#98  |   Tom   |  2011-02-27

Whos That

Hello,

someone knows about the guy behind this signature - how is ist called?
http://GuterStoff.com/image/stencils/stencil-signature.jpg

Thank you
Tom

#98.1  |   Cheyanna   |  2011-05-24

RE: RE: Whos That

You\'ve hit the ball out the park! Incredilbe!

#98.1  |   Essy   |  2011-05-25

RE: RE: Whos That

With the bases loaded you struck us out with that asenwr!

#97  |     |  2011-02-01

banksy dvd

schon da: somogyi.at 19,90

#96  |   incidentat666fm   |  2010-11-09

banksy - exit through the gift shop

Ein film von und über den britischen street artist banksy.
Ab 3.12. in den österreichischen kinos.
"Banksy ist ein Phantom. Obwohl seine Grafitti Fassaden und Mauern auf der ganzen Welt zieren, weiß niemand, wer hinter dem gefeierten und sagenumwobenen Street-Art Künstler eigentlich steckt. Bis sich ein verrückter Franzose namens Thierry Guetta zum Ziel gesetzt hat Banksy aufzuspüren, um einen Film über ihn zu drehen. Aber dann kommt alles anders als geplant: Der fertige Film ist ein Desaster. Jetzt dreht Banksy den Spieß um und richtet die Kamera auf Guetta: der soll sich selbst als Street-Art Künstler versuchen, und Banksy das Filmen überlassen. Eine wahre(?), mit Sicherheit aber extrem unterhaltsame Geschichte über Kleinkriminalität, Freundschaft und Inkompetenz."

http://www.banksy-derfilm.at/
http://www.youtube.com/user/Filmladen#p/u/7/Ozkk5nLobuQ

#95  |   Ralf   |  2010-10-22

Great Site

Hello ! Great idea to make a site on stencil art ! Added you to my links at http://www.streetartportugal.com (site in Portuguese on Street Art, Graffiti, Stencils etc.)

#94  |   Chris   |  2010-01-24

Metall Schablone

Hey wie wird einer Metall Schablone am besten die Schrift oder das Bild ausgestanzt?!
Oder habt ihr allgemein Tips für Metallschablonen? Woher man die bekommt usw....
Lg chris
antwort bitte per e mail

#94.1  |   yannick   |  2010-10-04

RE: RE: Metall Schablone

der beste weg ist ei industrieger\'t welches water jet heisst} schau nach ob du bei irgendeiner firma das machen lassen kannst}

#93  |   Linda   |  2009-11-03

I am disabled and on low income. I had someone recommend your site.I am trying to burn wooden spoons.I am trying to find simple pictures or cartoons to make Christmas presents. Can anyone help or send me a site? Thank you

#92  |   Poliketo   |  2009-05-04

Web

www.myspace.com/tractorstencil

#91  |   Poliketo   |  2009-05-04

Grüße!

Grüße! Möchte nur sagen, dies ist ein guter Platz, fand ich sehr viel Material und verschiedenen Ländern. Ich empfehle diese Seite erfahren Sie mehr über die Arbeit in Kolumbien. Danke.

#91.1  |   exus   |  2009-09-17

RE: RE: Grüße!

servus poliketo, Von welcher Arbeit in Kolumbien war da die rede? Hast du dort gesprayed? Ich hab ziemlich viele Stencils fotografiert wie ich 2008 in Medellín, Manizales und Bogotá war. Besonders am Uni Gelände war ziemlich geile Arte Urbano zu finden. lg, exus

#90  |   Silk*   |  2009-04-28

Vorarlberger Stencil

Gibts eig. Leute in Vorarlberg die Stencils machen? Würd mich mal interresieren, bin eig. ziemlich neu in der Szene aber schon extrem begeistert!!
Naja writer aus Vorarlberg und nächster Umgebung Melden!!!!

,> bushido_kingofrap@hotmail.com

#89  |   elpeor   |  2009-01-11

Internacionalizar(idiomas)(languages)

Perdón por no expresarme en el idioma que seguramente una amplia mayoría de vosotros entenderíais mejor(el inglés), pero precisamente esa es la causa de que escriba aqui. ¿existiría la posibilidad de traducir la web a varios idiomas? Lo digo porque la web me ha gustado mucho y me parece un excelente punto de encuentro para todos los que le gusta esta movida del stencil, pero que para gente que, como yo, le cuesta algo bastante, expresarse en inglés,pues le limita un poco.Saludos!

#89.1  |   exus   |  2009-09-17

RE: RE: Internacionalizar(idiomas)(languages)

Hola guey... Que pena la pagina www.stencilboard.at no es en ingles o espanol pa ti... No soy el web master de este pagina :( De donde eres tu? Yo... de Viena/Austria y soy he hecho mi primer stencil hoy :D saludos, exus

#88  |   own style   |  2009-01-09

own streetstyle:

habt ihr schon mal darüber nachgedacht,euer eigenes mode-label zu gründen?
oder einfach nur eigene sachen für eure crew machen zu lassen?
eigenes logo auf euren klamotten?
oder einfach nur promozeug für eure auftritte?

fast alles ab 10stk !!!!!!!!!

zb:
t-shirts
sweater
jacken
hosen
mützen (zb flexfit mit eigenem logo)
hauben
gürtelschnallen
handschuhe
halstürcher (3eck)
bandanas
sturmhauben
ninja-sweater bzw jacken
usw usf.

alles ist möglich und das ganze schon ab geringen stückzahlen und viel billiger als das normale zeug.

wenn ihr infos oder vieleicht sogar hilfe für euer logo usw braucht schickt mir einfach eine mail an fuerte-designs@gmx.com

#87  |   oib   |  2008-12-09

gallery@orangeicebear.at

Hi,
see my gallery
http://gallery.orangeicebear.at/v/UrbanArt/..
noib

#86  |   Aeroart Stencil   |  2008-11-12

Aeroart Stencil Romania

The online magazine Aeroart has recently launchet it\\\'s third number dedicated to the stencil movement in Romania. It contains picture from galeries such as Stencil Exhibition,A-camp but also works done by The Orion, Coate Goale, Otaku and many more\r\nIn case you want to promote this number on your web-page, there is a link of the magazine in english further down this page. \r\n\r\nThank you\r\n\r\nhttp://rapidshare.com/files/162919904/REVISTA_AEROART_NR_3.2008-ENGLISH_VERSION.rar

#85  |   mpressivestencil   |  2008-07-10

designer

peace to all

#85.1  |   Tanya   |  2012-08-02

RE: RE: designer

Hi, SO SO SO excited to find your blog. I have been wtnaing to try stencilling for ages but couldn\'t come at all the screen, squeegie etc that you need. Sorry to be so daft but what exactly is freezer paper? Is it non-stick baking paper? Is it from the supermarket or is it a special crafty thing? Thanks so muchMichelle the.winsons@bigpond.com

#84  |   remote|access   |  2008-05-29

Open Call zur Subversiv Messe 2009

Als Fachmesse für Gegenkultur und Widerstandstechnologien präsentiert die Subversiv Messe aktuelle Entwicklungen/Erfindungen/Arbeiten/Aktionen, die Herrschaftsverhältnisse und Machtformen auf produktive Weise unterlaufen und sich im öffentlichen Raum Gestaltungsmacht aneignen. Die Subversiv Messe wird im Mai 2009 erstmals in Linz als Projekt für Linz 2009 Kulturhauptstadt Europas stattfinden, dazu werden Kollektive, KünstlerInnen und AktivistInnen eingeladen, um ihre neuesten Arbeiten aus den Bereichen (politische) Intervention, (An)architektur, Performance, (künstlerische) Provokation, (satirische) Kunst, Mode, Musik, Hacktivismus und/oder Aktion vorzustellen. Die Laufzeit der Messe beträgt 4 Tage, Struktur, Organisation, Ambiente und Aufbereitung der Subversiv Messe orientieren sich an den Merkmalen einer herkömmlichen Fachmesse. Die BesucherInnen können weiters Do-It-Yourself-Workshops, Actionführungen, Vorträge, Produktpräsentationen sowie Filmvorführungen besuchen.

www.subversivmesse.net/einreichen

#83  |   401RUSH   |  2008-03-12

Bon Jour Stencil History X

The French are back in Vienna with a whole new project! This time with the new president of the C215 Collective, Samantha, she will be presenting her new book Stencil History X. Until now the book has only been available in certain high profile shops in cities like Paris, Barcelona, and Los Angeles. Now, as of Thursday the book will finally be available in Austria. To accompany the release of the book, Samantha and Christian have brought over a hell of alot of stencils and artworks from artists in the book.

Some of the artists who will be shown in the exhibition are the top Stencil artists in the world which include: DNM (AT), Logan Hicks (US), Broken Crow (US), Sten (IT), Orticanoodles (IT), Btoy (SP), Alto*Contraste (BR), Doctor H (BEL), Kostar (BEL), C215 (FR), Janaundjs - Isbach (FR), Artiste-Ouvrier (FR), Mosko et Associés (FR), EZP (FR), Espylon Point (FR), Spliff Gachette (FR), Pixal Parazit (FR), Sadhu (FR), YZ Open Your Eyes (FR), Stew (FR), SPizz (FR) and others...

So gather your ultra cool friends, and come to INOPERAbLE this Thursday , March 13th starting at 19 o'clock. A couple of the artists will be present to sign the book and whatever else you want with their stencils and so on.

ps. Dont forget on Friday, Graffiti Research Lab will be doing Drip sessions and Laser Tagging on the Mumok! To keep your week full of Graffiti!!

INOPERAbLE
Gallery and Specialty Items Shop
Lindengasse 4/1a
a-1070 Vienna, Austria

www.401rush.com

#82  |   PLAY.ground // PLAY.FM   |  2008-02-19

This is not a Test: RABBIT EYE MOVEMENT

@ PLAY.ground Nachtgalerie in der PLAY.FM Lounge
Ausstellung: 16. Februar – 13. März 2008
Ort: PLAY.ground in der PLAY.FM Lounge
Open Venue: am 15. Februar 2008 ab 19.00h feat. PLAY.FM Radioshows,
on Decks: I PHIL IRIE & TETSUO (back2back Set)


welcome to wonderland! Fernsehopfer laut live und in Farbe: im Februar geht die PLAY.ground Nachtgalerie in die zweite Runde und freut sich über Besuch aus der Inoperable Galerie, Wiener Zentrum der Wiener StreetArt Szene: RABBIT EYE MOVEMENT > *R*E*M* hits us! mit seinem sehr einzigartigen Style zwischen Comic und Classical Tattoo Art: aggressiv, urban &lässig zeigen sich die Hasen, Markenzeichen von *R*E*M*, aber weder geistlos noch ängstlich: die Logo-Generation, die tägliche Gehirnwäsche, der sich die Gesellschaft freiwillig unterzieht, kaputte TV Realitäten, die sich in den Wohnzimmern und damit in den Köpfen einnisten: *R*E*M* wird das zu viel und hetzt seine Meute durch bunte Comicwelten, um eine Kampfansage zu verbreiten: wider inhaltsleere Medienkultur, für Kreativität und individuelle Freiheit. Okay, alles schon gehört? Aber sicher nicht so gesehen > mit viel Witz, Humor, aber vor und über allem: Skills.


http://www.play.fm/playfm_articles.php?n_id=430

#81  |   Oliver   |  2008-02-02

Projekt: Kunst am Bau – Wien

Projekt: Kunst am Bau – Wien

An all den Jungs und Mädels die mit einer Spraydose oder einen Pinsel in der Hand etwas Farbenfrohes hin zaubern können und Lust haben in einer Gruppe zu arbeiten um sich an einem großen Projekt zu beteiligen. Wir brauchen euch!!

Die EOS Inspiration Agentur möchte ein staatlich gefördertes Projekt auf die Beine stellen, bei dem verunreinigte Gebäude von jungen Künstlern umgestaltet werden.

Wir möchten ein erstes Treffen organisieren bei dem wir unser Projekt ausführlich beschreiben können und bei dem wir uns auch kennen lernen.

Wir erwarten viele Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene die kreativ sind und Lust haben etwas Farbe in Wien zu schaffen!! Also sag deinen Freunden bescheid!!

Meldet euch bei mir:
Oliver (Organisation) Telefon: 069917162167 oder per E-Mail: oliver_bousek@yahoo.com

Bis Bald, See Ya
Peace

#80  |     |  2008-01-08

stencildoku innsbruck

hi, leute auf www.zzapp.tv läuft seit kurzem neh doku über stencils in innsbruck, ist zwar nicht grad sehr lang aber ich find sie von der aussage schon ganz zutreffend, würd gern wissen was andere so davon halten, ob sich jemand angepisst dadurch vorkommt, oder..?....what ever

#79  |   info   |  2007-05-03

WRITING RESISTANCE: graffiti-lecture street art-workshop

>> Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2007, Kunstraum, Maria Theresien Str. 34, Arkadenhof, 19.30 Uhr:
.
Lecture Writing Resistance - Graffiti und die globalen Krise
Willkommen zu einer ca. 2-stündigen Show mit vielen, bewegenden Fotografien, Videoausschnitten, Publikumsdiskussionen und anschließendem Buffet.
.
In den 70er Jahren endet die "goldene Phase" des Kapitalismus samt Wirtschaftswunder mit Ölpreisschocks, Umweltzerstörung und Arbeitslosigkeit. Die Stadt New York ging bankrot und Graffiti trat von dort aus einen weltweiten Siegeszug an: die optische Okkupation des öffentlichen Raumes weltweit, subkulturelle (Sprach-) Codes, eigene (Pop-) Stars sind offensichtliche Signale.
Doch ist Graffiti in Zeiten der Globalisierung, wo es zur scheinbaren Pflicht jeder KonsumentIn wurde, ein abenteuerliches und abwechslungsreiches Leben zu führen, noch subversiv?
Ist Graffiti lustbetonte Selbstverwirklichung und ein utopischer Vorschein im bestehenden, falschen Ganzen oder ist es doch nur der ultimative Egotrip, die Fortsetzung der gesellschaftlichen Atomisierung und des Kampfes Aller gegen Alle mit anderen Mitteln?
.
.
>> Samstag, 5.Mai 2007, Raum "&", Feldstraße 5, Innsbruck, 13.00 - 18.00 Uhr:
.
Style-Jam Doing Streetart Graffiti
Erarbeitung der Streetart Basistechniken Sticker, Stencil, Poster sowie eine Einführung in American Graffiti (Writing) mit Zhema 78/OHM und Busk/CMOD.
.
.
>> Samstag, 5. Mai 2007, p.m.k.,19.00 Uhr:
.
Videoscreening Dirty Handz III (F, 2006, 90min.)
Danach: NO-G8–Soli Abschluss - Party in Kooperation mit grauzone: Konzert, DJ-Line, große Mitternachtstombola!
.
.
Quelle: pmk.or.at

#78  |   stefan e.   |  2007-04-28

stasi 2.0

dürfte in photoshop entstanden sein, wär aber schön, wenn das seinen weg in die echte welt findet:

http://www.helge.at/2007/04/bloggen-gegen-vorratsdatenspeicherung/

kriegt man so ein detailliertes bild überhaupt hin?

#77  |   der-ernesto   |  2007-04-10

frage:

hat wer eine ahnung wo ich mir schablonen machen lassen kann?

zb aus metall oder plastik.

hat wer eine mail addr.
am besten aus österreich.

antwort bitte per mail.
nero74@gmx.at

grüsse

#77.1  |   mindfuck   |  2007-04-11

RE: RE: frage:

D.I.Y.?!

#77.1  |   incident at 66.6 fm   |  2007-04-11

RE: RE: frage:

ja, D.I.Y. verdammtnochmal. ansonsten gibts in manschen copyshops laser-plotter, die schneiden karton, plastik, holz, ..

#76  |   somogyi   |  2007-03-22

somogyi ist 20

daher kosten alle 400er graffcans im sixpack einen 20er aber nur in der burggasse 62 im new colorstorevienna 48a busstation neubaugasse servus www.somogyi.at

#75  |   Incident At 66.6 FM   |  2007-03-16

watch the fancy "urban beautyfication" video-tutorial "lecture #1 - how to cut a stencil":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJV_F3AUGY

#74  |   standa   |  2007-02-22

stencil show from Bilbo (Basque country)

www.eztanda.net/index.php

#73  |   lyn-zee   |  2007-02-04

Maske?

Ja, ja schon wieder so ein Anfängerkind und dann auch noch ein Mädel, wa?

Ich weiß, ihr habt die Frage alle bestimmt schon 100mal beantwortet, aber ich bin jetzt zu faul hier noch ewig rum zu surfen:

Wie wichtig ist den eine Maske und kann ich bei entsprechender Lüftung auch OHNE in einem kleinen Zimmer arbeiten?

:-)

#73.1  |   Mindfuck   |  2007-02-06

RE: RE: Maske?

hy lyn-zee, gehen tuts schon aber für die gesundheit ist es halt nicht gerade förderlich. Es brauch ja nicht gleich eine Maske 100€ sein aber eine kleine Maske wer sicherlich nicht verkehrt. Ciao, nice greetings from IBK

#73.2  |   lyn-zee   |  2007-02-10

RE:RE: RE:
!

DANKE

#73.3  |   lyn-zee   |  2007-02-10

RE:RE:RE: RE: !
!

:-)

#73.1  |   a.mee   |  2007-03-04

RE: RE: Maske?
an mister-ich-bin-so-underground-lyn-zee

jaaa, es gibt auch menschen ohne nudel. und jeder hat mal angefangen, auch du! im grunde ist es ja sinnlos auf deine pubertäre bemerkung zu reagieren. jeder normale mensch hätte einfach einen rat gegeben. daraus schließe ich, dass du noch zeit zum reifen brauchst. die wünsch ich dir.

#72  |   a.mee   |  2006-12-24

stencil-shirt

Wo findet man in Wien Textilfarbe zu einem vernünftigen Preis? Hat irgendwer Erfahrungen von euch? Welche Frabe is am beschten?

THX

#71  |   memyselfand.I   |  2006-12-11

arnie packts net....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpe2KMWebhg

#71.1  |   Rostislav   |  2012-10-14

RE: RE: arnie packts net....

Wow, I love your giraffe! Two tone too.. I\'m so imperssed! Oh, and in reply to your comment on frogspawn sago - while on \"taste sensation\" mission a little while ago, I *did* find a frog oviduct and red bean dessert in my local asian grocer!! So gross!Thanks for dropping by ,-)

#71.1  |   wtcexid   |  2012-10-15

RE: RE: arnie packts net....

hL9z07 jslsuprywlyw

#70  |   Incident At 66.6 FM   |  2006-12-08

stenciled shortfilm

"schnellschuss" - this animated shortfilm shows a short daily-life-scene. The production of this film led the 2 artists Reinhold Bidner and Stefan Mittlboeck-Jungwirth to numerous flats and houses in Austria (and a few in Germany, Netherlands & Ireland) where, with the aid of stencils, they sprayed one or two still frames of the movie on a wall that was chosen by the inhabitant. The sprayed stencils were once again photographed, these pictures were stringed together to the final movie.
>> http://www.servus.at/subcute/schnellschuss.htm

#69  |   matt sinclair   |  2006-12-08

new comer

hi all, i just uploaded some of my very first stencils, i only started about a week ago, but i love it already, i havent been out and about spraying any of them yet, but have a look and let me know wot u all think, much appreciated, and if u have any tips 4 me, they would be welcome, peace out all.

#68  |   ein Junge in der Pubertät   |  2006-11-27

Bulle ein Job mit Zukunft?

schreibt da jemand?

#67  |     |  2006-11-22

techniken

hallo.
gibt es im netzt irgendwo beschreibungen oder tipps zur anfertigung von schablonen? würde mich sehr interessieren, oder find ich das sogar auf dieser seite und habe es nur übersehen??
gruss

#67.1  |   criminal subject ???   |  2006-11-23

RE: RE: techniken

Schau einfach bei denn links nach oder geh gleich zu:http://www.stencilrevolution.com/tutorials/tutorialsview.php?id=6 Wirklich schwer sind bloss die 5 W: Wieso tu ich das eigentlich? Was will ich damit erreichen? Wo krieg ich verdamtnochmal ein paar gute dosen(belton/montana) billig her? Welcher platz ist für deine/meine/unsere sachen gut geeignet( Wieviele leute können es sehen,wie gefährlich sprich Kameras,Verkehr ist dort. OK vieleicht sind es doch mehr als nur 5 w. ciao

#66  |   lenera   |  2006-11-14

angeblich soll kommendes wochenende in Wien ein Stencilboard Sprayer Workshopstattfinden. weiß jemand mehr?

#66.1  |   criminal subject ???   |  2006-11-15

RE: RE:

Ja, im EKH am 18 und 19 im medienzentrum 2.Stock jeweils von 11-17 Uhr. Ciao, greetings from Innsbruck

#66.2  |   lenera   |  2006-11-16

RE:RE: RE:

danke für die info. schaust du hin? ich kann leider nicht. aber kann jemand der dort sein wird, posten was dort ca. gemacht/erzählt worden ist,welcher input gebracht wurde?! wär super!!

#65  |   lenera   |  2006-11-14

elk

ist euch auch schon dieser elch aufgefallen der momentan in jedem eckchen von Wien aufgesprayt ist? Da war wer fleißig! weiß jemand mehr dazu - meaning?

#64  |   vdo   |  2006-11-04

hello guys, got a question for you. where can i find montana sprays in graz?
thanks

#64.1  |   vdo   |  2006-11-04

RE: RE:

sorry, forgot to mention.. my mail is voodoomc2005@yahoo.com 10x

#63  |   massakre   |  2006-11-03

ce qualche cazzo di italiano

#62  |   ....   |  2006-10-29

heelp meee

hy alles.. ich und meine Freunden machen im sommer eine writertour nach Wien. Ich brauche helfen... Wo ist montana shop in wien, wo können wir billig übernachten... schrein mit- reg23@freemail.hu

#61  |   betzzzq   |  2006-10-23

in finland

anyone in FINLAND interested?

#60  |   Mental-Rage   |  2006-10-19

Mr

Want to get into contact with other street artists in JHB S.Africa to collaborate on a large-scale street exhibit.
drop me a line :mentalrg@yahoo.co.uk

#59  |   Itchy_Fingaz   |  2006-09-15

ANTI WAR PROTEST - 23 Sept 06

DEMONSTRATE 23 SEPTEMBER 2006
END THE BUSH/BLAIR WARS NOW

Manchester: Labour Conference
Transport available nationwide


Anyone know of any good spots in Manchester?

#58  |   KOT_DAS_MAYONAISEMONSTAR   |  2006-09-08

HEY DOWNSTAIRS

i´m just writing, spraying, making stencils and Stickers for my Cat! And for nobody else it´s easy to say f*ck art f*ck graff or stickaz, but it´s hard to tell anybody a simple explaination.

and FDU:wo kann ich in salzburg cans finden???? danke danke

,"in Bahnhofsnähe in so einem Gangstergeschäft..k.a. wie das heisst, aber frag in skateshops nach..dollar oder so die können dir genau sagen wie die strasse heisst.!"

KOTSAYS_SHITHAPPENS

#57  |   Itchy Fingaz   |  2006-09-05

Whose Down with me

F(ck ART
F(ck GRAFF
THIS IS COMMUNICATION!

Who else wants to join forces. Based West London.

Peace
Itchy Fingaz

#57.1  |   poedel roedel   |  2006-09-06

RE: RE: Whose Down with me
like in?

i am down with you if u tell me your plans...

#57.1  |   SprayCan   |  2006-10-19

RE: RE: Whose Down with me
Not Me

F(ck YOU

#56  |   fledfall   |  2006-07-11

man

cool page. i really like this stencil shit! the guys from this page should just do a link to www.stencilrevolution.com and all this would be perfekt.

#56.1  |   Incident At 66.6 FM   |  2006-07-12

RE: RE: man

http://www.stencilboard.at/links.php

#55  |   reply   |  2006-07-10

...sono italiano..anche io sono al secco di notizie...intanto raccolgo info..da dove scrivi!

#54  |   MASSAKRE   |  2006-07-05

CIAO

Ciao a tutti, vorr4ei parlare di stencil con qualche italiano, siccome trovarne e molto difficile. scrivetemi una mail o fate in qualche modo per contattarmi. Hola

#53  |   juan   |  2006-06-11

art\'s \"cool\" fascism?

so...
"this site is only for stencil graffitti"? no shit.
Sounds like discrimination if you ask me. Trendy, stupid, discrimination. Going backwards to enclosed classic standards for categorizing art by its pure tecnique is an all-cool-neofascist way to call yourselves "artists". While a real artist would be breaking boundaries all around you are still drawing borders to put a label on.

#53.1  |   Incident At 66.6 FM   |  2006-06-13

RE: RE: art\'s \"cool\" fascism?

To answer your question: Yes, this site is only for stencil graffiti. Now to your angry remarks about categorizing: What\'s the point? A Turtle is still a Turtle although it is an animal. Feel free to drop your agitations somewhere else.

#53.2  |   Janus   |  2006-06-26

RE:RE: RE:

Word

#53.1  |   Corgee   |  2006-06-30

RE: RE: art\'s \"cool\" fascism?
RE: \"art\\\'s \\\"cool\\\" fascism?\"

So Juan… maybe you should complain on a site for beagle dogs, that the don\'t show any german shepards?! Those all-caring-neofacist-beagle-owners. While people who really love dogs would break the boundaries of natural diversity all around. Thanx for your revolutionary, open-minded insight. It makes me speechless.

#53.1  |     |  2006-11-15

RE: RE: art\'s \"cool\" fascism?

Hey stupid toy, you are the only facist here, how said over all stencils there are a part off Neofacist, how do you want to now this? Only why do you think this is the only specialized side ? whats with freestyle,punk, crust ,HC,green,SPÖ. think befor you post some shit, idiot.

#52  |   Robson   |  2006-06-07

Congratulation Stencilboard!

Congratulation on winning an Honorary Mention at this years'Prix Ars Electronica.

#51  |   mr samsa   |  2006-05-31

chalk stencil

hey
does anyone know how to use chalk spray a stencil?
cheers

#51.1  |   remote|access   |  2006-06-01

RE: RE: chalk stencil
tutorial

here is a tutorial for chalk stencils - http://www.stencilrevolution.com/tutorials/tutorialsview.php?id=5

#50  |   alona   |  2006-05-30

when in rome..

I'm going to be in Rome in June and I was wondering what areas aregood for checking out stencil art or if anyone knows anything I should check out?

#50.1  |   Moon   |  2011-05-24

RE: RE: when in rome..

Home run! Great suliggng with that answer!

#50.1  |   Jacey   |  2011-05-25

RE: RE: when in rome..

Got it! Tnhaks a lot again for helping me out!

#49  |   pyk   |  2006-05-23

wht material to use

lo.. im havin trouble with stencils and wanted to know wht u guys suggest for a good type of material to use.

#48  |   remote|access   |  2006-04-25

v3.0

stencilboard.at version 3.0 is online.
have fun!

#48.1  |   Janus   |  2006-04-25

RE: RE: v3.0
Hammer

Super die Idee mit der Tag Funktion.

#48.1  |   Obowollo   |  2006-04-30

RE: RE: v3.0
Hmm

Irgendwie landet man immer noch auf der alten Seite wenn man über Rss das ganze angucken will. Auch die Rates unterscheiden sich.

#48.2  |   remote|access   |  2006-05-12

RE:RE: RE: Hmm
fehler ausbessern

ja stimmt. wir sind im moment noch am fehler ausbessern. sollte in kürze wieder alles funktionieren.

#47  |   elpuno   |  2006-04-21

---

www.squareonevienna.com

#46  |   Mrwhite   |  2006-04-05

gIRLFRIEND

Anybody here over 30 and get grief from the wife or girlfriend for doing stencils? im getting ear bashing about how old i am and im too old to be doing graffiti - het it every fucking waking hour

#46.1  |   David Simmion   |  2006-04-05

RE: RE: gIRLFRIEND

Feel sorry for you dude... nothing worse than non-suportive girlfriend

#46.2  |   Keli   |  2011-07-08

RE:RE: RE:

I\'m ipmressed! You\'ve managed the almost impossible.

#45  |   SATTA   |  2006-03-27

Melbourne & Sydney Stencil Festival 06

MELBOURNE & SYDNEY STENCIL FESTIVAL

The preparations and planing for this years Stencil Festival are in full swing. This year we will not only celebrate stencil art in Melbourne but for the first time also stage a Stencil Festival in Sydney!

In Melbourne the festival has moved from North Melbourne to the vibrant cultural hub of Fitzroy and will be held at the Rose St. Artist Market (60 Rose St.) for five days from Thursday 18 to Monday 22 May 2006.
In Sydney the Pine Street Creative Arts Centre (64 Pine St.) in the inner city suburb of Chippendale will host the first Sydney Stencil Festival from Thursday 1 to Monday 5 June 2006.

We are calling now for applications of artists who wish to participate in this years festivals. Please download the application form from:
http://pinxit.spymac.com/call_for_application.pdf
Please feel free to forward the application form to your friends, colleagues and contacts.

Additionally we will hold the new 'Young Artists Award' this year. The award is open for everyone who does not consider him-/herself as a professional artist and has not been in the 'art business' for more than five years. There is no age limit.
We are still working on the terms and conditions for the award and couldn't allocate the prices yet, but there will be a 1. and 2. jury price plus a audience price. Details will follow soon.

Here are a few confirmed facts for those who consider submitting art into the 'Young Artist Award' and would like to start working on their piece:
- Subject of competition: censorship
(the interpretation of the competitions subject is all up to you)
- Artworks can be no larger than 60x60 cm
(larger works will be disqualified and not presented in the festivals)
- All works will be for sale and will be subject to 30% commission

Like in the previous years the Stencil Festival will not only present more exciting art than you can shake a stick at, but also attract a diverse audience with special events like opening party, book launch, workshops and live demonstrations, film night, charity auction etc

On our soon to be re-launched website www.stencilfestival.com you will find more detailed information on the program closer to the events.

#44  |   joker / triebwerk   |  2006-03-22

zum zehnjährigen jubiläum, planen wir eine kleine aber (hoffentlich) feine "streetart exposition" im jugend- und kulturhaus TRIEBWERK.

alle weiteren infos zur veranstaltung und zur anmeldung:
http://www.triebwerk.co.at/de/home/get/1880/

#44.1  |   Aspen   |  2011-05-24

RE: RE:

BION I\'m iprmessed! Cool post!

#44.1  |   Bear   |  2011-05-25

RE: RE:

Hey, that\'s the geraetst! So with ll this brain power AWHFY?

#43  |   a1one   |  2006-03-18

you have no iran

hi ,I uploaded 2 images of one of my srtencilz but as i said befor you have no iran and tehran in your atchive , if you make one ,i ill upload more and more of my stencilz here.Thanks

#43.1  |   dasteff   |  2006-03-18

RE: RE: you have no iran
tehran

hi a1one, we will add tehran to our gallery. i'm looking forward to seeing more of your great work!

#43.1  |   Loree   |  2012-10-15

RE: RE: you have no iran

The accident of finnidg this post has brightened my day

#42  |   czi   |  2006-03-14

Fragen über Fragen :)

Hey alle hier,

Wie kann ich Stencils mit mehr Farben machen?? Ich Verwende Paintshop, weiss aber leider nicht wie ich solche Bilder am besten mit ihren einzelnen Farben zerlege, ausdruck und dann Sprüh :S..... Das Tutorial auf stencilrevolution hat mir leider auch nicht helfen können, vielleicht hier ja einer der alten hasen ;-) !
Ausserdem würde mich interessieren ob ihr viele verschiedene Caps verwendet?? Weil für ein normales Stencil braucht man ja nicht wirklich viel oder??

Aja und ausserdem hab ich mal nur spass habler im amazon nach büchern gesucht, und fand eigentlich ziemlich viel über street art, auch ein Buch von Banksy.. Hat wer ein so ein Buch zuhause und kann mir eines weiterempfehlen, vielleicht mit Techniken und der Geschichte und der Street Art Kultur mit tollen Bombings wäre nett zu lesen, weiss da wer was??

#42.1  |   cxs   |  2006-03-14

RE: RE: Fragen über Fragen :)
Questionable Answers...

Die Quintessenz im StencilRevolution-Tutorial ist der Cut-out-Filter des Photoshop. Alles weitere Drumherum ist lediglich designerische Interpolation (zB Kanten glätten). Paintshop - von mir zwar nicht verwendet - liefert mit dem Posterize-Filter wohl ein ähnliches Ergebnis. Alternativ könnte vielleicht der Typography-Filter (unter Artistic effects) ausprobiert werden. Ist das Bild gefiltert, ausdrucken, und für jeden Farbton einmal kopieren. Mind the crop marks! ··· Für konventionelle Stencils reichen die normalen Soft-Caps völlig aus. Wer größere Flächen grundieren, oder Freestyle-Elemente einbinden will, kann sich Gedanken über Fat- bzw Designer-Caps machen. ··· Das (Bilder)buch "Graffiti World" könnte dich eventuell interessieren - 376 Seiten, 2000 Bilder, ergänzt mit Info-Texten zu den Künstlern - http://www.graffitiworld.org/

#42.2  |   czi   |  2006-03-15

RE:RE: RE: Questionable Answers...
Danke

Danke vielmals für die schnelle und freundliche Antwort, spiel soeben mit den Photoshop Filtern herum, kann man sehr schöne vielseitige Werke machen. Wird Wien um ein paar wieder bunter :)) Das mit den Caps dachte ich mich eh schon, wollte nur mal die könner fragen, obwohl Gundierungen auch sehr geile Effekte bringen :) Das Buch werd ich mir mal zu Gemüte führen, hört sich sehr gut an! Lg

#42.1  |   Yumi   |  2012-10-15

RE: RE: Fragen über Fragen :)

What a gorgeous piece. I love the soft colros and the stencil is fabulous. I just finished a very similar piece in red. Its fun to see how many different ways you can make a piece look with paint!

#41  |   safe   |  2006-03-11

safe

contact me if ur a writer from ipswich like me

#40  |   Orulowakulamengelde   |  2006-03-05

Baumarkt vs. Marke?

Hi,
habt ihr das Gefühl, beim Stenciln macht die Auswahl der Dosen nen Qualitätsunterschied.
Sprich: ist es sinnvoller ne Montana oder Belton anstatt irgendner Baumarktdose zu nehmen?

Bzw: Wieviel kosten die Dosen in eurer Stadt?

#40.1  |     |  2006-03-07

RE: RE: Baumarkt vs. Marke?
Bau feat. Marke!

Als erstes solltest du dir vielleicht überlegen, was du wo wohin sprayst. Die Unterschiede zwischen den Farben ergeben vorwiegend aus den Eigenschaften (Deckkraft, Trockenzeit, Viskosität, Wetterbeständigkeit, Temperatur-/Lichtempfindlichkeit, Sprühnebel, Abblätterung, Caps, ...). Versuch eine Farbe zu finden, die deinen Anforderungen entspricht, nicht umgekehrt! ~~~ zB: du willst im Freien (Wetter/Licht/Temperatureinflüsse?) mehrere Stencils in verschiedenen Farben übereinander (kurze Trockenzeit!) sprayen. ~~~ Soweit mir aufgefallen ist, sind die Cans in Baumarkt/Bastel-Shop in der Regel teurer als bei somogyi & co. Im Zweifelsfall aber einfach zur billigeren Can greifen, denn die Halbwertszeit von Stencils ist im Allgemeinen ja nicht unbedingt lang.

#40.2  |   Incident At 66.6 FM   |  2006-03-08

RE:RE: RE: Bau feat. Marke!
dckkrft

meiner ansicht nach ist beim dosenlack für stencils das wichtigste die deckkraft. billige dosen sprühen meist mit zu geringer deckkraft, was in der praxis heisst, dass man viel zu oft über die schablone drüber gehn muss und das wiederum heisst, dass viel farbe unter die schablone gelangt (underspray) wo sie nicht hingehört. montanas gibts in österreich so um die euro 3.50 und das is fair.

#40.3  |     |  2006-03-08

RE:RE:RE: RE: dckkrft
bleeding

neben dem eher lästigen underspray -- der andererseits aber durchaus als stilmittel verwendet werden kann -- besteht bei mehrmaligen besprühen der schablone des weiteren die gefahr, dass der lack davonzurinnen beginnt (bleeding). als negatives musterbeispiel fällt mir da "http://www.stencilboard.at/tags/415a_h_l.jpg" ein -- underspray, bleeding und den rest wahrscheinlich mit der schablone verwischt. "Spray the paint sparingly onto the stencil from a distance of 8 inches" , würde wohl banksys gebot dazu lauten

#40.1  |     |  2006-03-07

RE: RE: Baumarkt vs. Marke?
Bau feat. Marke!

Als erstes solltest du dir vielleicht überlegen, was du wo wohin sprayst. Die Unterschiede zwischen den Farben ergeben vorwiegend aus den Eigenschaften (Deckkraft, Trockenzeit, Viskosität, Wetterbeständigkeit, Temperatur-/Lichtempfindlichkeit, Sprühnebel, Abblätterung, Caps, ...). Versuch eine Farbe zu finden, die deinen Anforderungen entspricht, nicht umgekehrt! ~~~ zB: du willst im Freien (Wetter/Licht/Temperatureinflüsse?) mehrere Stencils in verschiedenen Farben übereinander (kurze Trockenzeit!) sprayen. ~~~ Soweit mir aufgefallen ist, sind die Cans in Baumarkt/Bastel-Shop in der Regel teurer als bei somogyi & co. Im Zweifelsfall aber einfach zur billigeren Can greifen, denn die Halbwertszeit von Stencils ist im Allgemeinen ja nicht unbedingt lang.

#40.2  |     |  2006-03-08

RE:RE: RE: Bau feat. Marke!
delete clone

# 40.1 - "Bau feat. Marke!" existiert zweimal. einmal löschen, bitte (um mögliche verwirrungen zu vermeiden)

#39  |   A1one   |  2006-02-26

Iranian Graffiti Videoz For THe First Time

Hi friends
i'm a1one from Iran Tehran . Want to invite all of you to visit 2 videos about Iranian Graffiti in http://www.kolahstudio.com if you can't find it ,just visit the Videoz category

#38  |   Steve   |  2006-02-21

Call for stencil art - get published for free

Début Publicationscurrently have an open cal=
l for entries for silhouette/stencil artwork. We would like to offer all users of this site the opportunity to submit some artwork for inclusion. There is normally a small fee payable for submitting artists - this is to cover our administration cost - but as we are approaching you to include artwork we would waiver these fees.

If you need any information please visit our website: http:/www.debutpublications.co.uk where you can download apdf entry form, or drop me an email.

Thanks

Steve

#38.1  |   Krishna   |  2012-08-02

RE: RE: Call for stencil art - get published for free

Wow - that looks fantastic! You must be rlaely pleased with how it turned out. I rlaely like the design and the colours that you have used.I haven\'t yet tried stencilling onto a knit, so I think the tip about using a sponge sounds good. (I\'ve been using a paint brush on the weave fabric). I must head off and get myself some of that textile medium you have been using ... I think it will be a bit cheaper than the Speedball ink I have been using and would allow me to mix your own colours. Nice!Can\'t wait to see your two-toned stencil next week!

#38.1  |   bwgsjlrshc   |  2012-08-03

RE: RE: Call for stencil art - get published for free

wWxVel dhgegitletne

#38.1  |   ckiwgp   |  2012-08-04

RE: RE: Call for stencil art - get published for free

l6lgKv , [url=http://iotogwpbbwja.com/]iotogwpbbwja[/url], [link=http://vxcmsgfeopnw.com/]vxcmsgfeopnw[/link], http://baacgpzornhi.com/

#38.1  |   ryagzdp   |  2012-08-06

RE: RE: Call for stencil art - get published for free

GIwwgs , [url=http://ucdjiqffetyw.com/]ucdjiqffetyw[/url], [link=http://bwevcwtkqhmt.com/]bwevcwtkqhmt[/link], http://qxtsgbulksix.com/

#38.2  |   Israel   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

Love it!!!! I got here from Craft Gossip I am inspired by so many crieatve blogs! I just started a new one yesterday about our adventures in selling the house and going on the road in our RV I hope mine can become as good as yours

#37  |   Sin-é   |  2006-02-08

Pics

How come I can only get to see one pic from each city?

#36  |   Janus   |  2006-02-08

Damn, scheiß wind. Grad wieder voll was verkackt...

#36.1  |   cn   |  2006-02-10

RE: RE:

tjo, das leben ist hart - aber nicht verzagen, weitermachen!

#35  |   UrbanMinds   |  2006-02-08

UrbanMinds (Street Art Portugal)

Great site you got here guys, really i just discovered it and am amazed :D

Check
http://www.urbanminds.pt.vu

#34  |   Steve-Dave   |  2006-02-01

check it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bombfaktory/

#33  |   chaton   |  2006-01-22

http://suprachaton.skyblog.com

#33.1  |   Marsue   |  2011-05-24

RE: RE:

Good to see a tanelt at work. I can’t match that.

#33.1  |   Missy   |  2011-05-25

RE: RE:

You\'ve hit the ball out the park! Incedrible!

#32  |   anne   |  2006-01-13

Mmh, geh´auf irgendne Homepage (wikipedia, oder sonst was) , lad´ dir n foto runter, ab damit zu PhotoPaint oder CoralDraw...n bissl Kontraste radikalisieren...., so dass nur noch Schwarz und Weiß übrig bleibt..., dann ausdrucken, auf LKWplane aufkleben, ausschneiden und sprühn gehen!

#31  |   Hassle   |  2006-01-11

David Hasselhoff beim WUK?

Wenn mich nicht alles täuscht hab ich mal das gesicht david hasselhoffs beim wuk gesprayed gesehen. kennts wer? von dem ne schablone, das wär schon was :D

#30  |   EGRAFF.de   |  2006-01-06

jojo

EGRAFF.de endlich wieder am Start!!!
checkt http://www.egraff.de. Neue fette Bombs, Tags, Trains, Sketches, Oldschoolpics, Rooftops, Linepieces, Styles, Graffitivideos… all made in Berlin
Aller zwei Wochen neues Update mit neuem Stuff
also checkt http://www.egraff.de

#30.1  |   Incident At 66.6 FM   |  2006-01-06

RE: RE: jojo
...

wär bestimmt eine nette seite. man sieht aber leider nicht viel da man mit dem popup-ad schliessen beschäftigt ist :(

#29  |   0717   |  2006-01-04

schöne seite ...

... da lande ich auf einer seite, und als erstes sieht man kaiser - grüße ins burgenland :-)

ans stencilboard-team: doppelte daumen hoch. linz, als kunst-hochburg, da kann sowas passieren! scheint ja eine alternative zu SR zu werden (zumindest solange die ihren server nicht auf die reihe bringen). weiter so, bin gespannt wie sich das entwickelt! meinen support habt ihr!

#29.1  |   Agatha   |  2011-05-24

RE: RE: schöne seite ...

Very true! Makes a change to see somoene spell it out like that. :)

#29.1  |   Elida   |  2011-05-25

RE: RE: schöne seite ...

IJWTS wow! Why can\'t I think of thigns like that?

#28  |   kaiser   |  2006-01-03

...

hello leute. ich dachte zuerst das ich auf einer englischen seite bin, weil ich den link von k10k genommen habe... ABER SIE IST AUS ÖSTERREICH! schön, das es im heimatland auch wieder aktive gibt... übrigens: BUCHTIP: graffiti world von nicholas ganz... der sieht die grenze zwischen graff und street art etwas angenehmer (weicher). also unbedingt kaufen.. wenn sie fertig ist auch unsere seite checken: www.vectorforsure.com , damit ihr seht das sich auch im bgld was tut. 1000 küsse. ich komm wieder!

#28.1  |   0717   |  2006-01-04

RE: RE: ...
schöne seite ...

... da lande ich auf einer seite, und als erstes sieht man kaiser - grüße ins burgenland :-) ans stencilboard-team: doppelte daumen hoch. linz, als kunst-hochburg, da kann sowas passieren! scheint ja eine alternative zu SR zu werden (zumindest solange die ihren server nicht auf die reihe bringen). weiter so, bin gespannt wie sich das entwickelt! meinen support habt ihr!

#27  |   pixelpunk   |  2005-12-26

links

hallo leute hier mal noch ein paar schablonen/ streetart links..
www.m-city.org - crasse schablonen- arbeiten aus polen
www.ak-47.de - streetart seite aus dresden
www.pixelfraktalkunst.com -meine eigene
www.nokopi.de , www.kaputage.com zwei läden die stuff von street artists verkaufen

#26  |   pixelpunk   |  2005-12-26

lob1234

hallo jungs- echt gute seite- ich werd mal stuff hochladen. es gibt leider nicht sovile seiten auf denen das möglich ist - respekt....ich hoffe euch passiert nicht der selbe scheiss wie stickernation .. die leider zerstört wurden durch wen auch immer..

#25  |   bsn!   |  2005-12-01

quartier21 und so

falls es nicht ohnehin schon bekannt sein sollte

http://www.hwink.at/streetart/

#24  |   quessla wc tha boots co...   |  2005-11-18

is doch gut endlich wieder platz auf der brücke :D

#23  |   freiflug   |  2005-11-17

Die whitebridge ist wieder sauberst white.

#23.1  |   remote|access   |  2005-11-18

RE: RE:
nicht im ernst?

scheisse, dachte das wär mittlerweile schon so eine art geduldete öffentliche galerie. verflucht was sind das für beschissene saubermänner.

#23.2  |   OttO   |  2005-12-01

RE:RE: RE: nicht im ernst?
rere

gut dass ich längst alles abfotografiert hab ;-) War längst nicht alles bereits hier am "board"

#22  |   iho   |  2005-11-14

material

which material do you use to inlay your stancil?
hmm paper?

#21  |   dejan   |  2005-11-04

an opinion

Hi my name is Dejan and I am an italian musicthinker of 2005 with a marked tendency to create.

If I allow me to write to you is because I think that ,as open minded artists, you may be interested

in knowing about a funny madness which is spreading on internet.

Although it is simply the work or rather the video of an Italian soccer pop band, this fever is rapidly

expanding all over the world. Almost every day, in fact, people from every country, write us asking

to exchange links- please check in the website on the mentioned page.

Imagine just for a second, how exciting it would be for you discovering these new planets, like seeing a star in the sky that you have never seen. So when you simply have the address to look at these new stars or rather videos…….



www.lapartitadicalcetto.it



you only have to write it on the keyboard and hold on a few seconds……….



p.s. Please let me know what you think and in the case you like it, spread the word!why don't we exchange links?

#20  |   HEXA/OMA/MONSTAR/TCS/MBS/MZH/IFOS/   |  2005-10-13

HUNTING

YOU`LL GET RE-COLORED!

#19  |   czi   |  2005-10-10

soho

hey freiflug hast du eine genuas adressse vom soho weill das einzige was ich internet fad war den shohshop.at (aus linz)

und der somogyi hat normale ladenzeiten??

#18  |   czi   |  2005-10-08

Wo wo bekommst man gute canz

hallo alle.

Sprüh seit einiger zeit stencils nur irgendwie gehen mir canz ausm baumarkart am nerv, weiss wer wo is gute canz und caps bekomme :)
wäre sehr danke bar

#18.1  |   czi   |  2005-10-08

RE: RE: Wo wo bekommst man gute canz
..

hmm ich habs tippen verlernt :)

#18.1  |   Incident At 66.6 FM   |  2005-10-09

RE: RE: Wo wo bekommst man gute canz
somogyi

also in wien wär der somogyi meine erste adresse für dosen (http://www.somogyi.at) gute auswahl und faire preise. in linz wärs da schon komplizierter. angeblich hat der four seasons (skateshop) montana cans bestellt.

#18.2  |   czi   |  2005-10-09

RE:RE: RE: somogyi
danke

hey danke dir , werd vorbeischaun :)

#18.3  |   freiflug76   |  2005-10-09

RE:RE:RE: RE: danke

der skateladen SOHO, naehe graben, hat ein kleines regal voll an montanas.

#17  |   Memographics   |  2005-08-11

Question

I am trying to see if there are any fonts or locations were i can download spray spots to use in some of my designs, Are there any? or do you usually paint a piece of paper and scan it. That is what I have been doing. Thanks

#16  |   lover   |  2005-07-01

montana cans

guten abend!

wollte auch hier noch fragen ob jemand interesse hat bei montana cans beim somogyi in wien mitzubestellen (gilt fuer stencilmayer, schreiberlinge und schmierer aus umgebung linz), wuerd sie mitte juli abholen, also porto wuerd wegfallen und ab 120 dosen (montana gold) is der preis 2,90 pro dose, und ueber die kommen wir allemal..falls auch ein paar stencilfuzzies ein paar dosen mitbestellen moechten..schreibt einfach auf meine adresse..dann koennen wir uns naeheres ausmachen..

grueße yoschi

#16.1  |   antilover   |  2005-07-12

RE: RE: montana cans
fuck off

willst hier unterstützung und schreibs't lauter schass?!! viel erfolg du spasty!

#16.2  |   friend of the fairy   |  2005-07-19

RE:RE: RE: fuck off

tust hier brav rummosern und niemanden bringst\'st weiter. gut machst du das. sehr gut.

#16.3  |   lover   |  2005-07-20

RE:RE:RE: RE:

pfuh....kann ich zuer uebersicht hier mal ein soziogramm haben. sehr komplizierte angelegenheit ;) null durchblick durch das reply system...und von wem will ichunterstuetzung?

#16.1  |   HEXA/OMA/MONSTAR/TCS/KOS/MZH   |  2005-09-09

RE: RE: montana cans
come on

hey LOVER what´s the fuck wrong with you? If nobody should make stencils except of Banksy, why you´r keeping writing on? I´m trying to order cans over the 4season shop here in Linz, so that the local scene is able to stop beeing addictive to, for example Graz, Passau or Vienna! P.S. I made the GAGA stencils "FUCK fAKE LOVER"!!

#16.2  |   lover   |  2005-09-16

RE:RE: RE: come on

..really liked that stencil, and i really can understand why you hat that tag, cause i also think it's pretty ugly and really sucks. the thing is that when i started to write, it was more because of boredom, when walking around alone, unfortunately nothing about style, like the tcs,.. stuff, which i really like. blah blah... i also never said that nobody should make stencils except banksy, this was just a wrong interpretation of somebody there. but it would be a hard way to explain the thing here, if still angry bout that, write mail or just have a talk, or whatever.

#16.3  |   HEXA/OMA/MONSTAR/TCS/KOS/MBS/MZH   |  2005-09-29

RE:RE:RE: RE:
JUST GO TO HELL LOVER

From my point of view, you´r a silly TOY. You´re saying you like the "FUCKFAKELOVER" stencil, you´ve got no flavour, this stencil sucks, cause it was made in about 2 minutes, so take you´r dirty thung out of my ass and pray, that nobody of us is busting you! LOVER SUCKS!

#16.3  |   lover   |  2005-09-30

RE:RE:RE: RE:
HELL AIN'T A BAD PLACE TO BE

ok let's leave the relation between intelligence and sarcasm, or the motivation to write threads in an unmanageable language behind, and let's answer your well verbalized circumstance once more. we both agree in the "suck factor" of lover writings. in conclusion i think, regardless you prefer still to fuck around, maybe caused by a lack of inspiration, boredom or whatever, i would like to define this replything as a pure waste of time. you don't have to come a long with me, nor i do. i don't want to belong to you, nor you do. even i cant remember to find myself scrambling in your ass. maybe the major thing is that we fit so perfect together that we should try the flower-bee game.

#16.1  |   Tiger   |  2011-05-24

RE: RE: montana cans

This forum ndeeed shaking up and you’ve just done that. Great post!

#16.1  |   Gloriana   |  2011-05-25

RE: RE: montana cans

Didn’t know the forum rules alolwed such brilliant posts.

#16.2  |   Trixie   |  2011-07-07

RE:RE: RE:

Great stuff, you helepd me out so much!

#15  |   Giulio   |  2005-06-28

Nice works

nice ideas for the stancil works!!!!!! also the style is great!!! the site is ok but you can do better....ciao ciao Giulio.

#14  |   Hugo Kaagman   |  2005-06-07

Ducth Stencil Style Master

I think I have the biggest stencil collection in the world, as I am doing over 30 years now.
From the Old School on boats, trains, cars, airplanes, walls, fashion, paintings and paper.
And digital, check my site www.kaagman.nl

#14.1  |   hugofuckyerself   |  2005-06-09

RE: RE: Ducth Stencil Style Master
deeef fucker

this site sucks

#14.2  |   remote|access   |  2005-06-10

RE:RE: RE: deeef fucker

the website itself is not that great but his stencil-work is awesome!!!

#14.1  |   hugofuckyerself   |  2005-06-09

RE: RE: Ducth Stencil Style Master
deeef

this site sucks

#13  |   Ed ter Pus   |  2005-06-01

Hugo Kaagman

You guys should invite "dutch master" Hugo Kaagman (http://www.kaagman.nl) from Amsterdam to submit some of his work.
He has been using this technique for over 30 years and has become a famous artist. His work is awesome. Check it out.

#12  |   ___27   |  2005-05-24

Lob

Hallo! Echt gute Seite, die ihr da habt. Ich find sie irgendwie besser und organisierter als stencilrevolution.
Aber wenn es mal Bilder aus vielen verschiedenen Städten gibt, wirds ein bisschen eng. Wäre übersichtlicher wenn ihr die einzelnen Länder angebt und die Städte als Untermenu... nur so ein Vorschlag.
Peace!

#11  |   Stoni   |  2005-04-22

a Rip off ?

@ snyy
Glaubst aber ned wirklich, oder?

#10  |   snyy   |  2005-04-18

This just looks like a rip off of stencilrevolution

#9  |   Stoni van der Farm   |  2005-01-23

Upload

Ich glaub ich werd aufgeben müssen! Wenn die Uploads von Datein mit 0,7 MB nicht funken! Noch weiter komprimieren, dann ist das Bild für'n A....! Sorry

#8  |   Emsigei   |  2005-01-21

Emsigei.com

Hi boys....
i come from Italy...

visit my website
http://www.emsigei.com

Peace Emsigei Cia Top

#7  |   seventy•six   |  2005-01-12

Sort by city

Bin ich der Einzige der bei "Sort bei City" nur Stadtnamen, aber kein Menüteil zum durchklicken findet? (MacOS 9.2.2, Mozilla 1.2b)

#7.1  |   stencilboard.at   |  2005-02-07

RE: RE: Sort by city
städtemenue neu

Aus Platzgründen und wegen Problemen mit einigen Browsern werden wir das menue umschreiben.

#6  |   Stoni van der Farm   |  2005-01-09

Upload error ?!

Gibt's vieleicht doch irgendwelche "Upload Grenzen"?

#6.1  |   remote|access   |  2005-01-10

RE: RE: Upload error ?!
ja, hast schon recht,

ab einer gewissen file-grösse funktioniert dummerweise der bilder-upload nicht mehr. sobald wir die maximale grösse rausgefunden haben werden wirs reinschreiben. mit bis zu 1mb grossen fotos hats bis jetzt jedenfalls immer funktioniert.

#6.2  |   Stoni van der farm   |  2005-01-11

RE:RE: RE: ja, hast schon recht,

Aha, hat bei einem 1,7 MB großen .jpeg File keine Probleme gehabt. Und bei 1,05 MB bekamm ich die "Upload Error" Message. Ich bleib aufjedenfall dran. thx stoni

#6.3  |   Jodi   |  2011-05-24

RE:RE:RE: RE:

Never seen a betetr post! ICOCBW

#6.3  |   Boston   |  2011-05-25

RE:RE:RE: RE:

You’re the one with the barnis here. I’m watching for your posts.

#5  |   FuX   |  2004-12-19

wes benutzt ihr?

Moin,
was benutzt ihr zum cutten eurer stencils? I

#5.1  |   remote|access   |  2004-12-22

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

also am besten funktioniert ein papier-skalpell. bekommt man im papierfachhandel. damit kann man relativ präzise schneiden. bei karton brechen allerdings oft die klingen, das nervt weil das zeug sauteuer is.

#5.1  |   Jalene   |  2011-05-24

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

Tuochodwn! That\'s a really cool way of putting it!

#5.1  |   gfxnby   |  2011-05-24

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

xEQBh8 rwsnotlojjbz

#5.1  |   jha2mjo   |  2011-05-29

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

car insurance pkw auto insurance rbrz cheap auto insurance 326

#5.1  |   SalemFU   |  2011-05-29

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

prednisone bah cheap auto insurance kfggl

#5.1  |   GIGIVA   |  2011-05-30

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

priligy =] accutane ano

#5.2  |   Nabin   |  2012-08-05

RE:RE: RE:

Christine Love what you have done with this piece. The Krylon on the hardware is one of my fatriove colors! Amazing job very pretty! Thanks so much for linking up to The Sunday showcase party I have featured this today. Stop by and grab a featured button if you like. Hope you have a wonderful week ~ Stephanie Lynn

#5.1  |   Voilock   |  2011-05-31

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

kamagra viagra cialis apcalis :-[ cheap life insurance wja

#5.1  |   FuzzySnakey   |  2011-06-01

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

cheap car insurance klgrnk cheap health insurance 8-[ home insurance 8-[[

#5.1  |   nonb00n   |  2011-06-01

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

cheap online prescription ultram viagra zoloft 952 accutane 526020 cialis 8-]]]

#5.1  |   seriago   |  2011-06-02

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

on line seroquel %-[[[ prednisone 4200 prednisone otz

#5.1  |   ScridgetIdgit   |  2011-06-03

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

levitra swg nexium viarga yasmin stimula vnxw prednisone 694640

#5.1  |   DeltaEnforcer   |  2011-06-04

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

levitra vvjjhn lexapro 20mg 8-[ cialis 645957

#5.1  |   potatolad   |  2011-06-04

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

car insurance quotes gux auto insurance ohopiz

#5.1  |   Died2Soon   |  2011-06-08

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

ultram %[[ lexapro pzt

#5.1  |   pontiacleo   |  2011-06-08

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

cost of viagra 76268 viagra for sale zyvwo

#5.1  |   xXbl00d666Xx   |  2011-06-12

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

accutane :-[[ cheapest health insurance >:]

#5.1  |   inocupcake   |  2011-06-12

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

buy 150 tramadol tablets 871 levitra viagra vs 44021

#5.1  |   syntaxdomain   |  2011-06-13

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

Comprando viagra 8-[ cialis bhvyf

#5.1  |   smartshoptube   |  2011-06-13

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

insurance auto cif health insurance plans :]]

#5.1  |   Jaycius   |  2011-06-14

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

auto insurance quotes juc cheapest health insurance =-((

#5.1  |   tughini   |  2011-06-14

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

tramadol 200 pills online 874 Cialis gkzwai

#5.1  |   owfriedman   |  2011-06-15

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

homeowners insurance california 76089 Auto Insurance >:DDD

#5.1  |   elolo10test   |  2011-06-16

RE: RE: wes benutzt ihr?

doxycycline aeld prednisone vozfgl

#5.2  |   Seven   |  2011-07-06

RE:RE: RE:

Haha. I woke up down today. You’ve cehered me up!

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don\'t appear to be the ones doing the sending.

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE:&