AC/DC made consistently superior albums with Scott than Johnson. The only overall very good album they made with Johnson was Back In Black. All other Johnson era AC/DC albums have a lot of 'fillers' and forgettable numbers on them. Scott's AC/DC albums were much better in general. Dirty Deeds, Let There Be Rock, Powerage, Highway To Hell...wow!

Ann Wilson approaching 60; I'm still madly in love with her. Oh and in anticipation of any 'fat' jibes, please shut the hell up. Annie is gorgeous to me.

Then you are feckin' weird. She's NORMAL, sonny. 13 years old are they? You like skinny boyish arses. It's obvious.

But she didn't even have a 'big' backside. That was the whole point. She was average. Not 'big'. I think what you mean to say is that you prefer women who have smaller than normal backsides. You should have said so. You like tiny backsides.

Well, obviously you do, because that woman's butt wasn't even all that large. Huh? It 'sags a little and therefore it's 'gross'? Geez, over 50% of women's arses would be 'gross' to you then. That woman isn't even average size. She's less than that. You, like a lot of guys, are force fed some 'perfectionist' size zero crapolla, which is ridiculous. Most women are not like that (size zero) thank cripes. Now THIS is a "large and saggy butt" mate : That other woman I posted is NOTHING like the above. I have never seen J-Lo's full butt out of panties and neither have you so you can't compare. It's not even all that large. It's just 'large compared to the skinny pipe cleaners that infest the industry'. Its less than normal....and it's never seen without pants holding it all together. These non latino ladies would give any 'latino' a run for their money. You haven't been with the white women I have. Disagree. No one particular race does it better than any other. It's foolish and naive to suggest otherwise.

What are you? A queer or a paedophile? You prefer a woman with a smaller bum than you? You don't like women (as in the title of this thread)? If ya got nothin' nice to say, best to say nothing.

You can never have a woman's arse that is too big.

Watched The Italian Job on DVD last night. No, not the crappy 'remake' but the 1969 original with Michael Caine.

I would dearly love to sink my teeth into that magnificent womanly ars.............er I mean bottom.

There's sasquatch in them thar hills.

Hell's teeth. I'd convert and become religious if I could get with Marie.

Think again. There are a vast amount of places like this from the PNW up to Alaska: British Columbia (for example) has an area five times the size of Britain.............yet only around 4 million people live there and the vast majority of those live in the south west corner in and around Vancouver. A lot of that part of North America is more rugged, more densely forested and more remote and inaccessible than many places in Africa and South America with the only way in being by plane or boat. The gloomy darkness and wetness of the deep rain forests are not very nice places for people to spend much time in. In areas like those above people don't go far from tracks and trails...if there are any to begin with. As I said earlier, a lot of that area has only ever been mapped and surveyed from the air.

Well said. You have put it very succinctly. Best to enjoy and cherish the time we have on this planet rather than be concerned about what 'might' happen to us once we are dead.

It's not a claim. It's a fact. A couple thousand year old book is not 'evidence'. There is no more evidence as to the reality of the Bible's 'God' than there is to the reality of Thor or Odin or Ganesh etc etc. There is evidence that people believe in God, but there is not one shred of evidence regarding the reality of God. It's very bizarre why the Bible's God only chose to make himself known to a tiny localised part of the world known as the Middle East and nowhere else. In the plains of North America, in the jungles of South America, in the taiga of Siberia, in the deserts of south west Africa, in the mountains of China and around the coasts of Britain (in short, the vast majority of the planet) the people in those places had no knowledge and no awareness of the Bible's God for countless millennia. Surely if there was such a reality to the Bible's God, it would have been inbuilt and inherent in everybody. The very fact that each area of the globe had their own separate gods, deities and spirits totally different to the other is proof positive that God and gods are man made phenomena with no basis in reality save as a comfort to man's need to answer to a higher force.

Ummmm, unidentified DNA from a mysterious hair recovered after a Yeti sighting in Bhutan. I would say that is a 'shred of evidence'. http://www.rense.com/general11/yhet.htm Dr Bryan Sykes, one of the world's top genetic experts at Oxford cannot match it to any known sample and doesn't know what in the hell it is. He has never encountered that before, or since.

Certainly. Would be fun to look. At least there is a possibility. There is NO possibility that you will find your God because there is no such thing other than what is in your dense head. There is not even a shred of evidence for the existance of 'God'. As opposed to another poster who openly said he laughs at people who 'believe' in the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot? Do you honestly see me crying and whinging about it? Nope, you see me debating his reasoning, not moaning and crying 'foul' Grow up. Stand up then and I'll carry on. Either that or address the facking points and stop being such a pain in the arse. You claimed the forests of the PNW and BC have all been extensively searched. Where are those 60 odd planes then? Because clearly it doesn't bother him so there is no need for him to do so. Same as it doesn't bother me if something 'laughs' at 'belief' in bigfoot. Instead of whinging about an 'affront to my senstitivities' I'd rather tackle the actual subject and not cry like a facking baby like YOU are doing. Naaaaaaah he was NOT the Messiah............................."he was a very naughty boy"

Ohhhhhhhhh touchy subject isn't it? Says you. Not so, say I. Religion is NOT above mocking and SHOULD NOT be above mocking. It's as much fair game as anything else and I have the freedom to mock what I wish, thank ya very much.

Well piss off then. You're the idiot who started posting to me when I didn't even post to you previously.

Are you serious? Of course they haven't. Are you aware that in the last 50 years over 60 planes have disappeared from northern California to southern Alaska and have NEVER been found? And they are large static objects. A lot of the PNW and BC has only ever been mapped from the air. In the dense mountain forests humans rarely venture far off the beaten path and trails/tracks etc etc. Even hunters don't go too far from the roadheads. In British Columbia, much of the province is only accessible via plane or boat and that's a fact. If those woods have been searched thoroughly, why are those 60 planes still missing? How about all the people who go in there, get lost and never come out again? Actually there was even a large mammal discovered in Vietnam not long ago. New species are still being discovered. Maybe they are just being seen while they are on their way out.

Good for you. But er, I wasn't posting to you. LMAO! Good for you. I'm in England and we regularly take the piss out of religion here. That's becuase we have the freedom to take the piss out of whatever we want. We even have sitcoms taking the piss out of religion. It's part of the nature of my country. Deal with it. And I have the right to take the piss out of it if I so wish. I am not in America. If you can believe in God then you should be able to believe in almost anything so it would make sense to believe in bigfoot seeing as the idea is more plausible than the idea of God. Nothing supernatural about sasquatch. It would just be an animal.

And you just said the idea of bigfoot is crazy, therefore you must think I am crazy. Hypocrite. Typical. Hey dopey bollocks I responded to other people in this thread who were mocking the subjects discussed here. Yio didn't seem to have a problem with that, but as soon as your precious 'religion' is mocked you don't like it. Ya tart.

Just told you. Read my other post. You don't know much about nature do you? You don't know much about what is and what isn't found in the forest do you? You expect people to trip over bones all the time? LOL. Small numbers, rugged and remote terrain etc etc. They are probably on their way out and might be gone in 100 years or so. It's no great conundrum that no bones are found. Only those who don't know nature ponder that. LOL, I haven't said aliens don't exist. Again, merely said the idea of sasquatch is more plausible and logical. That doesn't mean aliens are not plausible. Hmmmm, but you're not a dickhead for insulting people's ''bigfoot beliefs'' LMAO?? You're quote: I couldn't care less if you laugh at 'bigfoot'. I certainly don't get upset and act all affronted and upset at your mocking. I just debate you and point you out where you are going wrong. Again, why is it ok to laugh at 'bigfoot' but you get all upset when somebody laughs at religion? Geez, you religious zealots are something else. Hypocrits and totally contradictory. So.............do ya reckon ol' big daddy God is protecting sasquatch and keeping them hidden from man's exploitation? If God exists, why wouldn't he do that? How come you can believe in a supernatural all powerful deity but not some hairy arsed primate? Can you explain your reasoning because I just don't get it.

Good for you. It IS silly and goes against science. I laugh at people who take it at face value. Why is it ok to mock and laugh at something like sasquatch (which people have done in this thread) but not the Bible? Smacks of hypocrisy. Smacks of double standards. Look mate, if you can believe in God then you might as well believe in anything. That's the bottom line. For all you know, your God might be keeping bigfoot hidden after he has seen what mankind has done to the rest of the planet. Really? How so? Sasquatch would be an upright primate/hominid/apelike animal if it exists. Ever heard of gigantopithecus/australopithecus/paranthropus etc etc? They are proven to have existed. If sasquatch exists, it wouldn't be too far removed from known species. As far as I am aware, no alien beings have ever been proven to have existed either today or in the past. So again, what makes you think aliens have a much better case than sasquatch? By the way, I didn't even say that aliens don't exist. I merely said the idea of aliens is sillier than sasquatch. That doesn't mean silly (on the face of it) phenomena can't exist.

Not really. If, as I believe, sasquatch is largely restricted to the mountainous forests of the Pacific Northwest/British Columbia etc then who is going to find their bones or fossils? That area is very poor for fossils with it's highly acidic soils and bones are almost never found of animals that have died of natural causes in the forests. Even bear and mountain lion remains are hardly ever found unless they have just been shot by a hunter.LOL. Sasquatch is obviously low in number and would dwell mainly in heavily timbered areas. Anybody who has ever flown over the PNW knows full well how inaccessible and rugged the area is and that goes doubly for British Columbia. If they are dying out and getting less and less they might well be gone before they are scientifically catalogued. That would be a shame. The facts are though, even people searching for sasquatch are only doing it part time on limited budgets. There are not vast amounts of money being spent on dedicated permanent or semi permanent field researches.