This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.

This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
rec.food.recipes, rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and
rec.food.veg.cooking, with followups set to news.groups. All
discussion regarding this proposal should take place in news.groups.

Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for
many years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with
a fair amount of regularity. Traditionally, rec.food.cooking had
been an amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split
never seemed to be justified.

However, in recent years the noise level and number of inappropriate
posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually
did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames. I
feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus
that it once had.

Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:

rec.food.cooking.misc
rec.food.cooking.cookware
rec.food.cooking.recipes
rec.food.cooking.books
rec.food.cooking.discuss

Charters:

rec.food.cooking.misc (unmoderated) What rfc used to be and should
be. For general cooking discussion. This newsgroup will replace
rec.food.cooking.

rec.food.cooking.cookware (unmoderated) Bread machines, microwaves,
crockpots, knives, cutting boards, glass-top stoves, barbecues, cast
iron, woks, Calphalon, aluminum, dehydrators, pasta makers, rice
cookers, etc.

rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated) Recipes and requests. Before
you say that this is redundant with rec.food.recipes, from moderating
rec.food.recipes, I've discovered that crossposting between
rec.food.cooking and rec.food.recipes is virtually non-existent.
Recipe management software discussion should go in here as well.

rec.food.cooking.books (unmoderated) Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv
shows.

rec.food.cooking.discuss (unmoderated) For all the spam and tripe
that currently plagues the group. For flames, rumors, controversial
topics (such as food poisoning), the $250 cookie, and those threads
that bear marginal relevance that seem to go on forever like, "What
did you have for dinner last night?" "What is your favorite fast
food restaurant?" "What is your least favorite fast food
restaurant?" Etc, etc.

Discussion will run for a minimum of 21 days. The newsgroups in this
proposal are subject to change, and if major changes are necessary,
the discussion period may be extended an additional 7 days.

A Call for Votes (CFV) will be posted after the end of the discussion
period. The vote will be run by a neutral third party.

This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines set in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup". Please
refer to this document if you have questions about the process.

On 11/30/2017 12:18 AM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
> This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
> rec.food.recipes, rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and
> rec.food.veg.cooking, with followups set to news.groups. All
> discussion regarding this proposal should take place in news.groups.
>
> Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for
> many years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with
> a fair amount of regularity. Traditionally, rec.food.cooking had
> been an amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split
> never seemed to be justified.
>
> However, in recent years the noise level and number of inappropriate
> posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually
> did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames. I
> feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus
> that it once had.
>
> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>
> rec.food.cooking.misc
> rec.food.cooking.cookware
> rec.food.cooking.recipes
> rec.food.cooking.books
> rec.food.cooking.discuss
>
>
Â* IMO this will only give the trolls four more places to harass and
crosspost their trash . If you think it's bad here , check out
rec.crafts.metalworking or alt.survival . At least here we know pretty
much who is trolling - they don't seem to morph their info to avoid
killfiles - and it's pretty easy to filter them .

Â* --

Â* Snag

I agree totally that a split will accomplish nothing positive. Just look at the record for
Red.food.recipes and its subgroups....none have any traffic to speak of related to the
group name, and a few, including RFR itself, have totally died.

Forget any split. It won't accomplish what you want.

N.

> On 11/30/2017 12:18 AM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
>> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.

>> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:

>> rec.food.cooking.misc
>> rec.food.cooking.cookware
>> rec.food.cooking.recipes
>> rec.food.cooking.books
>> rec.food.cooking.discuss

WTF are "Usenet Support Personnel"!? Anyone, here? Ask 'em! I
didn't.

We've been a contentious group, forever. Usta have English trolls
come in about once per year. We jes snubbed 'em. They'd leave,
eventually. Same with 'crossposters'. It's why they invented
'killfiles' or whatever yer particular agent calls 'em.

Personally, I'm agin it!!

nb

On 11/30/2017 9:52 AM, notbob wrote:
>> On 11/30/2017 12:18 AM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
>>> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
>>> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>
>
> WTF are "Usenet Support Personnel"!? Anyone, here? Ask 'em! I
> didn't.
>
It's bullshit.

Jill

On 11/29/2017 11:18 PM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.

Sqwerty you assbag, that RFC is 2 decades old!

Grow up, woman stalker.

On 11/30/2017 6:10 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 12:18 AM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
>> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>>
>> This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
>> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
>> rec.food.recipes, rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and
>> rec.food.veg.cooking, with followups set to news.groups.Â* All
>> discussion regarding this proposal should take place in news.groups.
>>
>> Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for
>> many years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with
>> a fair amount of regularity.Â* Traditionally, rec.food.cooking had
>> been an amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split
>> never seemed to be justified.
>>
>> However, in recent years the noise level and number of inappropriate
>> posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually
>> did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames.Â* I
>> feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus
>> that it once had.
>>
>> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>>
>> rec.food.cooking.misc
>> rec.food.cooking.cookware
>> rec.food.cooking.recipes
>> rec.food.cooking.books
>> rec.food.cooking.discuss
>>
>>
> Â* IMO this will only give the trolls four more places to harass and
> crosspost their trash . If you think it's bad here , check out
> rec.crafts.metalworking or alt.survival . At least here we know pretty
> much who is trolling - they don't seem to morph their info to avoid
> killfiles - and it's pretty easy to filter them .
>
> Â* --
>
> Â* Snag
>

Dude, that's a 2 decade old RFC - Sqwerty is just recycling old news
with no url.

On 11/30/2017 7:42 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> I agree totally that a split will accomplish nothing positive. Just look at the record for
> Red.food.recipes and its subgroups....none have any traffic to speak of related to the
> group name, and a few, including RFR itself, have totally died.
>
> Forget any split. It won't accomplish what you want.
>
> N.
>
This so-called split is a 23 year old repost.

Sqwerty just copied and pasted it with no url.

On 11/30/2017 7:52 AM, notbob wrote:
>> On 11/30/2017 12:18 AM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
>>> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
>>> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>
>>> rec.food.cooking.misc
>>> rec.food.cooking.cookware
>>> rec.food.cooking.recipes
>>> rec.food.cooking.books
>>> rec.food.cooking.discuss
>
> WTF are "Usenet Support Personnel"!? Anyone, here? Ask 'em! I
> didn't.
>
> We've been a contentious group, forever. Usta have English trolls
> come in about once per year. We jes snubbed 'em. They'd leave,
> eventually. Same with 'crossposters'. It's why they invented
> 'killfiles' or whatever yer particular agent calls 'em.
>
> Personally, I'm agin it!!
>
> nb
>
>
>


It's a 23 year old repost, Sqwerty never shared that with you.

Googoo is your friend.

On 11/30/2017 8:13 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 9:52 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2017 12:18 AM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
>>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
>>>> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>>
>>>> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>>
>>
>> WTF are "Usenet Support Personnel"!?Â* Anyone, here?Â* Ask 'em!Â* I
>> didn't.
>>
> It's bullshit.
>
> Jill

Yes...aka SQWERTY!

On 11/30/2017 1:18 AM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
> This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
> rec.food.recipes, rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and
> rec.food.veg.cooking, with followups set to news.groups. All
> discussion regarding this proposal should take place in news.groups.
>
> Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for
> many years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with
> a fair amount of regularity. Traditionally, rec.food.cooking had
> been an amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split
> never seemed to be justified.
>
> However, in recent years the noise level and number of inappropriate
> posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually
> did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames. I
> feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus
> that it once had.
>
> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>
> rec.food.cooking.misc
> rec.food.cooking.cookware
> rec.food.cooking.recipes
> rec.food.cooking.books
> rec.food.cooking.discuss
>
All Newsgroups have deteriorated, but a split will just destroy what
little is left. I'm not going to hunt through 5 different groups.

On 11/30/2017 9:40 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 1:18 AM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
>> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>>
>> This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
>> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
>> rec.food.recipes, rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and
>> rec.food.veg.cooking, with followups set to news.groups.Â* All
>> discussion regarding this proposal should take place in news.groups.
>>
>> Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for
>> many years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with
>> a fair amount of regularity.Â* Traditionally, rec.food.cooking had
>> been an amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split
>> never seemed to be justified.
>>
>> However, in recent years the noise level and number of inappropriate
>> posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually
>> did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames.Â* I
>> feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus
>> that it once had.
>>
>> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>>
>> rec.food.cooking.misc
>> rec.food.cooking.cookware
>> rec.food.cooking.recipes
>> rec.food.cooking.books
>> rec.food.cooking.discuss
>>
> All Newsgroups have deteriorated, but a split will just destroy what
> little is left.Â* I'm not going to hunt through 5 different groups.


OK come on now Sqwerty is reposting, sans url, an ancient RFC from 1994!

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:40:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>>
>> rec.food.cooking.misc
>> rec.food.cooking.cookware
>> rec.food.cooking.recipes
>> rec.food.cooking.books
>> rec.food.cooking.discuss
>>
>All Newsgroups have deteriorated, but a split will just destroy what
>little is left. I'm not going to hunt through 5 different groups.

That's it. Usenet is losing users. It's dinosaur stuff.

On 11/30/2017 11:43 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:40:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>>>
>>> rec.food.cooking.misc
>>> rec.food.cooking.cookware
>>> rec.food.cooking.recipes
>>> rec.food.cooking.books
>>> rec.food.cooking.discuss
>>>
>> All Newsgroups have deteriorated, but a split will just destroy what
>> little is left. I'm not going to hunt through 5 different groups.
>
> That's it. Usenet is losing users. It's dinosaur stuff.
>

That post was from 1994!

Grow a brain, troll.

"Terry Coombs" > wrote in message
news
> On 11/30/2017 12:18 AM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
>> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>>
>> This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
>> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
>> rec.food.recipes, rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and
>> rec.food.veg.cooking, with followups set to news.groups. All
>> discussion regarding this proposal should take place in news.groups.
>>
>> Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for
>> many years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with
>> a fair amount of regularity. Traditionally, rec.food.cooking had
>> been an amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split
>> never seemed to be justified.
>>
>> However, in recent years the noise level and number of inappropriate
>> posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually
>> did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames. I
>> feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus
>> that it once had.
>>
>> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>>
>> rec.food.cooking.misc
>> rec.food.cooking.cookware
>> rec.food.cooking.recipes
>> rec.food.cooking.books
>> rec.food.cooking.discuss
>>
>>
> IMO this will only give the trolls four more places to harass and
> crosspost their trash . If you think it's bad here , check out
> rec.crafts.metalworking or alt.survival . At least here we know pretty
> much who is trolling - they don't seem to morph their info to avoid
> killfiles - and it's pretty easy to filter them .

Agree.

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:17:47 PM UTC-10, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>
> This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
> rec.food.recipes, rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and
> rec.food.veg.cooking, with followups set to news.groups. All
> discussion regarding this proposal should take place in news.groups.
>
> Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for
> many years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with
> a fair amount of regularity. Traditionally, rec.food.cooking had
> been an amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split
> never seemed to be justified.
>
> However, in recent years the noise level and number of inappropriate
> posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually
> did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames. I
> feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus
> that it once had.
>
> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>
> rec.food.cooking.misc
> rec.food.cooking.cookware
> rec.food.cooking.recipes
> rec.food.cooking.books
> rec.food.cooking.discuss
>
> Charters:
>
> rec.food.cooking.misc (unmoderated) What rfc used to be and should
> be. For general cooking discussion. This newsgroup will replace
> rec.food.cooking.
>
> rec.food.cooking.cookware (unmoderated) Bread machines, microwaves,
> crockpots, knives, cutting boards, glass-top stoves, barbecues, cast
> iron, woks, Calphalon, aluminum, dehydrators, pasta makers, rice
> cookers, etc.
>
> rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated) Recipes and requests. Before
> you say that this is redundant with rec.food.recipes, from moderating
> rec.food.recipes, I've discovered that crossposting between
> rec.food.cooking and rec.food.recipes is virtually non-existent.
> Recipe management software discussion should go in here as well.
>
> rec.food.cooking.books (unmoderated) Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv
> shows.
>
> rec.food.cooking.discuss (unmoderated) For all the spam and tripe
> that currently plagues the group. For flames, rumors, controversial
> topics (such as food poisoning), the $250 cookie, and those threads
> that bear marginal relevance that seem to go on forever like, "What
> did you have for dinner last night?" "What is your favorite fast
> food restaurant?" "What is your least favorite fast food
> restaurant?" Etc, etc.
>
> Discussion will run for a minimum of 21 days. The newsgroups in this
> proposal are subject to change, and if major changes are necessary,
> the discussion period may be extended an additional 7 days.
>
> A Call for Votes (CFV) will be posted after the end of the discussion
> period. The vote will be run by a neutral third party.
>
> This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation
> guidelines set in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup". Please
> refer to this document if you have questions about the process.

Thank God for Google Groups, eh?

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:13:36 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:17:47 PM UTC-10, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization
>> of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.
>>
>> This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
>> rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic,
>> rec.food.recipes, rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and
>> rec.food.veg.cooking, with followups set to news.groups. All
>> discussion regarding this proposal should take place in news.groups.
>>
>> Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for
>> many years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with
>> a fair amount of regularity. Traditionally, rec.food.cooking had
>> been an amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split
>> never seemed to be justified.
>>
>> However, in recent years the noise level and number of inappropriate
>> posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually
>> did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames. I
>> feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus
>> that it once had.
>>
>> Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups:
>>
>> rec.food.cooking.misc
>> rec.food.cooking.cookware
>> rec.food.cooking.recipes
>> rec.food.cooking.books
>> rec.food.cooking.discuss
>>
>> Charters:
>>
>> rec.food.cooking.misc (unmoderated) What rfc used to be and should
>> be. For general cooking discussion. This newsgroup will replace
>> rec.food.cooking.
>>
>> rec.food.cooking.cookware (unmoderated) Bread machines, microwaves,
>> crockpots, knives, cutting boards, glass-top stoves, barbecues, cast
>> iron, woks, Calphalon, aluminum, dehydrators, pasta makers, rice
>> cookers, etc.
>>
>> rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated) Recipes and requests. Before
>> you say that this is redundant with rec.food.recipes, from moderating
>> rec.food.recipes, I've discovered that crossposting between
>> rec.food.cooking and rec.food.recipes is virtually non-existent.
>> Recipe management software discussion should go in here as well.
>>
>> rec.food.cooking.books (unmoderated) Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv
>> shows.
>>
>> rec.food.cooking.discuss (unmoderated) For all the spam and tripe
>> that currently plagues the group. For flames, rumors, controversial
>> topics (such as food poisoning), the $250 cookie, and those threads
>> that bear marginal relevance that seem to go on forever like, "What
>> did you have for dinner last night?" "What is your favorite fast
>> food restaurant?" "What is your least favorite fast food
>> restaurant?" Etc, etc.
>>
>> Discussion will run for a minimum of 21 days. The newsgroups in this
>> proposal are subject to change, and if major changes are necessary,
>> the discussion period may be extended an additional 7 days.
>>
>> A Call for Votes (CFV) will be posted after the end of the discussion
>> period. The vote will be run by a neutral third party.
>>
>> This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation
>> guidelines set in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup". Please
>> refer to this document if you have questions about the process.
>
>Thank God for Google Groups, eh?

Yes, Google Groups makes Usenet inclusive. Retards can use newsgroups
too. Thanks, Google!

On 11/30/2017 4:13 PM, dsi1 wrote:

>> A Call for Votes (CFV) will be posted after the end of the discussion
>> period. The vote will be run by a neutral third party.
>>
>> This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation
>> guidelines set in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup". Please
>> refer to this document if you have questions about the process.
>
> Thank God for Google Groups, eh?
>

What man forgets GooGoo does not.

That can't be beneficial across the board.

On 11/30/2017 4:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation
>>> guidelines set in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup". Please
>>> refer to this document if you have questions about the process.
>> Thank God for Google Groups, eh?
> Yes, Google Groups makes Usenet inclusive. Retards can use newsgroups
> too. Thanks, Google!

This RFD is 23 years old, you miserable, shit-stirring, Auztarded troll.

Go **** yourself.

I hate to admit I didn't look at the date. My bad.

N.

On 12/1/2017 2:30 PM, Nancy2 wrote:
> I hate to admit I didn't look at the date. My bad.
>
> N.
>

An easy mistake, but one Sqwerty planned for you _all_ to make...

He's like that ya know.

CALL OR TEXT or watsapp ....+17546663823

Wickr id............budsman35

Email :

hello we are leading suppliers of pharmaceutical product meds online we operate on daily and retails basis and very reliable and our product are 100% top quality am ready to supply on large and smaller orders and i am looking in building a strong business relationship with potential client around the world i do world wide delivery and delivery is guarantee.

see price list offer and pm me or you can get me on whatsapp


FOR ZOLPICLONE 7.5MG SMALLER ORDER

250 tabs..........................‎£90
500 tabs...........................‎£150
1000 tabs.........................‎£250
2500 tabs.........................£350
5000 tabs.........................£500
7500 tabs.........................£700
10000 tabs........................£850
15000 tabs........................£1200
25000 tabs........................£1500


FOR DIAZEPAM SHALINA BRAND

diazepam 10mg 500pills £100
diazepam 10mg 300pills £70
diazepam 10mg 1000pills £150
diazepam 10mg 5000pills £350
diazepam 5mg 1000pills £120
diazepam 5mg 5000pills £300
diazepam 5mg 10000pills £500
diazepam 10mg 10000pills £700


FOR ROCHE DIAZEPAMS 10MG SMALLER ORDER

250 tabs..........................‎£90
500 tabs...........................‎£150
1000 tabs.........................‎£250
2500 tabs.........................£350
5000 tabs.........................£500
7500 tabs.........................£700
10000 tabs........................£850
15000 tabs........................£1200
25000 tabs........................£1500

TEVA 10MG DIAZEPAMS SMALLER ORDER

250 tabs...........................‎£90
500 tabs...........................‎£150
1000 tabs.........................‎£250
2500 tabs.........................£350
5000 tabs.........................£500
7500 tabs.........................£700
10000 tabs.......................£850
15000 tabs.......................£1200
25000 tabs.......................£1500
...

ketamine £20 each vial/1g

ketamine powder each gram £25


FOR TRAMADOL APPLE FLAVOUR

tramadol 50mg 250pills £80
tramadol 100mg 300pills £90
tramadol 225mg 300pills £120
tramadol 50mg 500pills £130
tramadol 100mg 500pills £140
tramadol 250mg 500pills £150
tramadol 50mg 1000pills £200
tramadol 100mg 1000pills £220
tramadol 250mg 1000pills £250

FOR TRAMADOL BULK ORDER

tramadol 50mg 5000pills £450
tramadol 100mg 5000pills £550
tramadol 250mg 5000pills £700

i also have my delivery records all around the worlds and i providedated pictures with buyers name and my name CALL US OR TEXT ....+237677087028 email for detailsi supply more than the quantity listed,i give additional discount to more larger ordersi look forward in doing great business with reliable buyersthanks email for detailsbuds man.


CALL OR TEXT or watsapp ....+17546663823

Wickr id............budsman35

Email :

On 12/1/2017 4:30 PM, Nancy2 wrote:
> I hate to admit I didn't look at the date. My bad.
>
> N.
>
Are you too stupid to quote the text you're responding to, Goo Goo
posting N-tard??