#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

#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

#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!

#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

#89  |   elpeor   |  2009-01-11

Internacionalizar(idiomas)(languages)

#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:

#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

#83  |   401RUSH   |  2008-03-12

Bon Jour Stencil History X

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

This is not a Test: RABBIT EYE MOVEMENT

#81  |   Oliver   |  2008-02-02

Projekt: Kunst am Bau – Wien

#80  |     |  2008-01-08

stencildoku innsbruck

#79  |   info   |  2007-05-03

WRITING RESISTANCE: graffiti-lecture street art-workshop

#78  |   stefan e.   |  2007-04-28

stasi 2.0

#77  |   der-ernesto   |  2007-04-10

frage:

#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?

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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 :)

#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?

#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

#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

#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

#31  |   Hassle   |  2006-01-11

David Hasselhoff beim WUK?

#30  |   EGRAFF.de   |  2006-01-06

jojo

#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 ...

#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

...

#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

#26  |   pixelpunk   |  2005-12-26

lob1234

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

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

#5.2  |   Thay   |  2012-10-15

RE:RE: RE:

I was wondering why you used difrnfeet syntax in the terrorists search than in the voters search, so I tried it myself using the same search phrasing for both. The results were interesting (and, I suspect, explain why you did it the way that you did).There\'s no shortage of results for terrorists and the sending of , but they don