell match and you can scrap the Booker T WreslteMania match entirely in favour of spending November through February booking RVD strong and doing the match at Mania. Triple H can still win but you have a more over story for the match at least.

    I do agree that revisionist history has both helped and hurt Triple H though. Aside from his legendary match with Shawn Michaels at Summerslam 2002 (which was largely all about Michaels unbelievable return) and the triple threat at Wrestlemania 20, the only matches of H's that are worth anything (at least to me) are the Bryan match at Wrestlemania 30 and the Rousey match from this past Mania; he is vastly overrated in my book as a worker and a draw past Summer of 2002. That doesn't change that he was excellent in my book from 98-02 and was the best heel WWE had right up until he tore his quad. I feel sometimes people praise him too much because they think he was always the 98-02 guy or kill him because they think he was always the reign of terror guy. The reality is Triple H is a dude with many layers; aren't we all?
    I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on him only having four great matches, but yeah. I think you're probably right, that some people underrate him because of the 02-04 period, and maybe I overrate him a bit because of his 98-01 period. End of the day, Triple H is to me what Ric Flair was to Triple H -- the wrestler that I always wished I could be.

  14. #14
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    Aside from his legendary match with Shawn Michaels at Summerslam 2002 (which was largely all about Michaels unbelievable return) and the triple threat at Wrestlemania 20, the only matches of H's that are worth anything (at least to me) are the Bryan match at Wrestlemania 30 and the Rousey match from this past Mania
    I'm guessing this is specifically post injury? I feel like you'd at the very least have to give him Foley and some of the Austin stuff, pre-injury.

  15. #15
    32B apparently SirSam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    411
    I know you guys are talking about wrestlers specifically but how about the Attitude Era in general? No doubt it is possibly the most popular period for the WWE perhaps ever but it being held up as some sort of bastion of greatness seems to be quite misguided. There is a lot of good, particularly in the main event but there is a lot of crap, story and character wise, and the match quality really suffered from the brawl heavy style that the era popularised.

  16. #16
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    31
    That's completely true. I'd expand that to include ECW as a whole.

    I've gone back and watched a number of ECW PPVs and what I see is a more modern, athletic style from a lot of people that's completely rife with botches and fuck-ups. Credit where it's due, those botches are because guys are innovating and literally trying stuff as they go along some of which was a little above their athletic skill level at the time.

    But the hardcore stuff feels terrible to watch in 2018, a lot of the more athletic stuff come off like the worst of the worst of the no-sell indyriffic stuff today (The Eliminators vs Dudleys from Barely Legal is some spot fest hot garbage) and the no rules environment lead to a lot of stuff not meaning much. Brawling on the floor loses a lot of meaning when there are no countouts or DQ's and it's just par for the course.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    135
    Any hardcore wrestling from that period, I think, is a bit terrible. Attitude, ECW, or otherwise. I think WWE like to play big about the Attitude Era because they a) won, and b) created stars that have continued to be stars after it.

    On HBK, Sam, I think in the same sort of terms of Taker with him whereby his early career might be retconned slightly in favour of his latter (post-injury) career. Obviously not to the same extent as Taker, where his early matches were poor - most certainly, HBK showed he was a heck of a wrestler in that time period, but I think if you reached in and dug out a top 15 of Michaels' matches you'd probably have 10 or more from 2002 onwards, and I wouldn't be surprised that if you expand that out to a 25 or 30 you don't gain many pre-injury matches.

  18. #18
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    711
    I think for stuff like the Attitude Era and ECW, it's actually the opposite kind of thing. That stuff was loved at the time, it was frankly adored, so if anything the revised history is that it wasn't as good as people say it was. I do think people used rose colored glasses on that period to a point but there was an energy that was present at the time that was real. To me that's different than something which was lukewarm at the time and then later revised to be thought of as amazing at a later date.

  19. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4
    For me, Lita. The way you hear sometimes, especially from WWE, she was one of the greatest female wrestlers ever. Reality is that she was a very sloppy and average ring worker. In mitigation she did have a good character in her early days and her later work with Edge was phenomenal. As a wrestler however she was not good at all.

  20. #20
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    711
    I can see this to some extent, but I also think some people tend to forget or downplay just how unbelievably freakin' popular she was. And sure, she was sloppy, but she did do a LOT of stuff that few, if any, women in the US were doing at the time.

  21. #21
    32B apparently SirSam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    411
    The "You've still got it" chants at the rumble after she nearly landed on her head out of a moonsault were a bit patronising.

  22. #22
    Super Moderator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    682
    But somewhere you know that Ivory, Jackie and Molly were all smiling knowingly.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  23. #23
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by SirSam View Post
    The "You've still got it" chants at the rumble after she nearly landed on her head out of a moonsault were a bit patronising.
    It seemed appropriate, that was Lita's style from the beginning so yes, she did still have the same thing she had before!

Posting Permissions

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