Reality Steve

The Bachelor 15 - Brad

The Bachelor Recap – 2/7/11

-The group date has Emily, Ashley, Jackie, Alli, Michelle, and Shawntel rappelling down a waterfall. At least Brad decided to put away the Mervyns polos for a day. Although, did he have on crocs? Who does he think he is, Brett Favre? Who’s the lucky recipient of his cell phone pics if that’s the case? Oh wait, we know the answer to that already: Chantal. Why I’m focused on fashion this episode I have no idea. Must be the effect Natalie Getz is having on me. Anyway, all the girls seem to be wearing a pullover raincoat since they’re about to get drenched, except Michelle and Emily. Emily had on a hooded pullover that looked she was going for an afternoon walk, and Michelle had on workout gear like she was going for a run on the treadmill. Someone might want to put a jacket on these two. Whatever. Not my concern anymore. However, once again, Michelle is pouting big time. “Brad and I made a pact. We’d never rappel down anything with anyone else.” Yes, because pacts on this show really mean a whole hell of a lot. Michelle, have you been sending me emails under assumed names for my Friday “Reader Emails”? Don’t you know these dates are planned way in advance and Brad has zero say in what happens in them? It’s not his fault he has to go rappelling with other women, it’s the producers. At least he did the noble thing and let the other five go down by themselves scared sh**less while he waited for you. Isn’t that good enough? Who am I kidding? Of course it isn’t.

-Michelle: “It really annoys me to see Brad be nice to the other girls.” Really? I couldn’t tell. You seem so level headed about the whole process and how things work, I totally thought you were enjoying yourself. I must’ve been mistaken. Jackie is the most scared of any of the women and is petrified. But of course Brad being Mr. Gentleman Who Keeps His Pact with Crazy Women, decides, “Yeah, take off Jackie. You’ll be fine. If you split your head open, just know I didn’t go down with you because I felt Michelle and I’s pact was just too strong. And since your ass is being shipped home tonight, I really didn’t care.” So Jackie rappels down the waterfall about as confidently as a barely legal coed approaches a date with Ben Roethlisberger. Jackie’s mortified, but at least Brad kept his pact, so I’m sure that makes him feel much, much better and makes Jackie want to kick him in the nuts. Jackie: “Why didn’t he rappel down with me?” Well, that’s easy Jackie. Cuz Michelle is hot and practiced her S&M tricks on him in the Vegas hotel room last week, that’s why. And although your chest area seems to be growing on a week to week basis, it just wasn’t enough for Brad to break his pact. Sorry, sweetcakes. Hope you enjoyed your parting gifts from Costa Rica.

-So after nothing but Michelle drama during the rappelling portion of the date, time to go back to the hot springs and relax for some bikini time and, well, more drama. Michelle is already sauced and saying things like “Watching Brad take his shirt off makes you want to like go home and (expletive). I have no idea what she said since they bleeped it out, but I’m guessing it rhymed with “muck fiz tick”. Just a guess. The chick was bombed so even she probably doesn’t remember what she said. Although, I’m sure it was well thought and purposely done for more camera time. And oh yeah, verrrrrrrry classy. Exactly what acting roles is she trying to land with her performance on the show this season? Porn? I seriously think this show needs more drunk women giving their ITM’s. Not that we don’t get plenty as it is, but every time there’s a pool party, and women are in bikini’s, we need to see completely sh**faced honies talking into the camera. The entertainment value is through the roof. You know why? Because that’s how women act when they’re drunk. Who wants to see them all prim and proper saying the same lines we hear every season about a “connection” and “journey” blah blah blah. We need more honesty, and we know alcohol is the way to get it. Make it happen.

-Brad pulls Jackie aside for some alone time and she puts him on the spot for ditching her on the rappel down the waterfall. Jackie: “You know, it would’ve been great if you went down with me.” With me. She said with me. Although, I’m sure she meant to say the other thing. Brad’s response was classic since, well, he didn’t have one. “Uhhhhh, yeah it could’ve been.” Ha ha. Caught with his pants down. I think at that point Jackie should’ve gotten out of the jacuzzi, walked up to her room, and started packing her stuff. You know why me giving spoilers away a month in advance doesn’t take away from the show? Because it’s so obvious while you’re watching who’s going home anyway. I mean, really? When it was down to Jackie or Michelle at the rose ceremony, not even knowing the spoilers, you thought there was a chance in hell he’d keep Jackie over Michelle? Hence the reason why I don’t think the show cares about what I do. Privately, at least. It’s not hard to figure out who’s going home every week just by watching people’s edits and who gets more camera time than others. Even Chris Harrison is starting to warm up to that fact. Did you hear what his answer was when someone asked him about spoilers during his conference call two weeks ago? Here’s the full question and answer from, but I thought this part of the answer was interesting:

“…So things in this day and age things are going to get out, to a certain degree…So we’ve embraced it to a certain degree but I will say, be careful what you read and what you follow…You have to see it and feel it and believe it for yourself because it’s that emotional and I think it’s that compelling. So in some ways no matter what you read about what’s going to happen this weekend, it definitely won’t do justice until you see it.”

Maybe for the first time in a while, Chris and I agree on something. If me giving spoilers stopped people from watching the show, they wouldn’t get 9 million viewers a week. Sure, it ruins who’s going home every week, but people are still going to tune in because they are sheep and are following the love story this show is trying to create. All I’m doing is filling in a few tidbits behind the scenes and on screen that you’ll see. On the scandals (like Rozlyn, and Rego, and Frank the last few seasons), I’m just giving you more info than what the show is giving you and having you make up your own mind from there. So yeah, since the show pretty much knows I’m gonna give spoilers, you can see their stance is now, “Well yeah, there’s stuff out there, but you still need to see it play out”. And people do. Notice how they never say that I’m wrong or don’t know what I’m talking about? The minute the spoilers came out, they knew I was right because it’s already been filmed. There’s nothing they can say other than the stuff Chris is saying now, which is probably their best bet. People are going to watch whether I spoil or not. Doesn’t matter to me. I’m just here to help people see things that probably 95% of their audience has no clue about.

-Emily is up next now in the jacuzzi and she starts talking about “guys that I really like I run away from them. I sabotage a lot of my relationships”. Yeah, that’s something I’m sure Brad wants to hear at this point. For a woman that so many people want to like, she doesn’t come off as the most engaging, friendly, open-to-the-process person as you’d think. But if you think that will prevent them from casting her as the “Bachelorette”, you’re sorely mistaken. I cannot stress this enough: It’s Emily’s gig if she wants it. Period. They will not choose to go in another direction because they don’t think the audience will like her, or that maybe they don’t think she’d carry a show, etc. The only way Emily is not the “Bachelorette” next season is if she chooses not to be, which I don’t see happening. She wants to be the “Bachelorette”, has wanted to be the “Bachelorette” from the very beginning, and this season was nothing more than setting up her storyline for that happen.

-Michelle is up next to use her seduction skills on him once again, however, something back at the resort interrupts them. It’s Alli screaming like she’s a character in “Scream 4” getting bludgeoned to death by a machete. Was she the victim of a violent break in? Did she see a dead body? Was there blood dripping from unknown places? Oh no. None of that. She saw a bug on the table. Was it small? No. But it’s not like it had arms and was going to eat her. Chantal picked it up with a magazine and practically threw it at her and Alli screamed like I’ve never heard anyone scream on this show before as she threw her full glass of Coke to the ground shattering it. I mean, I understand women being afraid of bugs. Had an ex who was petrified of them. Not to mention my sister who runs around the house if there’s a spider the size of a dime in the vicinity. However, Alli was juuuuuust a bit overly dramatic don’t you think? If it’s a tarantula and its crawling on you while you’re sleeping in Hawaii like Bobby Brady, then yeah, freak out. But c’mon, that was ridiculous. Basically Alli is a giant p***y and that’s why Brad sent her home. Well, at least I hope it is.

-After those two are interrupted by Alli’s screams of terror, they get back to the matter at hand, which is Michelle trying to find out why Brad even keeps any of the other girls around, especially Chantal. Brad doesn’t understand where this is coming from, because as far as he’s concerned, he’s bought Chantal’s act hook, line, and sinker so far. He’s bought every line she’s fed him, he’s loving hearing everything she wants him to hear, and he’s beginning to think Michelle is nuts. Brad: “You really have to trust I’m making the right decisions.” Yeah, sure. I’m sure that’ll sit well with her. Nevertheless, they make out. Because we all know any good argument ends with a tongue wrestling match. However, Brad is just not feeling the women on this date. On the emotional level I’m talking about. I’m sure he felt all of them already at some point under the water. Michelle just put him in a bad mood so he’s gonna go pout in the corner and take his rose with him. Brad: “I need to take time. Thank you for an incredible day. Hope you understand.” Ha ha. That couldn’t have been more insincere if he tried. If you wanted to attach one of those emoticons on your phone to the end of that sentence, it’d be the one with the angry red face and the eyebrows frowning. He is not happy and will now go back to his room and have to rub one out to relieve the tension. Always works.

Page 2 of 512345


  1. mamak

    February 10, 2011 at 11:06 AM

    OMGosh, now I remember why I stopped reading your blog during work hours, I can’t stop LMAO!!!! Your are so funny and I am at my desk just laughing away. You really do entertain us Steve! Thank you!

  2. Voiceofreason

    February 10, 2011 at 1:47 PM

    To all of you hailing the theory, yes “theory,” which means unproven, of evolution and the supposed science behind it, please consider the following – if we all evolved from monkeys – all six billion of us – then please tell me why we can’t find one SINGLE fossil that came from a half-man/half-ape. Over the course of history there have been a paltry few claims of such a finding, but every single one of them was proven to be a fraud (see the “Piltdown Man” – famous anthropolgical hoax which was used as hard proof of evolution for 40 years before being exposed as a forgery) or as being a mistake.

    If you want to take the time to read the rest of my post, instead of blindly following after the evolutionary theory, you might find this interesting-

    The Oldest Tree
    A bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old—dated via tree rings. The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees.

    The Oldest Reef
    The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old—dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years.

    Even though both are less than 5,000 years old, they are the two oldest living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Why aren’t there older trees or more ancient reefs? With the evolutionist time line, surely something is closer in age to their “millions of years.”

    Evolution doesn’t fit the facts, does it?

    Earth’s Slowing Rotation
    Prevailing winds are caused by two phenomena. The sun’s heat causes north-south or south-north winds, depending on latitude. The rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west—clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise to the south. This Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed of the earth’s rotation: the greater the rotational speed, the greater the Coriolis effect. Due to these prevailing winds, the Sahara Desert is in the process of desertification, expanding approximately four miles per year. Calculations based upon the rate of the Sahara’s expansion show the desert to be 4,000 years old. This young age of the Sahara Desert fits quite well in the creationist time line, beginning its desertification process soon after the global Flood. The current slowing rate of the earth’s rotation, and its relationship with the Coriolis effect, allows for a variety of climates around the world without creating a menacing environment. Following the evolutionist time line over a period of millions of years, the Sahara Desert should have already expanded to its maximum size. However, since the earth’s rotational speed is decreasing measurably, the Coriolis effect would have been far greater millions of years ago, exacerbating the evolutionists’ difficulty explaining the Sahara Desert’s young age.

    In 1810, about one billion people lived on earth. In less than 200 years, the population hit six billion. This fits the biblical chronology perfectly as the current population started about 4,400 years ago with Noah and his family after the Flood. An evolutionary time line would require not only a nearly non-existent growth rate but also three trillion deceased humans within the last million years.1

    Declining Magnetic Field
    Studies over the past 140 years show a consistent decay rate in the earth’s magnetic field. At this rate, in as few as 25,000 years ago, the earth would have been unable to support life because of the heat from the electric current.

    Fast-Eroding Niagara Falls
    After Charles Lyell published his Principles of Geology in the 1830s, society began accepting the theory that the earth and mankind evolved from a previous lesser state. Lyell used Niagara Falls as one of his illustrations to promote uniformitarianism. He estimated that Niagara Falls was 10,000 years old. He did this to try to discredit the Bible. Skeptics like Lyell leave out one important factor in their calculations—a worldwide Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.

    Factoring a worldwide Flood into the equation, scientists arrive at a higher initial erosion rate for the 71?2 mile Niagara Gorge. Since an increase in the quantity of water is directly related to the rate of erosion, the great volume of water receding after the Flood could easily account for half of the erosion of Niagara Falls. Using the evolutionist time frame, Niagara Falls should have already eroded back into Lake Erie. The reason why Niagara Falls has not eroded farther over the “millions of years” of the earth’s existence continues to elude evolutionists. Science always seems to correspond with the creation time line while evolutionists struggle to make their assumptions and theories plausible.

    Salt in the Oceans
    The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

    Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist’s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels,the maximum possible age is 62 million years.

  3. SherryfromD

    February 10, 2011 at 2:15 PM

    Like some of the others noted above, I really, really hope the US magazine article about Laurel is not the scoop that Steve was referring to when he said something to the effect that we would know it when we heard it, it was coming and it was going to be like a train hitting and it would make everyone question how this show was real…or whatever he said. This story just doesn’t seem that big of a deal, so I hope there is more…

  4. SherryfromD

    February 10, 2011 at 2:17 PM

    And I’m going to second what AJ13 said. Did the person in the post right before mine REALLY just post all that science/evolution crap?? Who cares! Not what this blog is for.

  5. tamtam

    February 10, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    Re: US Magazine article
    1) Who proposes marriage via text?
    2) Who takes a texted marriage proposal seriously?

    Re: Your blog
    1) Hysterical as always! Well done! lol

  6. tinytotsmom

    February 10, 2011 at 5:55 PM

    @ Voice of Reason I LOVE YOU!!! You are awsome! Thank you so much for taking the time to post your comment. And to those that don’t like it you don’t have to read it, yes that isn’t what Steve’s blog was about but he also didn’t expect a bunch of people from the Church of Evolution to go all ape sh** (pun totally intended) and start feeling the need to ‘enlighten’ poor Mr. Reality Steve. Honestly, I don’t think he cares what any of us think about the subject, but if you feel the need to say things like “shame on you” as Shar-girl and others did than in the interest in actually providing something informative and interesting to read I thank ‘Voice of Reason’ for doing that. And to add, I laugh when people use carbon-dating as ‘evidence’ for evolution. Do you know that scientists found stalagmites on the Statue of Liberty that carbon-dated to be 10s of thousands of years old!? For those of you that are not history buffs. We haven’t had the Statue of Liberty around for that long…It is only 124 years old, so it can’t have 10 thousand year old stuff growing on it. I shouldn’t have to mention that but since so many of us graduated from the Public School System (myself included, but praise God I somehow managed to graduate without being completly uniformed)I guess I do.

  7. jennstinn

    February 10, 2011 at 6:28 PM

    I think you need a new handle name!

  8. Nobody

    February 11, 2011 at 3:00 AM


    Funny how you totally ignored the fact that dinosaurs once existed. We have proof they were here long before Jesus’ time. Its ok, though. Even the bible fails to mention that they existed, even though their bones are scattered all over the planet.

  9. Dianne

    February 11, 2011 at 6:11 AM

    Me thinks voiceofreason has wayyyyyyyy too much time on her/his hands. Was that post really necessary, voice? Can we all please get off of the “how old the earth is” kick and get BACK to what this site is all about? Thank you, thank you very much.

  10. Voiceofreason

    February 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM

    To Dianne – I expected people to say that, and deservedly so 🙂 I had no intention of coming to to give a dissertation on all things related to the creation of the universe (and, admittedly, my post was realllllly long – but I didn’t set there andtype it all out, I found much of the content from a science website. I wish I had that kind of time!). I just became a bit incensed by the multiple posters looking down their nose at RS’s estimation of the age of the cave and talking about evolution as if it was hard fact.

    To Nobody Says-
    I appreciate you bringing up this topic because you are right that it is an interesting issue. Here is some information I found that you might find helpful:

    Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this question [what happened to the dinosaurs]. Because of their belief that dinosaurs “ruled” the world for millions of years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved, they have had to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain this “mysterious” disappearance [note – this doesn’t even address the complete absence of any “evolving” dinosaur fossils – i.e. half-dino/half-alligator, which is what the evolutionists would say].

    When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction. The following is just a small list of theories:

    Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.

    It is obvious that evolutionists don’t know what happened and are grasping at straws. In a recent evolutionary book on dinosaurs, “A New Look At the Dinosaurs,” the author made the statement:

    Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists (Alan Charig, p. 150).
    But, one such explanation does exist. If you remove the evolutionary framework, get rid of the millions of years, and then take the Bible seriously, you will find an explanation that fits the facts and makes perfect sense:

    At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived. In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too. In fact, quite a number of animals become extinct each year. Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history (not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution).

  11. Voiceofreason

    February 11, 2011 at 12:31 PM

    Also – to Tinytotsmom – thanks!! I almost didn’t say anything at all because I just didn’t have the energy to try to fight this battle, but I figured it might be enlightening. And I’m so with you on carbon dating (that could be my next encyclopedia entry on here, hmmmm 😉

  12. Voiceofreason

    February 11, 2011 at 12:42 PM

    Also, we can debate back and forth all day long about the “science” supporting or disproving evolution/creationism. I will be the first to admit that I cannot definitely prove the story of creation. Just as I would expect any reasonable person to admit that you cannot definitely prove the theory of evolution. It really just boils down to one question – do you believe in an all-powerful God or not. If you do not, then there is really no basis for you to buy creationism. If you do, then you must also accept that God created everything (including the “laws of science,” which we then try to use to bind him), and had the capacity to create the earth as he pleased, which would include having the capacity to create things at an advanced age. For example, if you believe in the Bible, then you believe that Adam was created as a man – not an embryo. God also created full-grown trees and plants and animals. Thus, God could have also chosen to create canyons and rocks, and any number of things that were later in their life cycle. In that case, it is entirely possible the some of these things may in fact be “millions of years old” – just as Adam was x years “old” when he was created, these canyons could have also been 20 million years “old” when they were created. This can all be true and yet still coincide with a literal 7 day creation.

    But again, all of this is hocus pocus if you don’t first believe in an all-powerful God. If you do not, then I completely understand that you will tell me this is nonsense and a made up story. I accept that, though I pray that you would explore the basis for your beliefs. Both creationism and evolution involve an element of faith. I, for one, think it takes more faith to believe that the impossibly intricate world in which we live came from a primordial soup or a random explosion, than to believe that it was created by God.

    Yes, you may say I have too much time on my hands, but I think this is an important enough topic to spend my time on.

    Have a great weekend!

  13. scavanau

    February 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM

    To those of you who could do without the sexual inneuendo – that’s 90% of Steve’s blog. Why do you read it? Bring on the talk about boobs and hard-ons!

  14. jessica1

    February 13, 2011 at 12:18 AM


    I’m glad to learn you didn’t type all of that yourself – but please go back to the science site from which you appropriated that content and make sure you haven’t just committed a major copyright infringement. You can’t lift text or other authored material w/o payment or credit.

  15. cellardoor1116

    February 13, 2011 at 8:28 AM

    “So Jackie rappels down the waterfall about as confidently as a barely legal coed approaches a date with Ben Roethlisberger.”

    Steve, you got me. I just actually holler-laughed out loud.

    And as far as all of the people getting up in arms about his lack of knowledge about the earth’s geological chronology- um, this is a blog about THE BACHELOR. You should probably take this blog about as seriously as the show. And at least Steve has a leg up on the contestants, whom, Chris Harrison admitted in his blog, “were extremely excited to head to Costa Rica even though most of them had no idea exactly where it was, and most thought it was an island.”

  16. cellardoor1116

    February 13, 2011 at 8:32 AM

    p.s. During this episode more than any previous, my friend and I were both saying how differently he acts with Chantal than Emily. I totally agree with you- even if I hadn’t accidentally come across the spoilers back at the beginning, I think it’s painfully obvious that his “connection” (read: bonerability) with Chantal trumps his “connection” with anyone else. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional.

  17. MidwestGirl

    February 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM

    When he says -Um ok a 100 times a show, I wonder if he’s had a small stroke or trying to stall while the little voices in his ear piece tell him what to say next.

  18. Rikki-tikki-tavi

    February 13, 2011 at 10:32 PM

    Am I the only one who appreciated Britt’s humor — “Jackie may have soiled herself” — at the waterfall rappelling date?

    Alli’s beetle freakout scene seemed staged to me. 1st clue? The camera is focused on the bug before Alli & Chantal enter the room. Her explanation about bugs that crunch was likely filmed before this scene in response to a probably milder incident. So the producers figured they could get a good rise out of her if they enlisted the help of another girl. I bet they didn’t imagine it would be this good.

    I’ve only been watching since the Jason season and find that your spoilers about the show don’t make a lot of difference, so I agree about your points about that. Apart from watching the show, your blog is my only source of information about it. I have no interest in chasing the latest tabloid story. So your “spoilers” about the personal lives of the shows participants truly are spoilers especially for people that I see as quite likable as they are revealed on the show. Knowing the reality behind the reality show can detract from its entertainment value.

  19. lemon-lime

    February 14, 2011 at 4:52 PM

    I don’t give a crap about what other people believe in as far as religion/evolution. But when folks like voiceofreason start posting their ignorance and/or lies couched in scientific terms, it gets to me.
    Voiceofreason: when are you going to put up a post about how the theory of gravity is nothing but junk science. Or try to disprove germ/disease theory. Because theory means unproven, you know. Better yet, when are you going to pick up a science 101 textbook and learn what the word theory means in scientific terms? & maybe a biology 101 textbook to learn what evolution is & isn’t. B/c you totally don’t get it.
    If you want to believe that the earth is 5000 yrs old, fine. But don’t try to discuss concepts you can’t grasp.
    Sorry I’m yet another poster who’s off topic. But I’m pretty sure RS mentioned the age of the earth thing to get everybody’s panties in a wad.

  20. sweetness34

    February 16, 2011 at 4:57 PM

    Steve–I appreciated your Goonies reference, but have to say that Brad’s date with Alli felt more like Scooby-Doo. Alli just needed some glasses, an orange sweater, and a red skirt, with the bats sweeping down to steal her glasses. Perhaps she could have pulled the mask off Brad to reveal that he is not Brad at all, but Jake Pavelka in disguise.

  21. smd64

    February 17, 2011 at 7:02 PM

    omg…seriously steve makes one comment about a cave not being 40 million years old and he gets a ton of posts about theories of evolution. NO ONE CARES!!!

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

  © Copyright - All rights reserved

To Top

Privacy Preference Center

Close your account?

Your account will be closed and all data will be permanently deleted and cannot be recovered. Are you sure?