Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

by Guest 04.05.15 15:03

aiyoyo wrote:
Verdi wrote:No, of course people in Praia da Luz community never recovered. How can they with people like her freelancing about sticking cameras and microphones in their faces and asking intrusive questions? Some people crave attention and would give their eye teeth to appear before a camera if there was a chance of a TV appearance, they'll say anything you want to hear, others might be camera shy or just don't want the intrusion. Hardly a balanced proportional view?

Another little appetizer before the final big bang. Poulton's documentary will need to be some blockbuster to achieve anything even close to success (or interest?) after all these months of anticipation. IMO she should have held back on the running commentary, she is only inviting negative speculation.

You are incredibly biased against SP even before the product is out.
She's talking about community never recovered after Kate & Gerry fiasco and you are turning it around to her being the issue. Are you for REAL?
Were you there to witness the filming? How can you judge ?

Yes indeed I am for real and always try to be realistic.

by Mark Willis 04.05.15 15:09

Hats off to those who favour realism over misguided hope. Richard Hall was savvy enough to avoid Kleeman and after the SP/Hutton fiasco she is another one to be realistic about/wary of.
We have seen far too much interest in individuals pre se rather than why they have the opinions they do.
Of course that would mean exposing the multitude of lies and inconsistencies in this case so, again, that will never be aired in the MSM current climate obtaining.

by Guest 04.05.15 15:15

aiyoyo wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:It's hardly news, though, is it?
Everyone knows already what the Portuguese think of the Mcs.
Hardly a revelation.
Anyway, this documentary has been kicked so far into the long grass not even Birch's lawnmower will find it.

The news is in she has been to the crime venue, and included the locals in her film.

So have a number of others been to the crime venue and interviewed locals, Gerry McCann even went their with his film production team and cast. As I say, it isn't any wonder the locals can't move on with constant intrusion into their lives and that includes Operation Grange poking about, creating bogus information about child snatching stinking burglars.

It will be interesting to see who these locals are that she's interviewed, Portuguese or ex-pats? I think that might make some difference to the documentary's impact.

by Guest 04.05.15 15:22

Mark Willis wrote:
Verdi wrote:No, of course people in Praia da Luz community never recovered. How can they with people like her freelancing about sticking cameras and microphones in their faces and asking intrusive questions? Some people crave attention and would give their eye teeth to appear before a camera if there was a chance of a TV appearance, they'll say anything you want to hear, others might be camera shy or just don't want the intrusion. Hardly a balanced proportional view?

Another little appetizer before the final big bang. Poulton's documentary will need to be some blockbuster to achieve anything even close to success (or interest?) after all these months of anticipation. IMO she should have held back on the running commentary, she is only inviting negative speculation.
I am really looking forward to SP's documentary.
Luckily I have a space in my diary for 2059 AD...

I'm looking forward to it, who wouldn't be after all these months of anticipation with juicy feeders at regular intervals to whet the appetite? Only I think you're being a bit optimistic about the diary entry, better make it open ended.

by joyce1938 04.05.15 15:28

surely we can all waite a bit and then say what we feel about what she has made film about ? it seems that when no real news about ,people get all nastyfor the want of things to talk about.,not good really . joyce1938

by Guest 04.05.15 15:29

Mark Willis wrote:Hats off to those who favour realism over misguided hope. Richard Hall was savvy enough to avoid Kleeman and after the SP/Hutton fiasco she is another one to be realistic about/wary of.
We have seen far too much interest in individuals pre se rather than why they have the opinions they do.
Of course that would mean exposing the multitude of lies and inconsistencies in this case so, again, that will never be aired in the MSM current climate obtaining.

One's got the mouth one's got the imagination (SP/R'C'H that is - not to be confused with R'D'H) Between the two they could go far.

by Mark Willis 04.05.15 15:30

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:
Verdi wrote:No, of course people in Praia da Luz community never recovered. How can they with people like her freelancing about sticking cameras and microphones in their faces and asking intrusive questions? Some people crave attention and would give their eye teeth to appear before a camera if there was a chance of a TV appearance, they'll say anything you want to hear, others might be camera shy or just don't want the intrusion. Hardly a balanced proportional view?

Another little appetizer before the final big bang. Poulton's documentary will need to be some blockbuster to achieve anything even close to success (or interest?) after all these months of anticipation. IMO she should have held back on the running commentary, she is only inviting negative speculation.
I am really looking forward to SP's documentary.
Luckily I have a space in my diary for 2059 AD...
I'm looking forward to it, who wouldn't be after all these months of anticipation with juicy feeders at regular intervals to whet the appetite? Only I think you're being a bit optimistic about the diary entry, better make it open ended.

LOL well I didn't specify which planet, did I?
Reminds me of Metodo 3 saying they'd have Maddie home for Christmas conveniently omitting which year that might be.
To reprise, we know what the locals think as we know what the UK's people think. Then we hear this will be shown in America therefore the best we can expect is that being uploaded to Youtube.
Until we have what is said on the net on TV nothing will change. Given that is not going to happen my only concern is which colour paint to choose watch dry.

by Mark Willis 04.05.15 15:33

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Hats off to those who favour realism over misguided hope. Richard Hall was savvy enough to avoid Kleeman and after the SP/Hutton fiasco she is another one to be realistic about/wary of.
We have seen far too much interest in individuals pre se rather than why they have the opinions they do.
Of course that would mean exposing the multitude of lies and inconsistencies in this case so, again, that will never be aired in the MSM current climate obtaining.
One's got the mouth one's got the imagination (SP/R'C'H that is - not to be confused with R'D'H) Between the two they could go far.

I like Richard Hall's vids. They precis just about all you need to know.
Now if that got on TV then GAME OVER.
Hence why it won't get on TV. Yet.

by Guest 04.05.15 15:33

joyce1938 wrote:surely we can all waite a bit and then say what we feel about what she has made film about ? it seems that when no real news about ,people get all nastyfor the want of things to talk about.,not good really . joyce1938

How long are we to wait that is the question. As I believe I've said before, because SP has been dishing out little hints about what to expect she is inviting speculation, be it positive or negative. Human nature I'm afraid.

by Mark Willis 04.05.15 15:36

Verdi wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:surely we can all waite a bit and then say what we feel about what she has made film about ? it seems that when no real news about ,people get all nastyfor the want of things to talk about.,not good really . joyce1938
How long are we to wait that is the question. As I believe I've said before, because SP has been dishing out little hints about what to expect she is inviting speculation, be it positive or negative. Human nature I'm afraid.

Compare that to Richard Hall's punctuality. No contest.

by joyce1938 04.05.15 15:41

Verdi, we have been waiting so long now for all this case to besolved ,or even close to being solved ,I am afraid we shall never see the mecs stand in courtroom ,really with all we have read and pondered about ,there still s not enough proof,sad to say. So now with all else of what films made or not made seems a waste of breath,i suppose I am trying to say we have seen it all before. regards to all joyce1938

by Joss 04.05.15 15:41

Verdi wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:surely we can all waite a bit and then say what we feel about what she has made film about ? it seems that when no real news about ,people get all nastyfor the want of things to talk about.,not good really . joyce1938
How long are we to wait that is the question. As I believe I've said before, because SP has been dishing out little hints about what to expect she is inviting speculation, be it positive or negative. Human nature I'm afraid.

Maybe someone who tweets could ask her when exactly? At least give a bit of an idea. Why does she keep drip feeding a little bit of info. every now and again? Why doesn't she just wait until she is ready to air it. I am still curious as to why she involves the U.S. There is no interest in the case from what i know.

by Guest 04.05.15 15:43

Mark Willis wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Hats off to those who favour realism over misguided hope. Richard Hall was savvy enough to avoid Kleeman and after the SP/Hutton fiasco she is another one to be realistic about/wary of.
We have seen far too much interest in individuals pre se rather than why they have the opinions they do.
Of course that would mean exposing the multitude of lies and inconsistencies in this case so, again, that will never be aired in the MSM current climate obtaining.
One's got the mouth one's got the imagination (SP/R'C'H that is - not to be confused with R'D'H) Between the two they could go far.
I like Richard Hall's vids. They precis just about all you need to know.
Now if that got on TV then GAME OVER.
Hence why it won't get on TV. Yet.

I too like Richard Hall's videos, I get a bit narked when I read people criticising his work (Madeleine McCann), who can't put forward a sound foundation for their views against but instead resort to a subtle twisting and tweaking of words in order to create an entirely different scenario. If you get my drift.

by Guest 04.05.15 15:44

Joss wrote:
Verdi wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:surely we can all waite a bit and then say what we feel about what she has made film about ? it seems that when no real news about ,people get all nastyfor the want of things to talk about.,not good really . joyce1938
How long are we to wait that is the question. As I believe I've said before, because SP has been dishing out little hints about what to expect she is inviting speculation, be it positive or negative. Human nature I'm afraid.
Maybe someone who tweets could ask her when exactly? At least give a bit of an idea. Why does she keep drip feeding a little bit of info. every now and again? Why doesn't she just wait until she is ready to air it. I am still curious as to why she involves the U.S. There is no interest in the case from what i know.

Precisely!

by Joss 04.05.15 15:48

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Hats off to those who favour realism over misguided hope. Richard Hall was savvy enough to avoid Kleeman and after the SP/Hutton fiasco she is another one to be realistic about/wary of.
We have seen far too much interest in individuals pre se rather than why they have the opinions they do.
Of course that would mean exposing the multitude of lies and inconsistencies in this case so, again, that will never be aired in the MSM current climate obtaining.
One's got the mouth one's got the imagination (SP/R'C'H that is - not to be confused with R'D'H) Between the two they could go far.
I like Richard Hall's vids. They precis just about all you need to know.
Now if that got on TV then GAME OVER.
Hence why it won't get on TV. Yet.
I too like Richard Hall's videos, I get a bit narked when I read people criticising his work (Madeleine McCann), who can't put forward a sound foundation for their views against but instead resort to a subtle twisting and tweaking of words in order to create an entirely different scenario. If you get my drift.

I agree, Richard Hall's vids. are excellent. I guess it is always easier to be an armchair critic when somebody else does something that most wouldn't even attempt to do, or know how to do. Must be just human nature or something.

by Mark Willis 04.05.15 15:49

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Hats off to those who favour realism over misguided hope. Richard Hall was savvy enough to avoid Kleeman and after the SP/Hutton fiasco she is another one to be realistic about/wary of.
We have seen far too much interest in individuals pre se rather than why they have the opinions they do.
Of course that would mean exposing the multitude of lies and inconsistencies in this case so, again, that will never be aired in the MSM current climate obtaining.
One's got the mouth one's got the imagination (SP/R'C'H that is - not to be confused with R'D'H) Between the two they could go far.
I like Richard Hall's vids. They precis just about all you need to know.
Now if that got on TV then GAME OVER.
Hence why it won't get on TV. Yet.
I too like Richard Hall's videos, I get a bit narked when I read people criticising his work (Madeleine McCann), who can't put forward a sound foundation for their views against but instead resort to a subtle twisting and tweaking of words in order to create an entirely different scenario. If you get my drift.

Drift got.
Point is, and I should know, if you have news then you have to get it out there asap else people lose interest very quickly. From what I have seen with SP (twice with Hutton) then one will have to excuse my scepticism.
Hall, however, delivered, no procrastination.

by Guest 04.05.15 15:54

joyce1938 wrote:Verdi, we have been waiting so long now for all this case to besolved ,or even close to being solved ,I am afraid we shall never see the mecs stand in courtroom ,really with all we have read and pondered about ,there still s not enough proof,sad to say. So now with all else of what films made or not made seems a waste of breath,i suppose I am trying to say we have seen it all before. regards to all joyce1938

Never a truer word spoken, we have seen and heard it all before and no doubt will see and hear it all in the future. Best of it is, these people who claim to be delivering that long awaited 'Eureka' moment, know no more than anyone who has followed the case. How can they?

IMO too much water has passed under the bridge (pity it didn't wash away a few trolls) for any prosecution, too many people involved directly and on the periphery, too much interference from above. They won their right to claim 'unfair trial' somewhere around midnight on 3rd/4th May 2007.

by aiyoyo 04.05.15 16:08

Mark Willis wrote:Hats off to those who favour realism over misguided hope. Richard Hall was savvy enough to avoid Kleeman and after the SP/Hutton fiasco she is another one to be realistic about/wary of.
We have seen far too much interest in individuals pre se rather than why they have the opinions they do.
Of course that would mean exposing the multitude of lies and inconsistencies in this case so, again, that will never be aired in the MSM current climate obtaining.

Yes, there is realism and then there is misguided hope. Two polar opposites.

Yes I am a realist, however I also don't believe in bashing people just for the sake of it. Because it's trendy or because it goes with the flow?

Am I hopeful SP's film will be a miracle that will cause a paradigm shift in the way MSM report on the Mcs case? NO.

Am I hoping it will make an impact? Somewhat - Probably !
Because it's not a pro-Mcs piece for a start. At least that's the impression I surmise. Also because if rumour is to be believed it's going to be broadcast in the land of the FREE. If it is to be broadcast here, then forget it. I don't see how the product can get past the sub-editor room, let alone survive intact inside cutting room.

I don't have high hope, but my glass is half full, until I see view the contents.
It is too premature to judge.
Using all sorts of perceived imaginary situations totally out of context to bash it is not realistic.

RH that motor mouth damages her own credibility by serving herself on the plate. Will that be a reflection of SP's work? Who knows? Is it a reflection of bad choice to use, definitely so.

by jeanmonroe 04.05.15 16:09

PdL - What a place. Why does anyone holiday there?
PdL - where families take it in turn to vomit each night, dog packs pursue and bite joggers, guests fall off catamarans, damage tendons playing tennis, have shaving accidents and stagger around apartments bleeding, domestic appliances need repair, shutters jam, baby monitors won't function at restaurants, travel cots can't be assembled.. sounds like THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED.

It's populated by black heroin addicts, people who rob apartments, gypsies who steal scrap and wood, scruffy moustachioed lurers of children, bogus charity collectors, suspicious street musicians, men lurking near phone booths, glasses man lurking in stairwells, blond men suspiciously lurking outside apartments, soothing couples entering apartments without permission, mysterious gangs of cleaners, men taking photographs of children on beaches... And to top it all, you have to queue for a table booking.
---------------------------------------------------------------

"And to top it all, you have to queue for a, tapas, table booking."
-------------------------------

Unless, of course, you've PRE BOOKED a table, for EVERY night, at the tapas restaurant, and 'the thing is, y'know, erm, we almost didn't go, (to tapas) as we were not sure, umm, we'd get in. Err, remember, Kate?' (re: GM)

"Shortly after we arrived, some other people left, and i believe we, Kate and I, were the only one's there' (re: GM)

Phew! Good job, the table was pre-booked then!

Not enough room, NORMALLY, at tapas restaurant, to 'swing' a full sized............ GIRAFFE! (apparently!)

by Joss 04.05.15 16:12

joyce1938 wrote:Verdi, we have been waiting so long now for all this case to besolved ,or even close to being solved ,I am afraid we shall never see the mecs stand in courtroom ,really with all we have read and pondered about ,there still s not enough proof,sad to say. So now with all else of what films made or not made seems a waste of breath,i suppose I am trying to say we have seen it all before. regards to all joyce1938

Hi joyce regards to you too, I agree, but it is good to see people putting out their truth in how they see this case, and if nothing else perhaps the tables are starting to turn on all the lies that have been told by the McC spin doctors.

by Mark Willis 04.05.15 16:16

aiyoyo wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Hats off to those who favour realism over misguided hope. Richard Hall was savvy enough to avoid Kleeman and after the SP/Hutton fiasco she is another one to be realistic about/wary of.
We have seen far too much interest in individuals pre se rather than why they have the opinions they do.
Of course that would mean exposing the multitude of lies and inconsistencies in this case so, again, that will never be aired in the MSM current climate obtaining.

Yes, there is realism and then there is misguided hope. Two polar opposites.

Yes I am a realist, however I also don't believe in bashing people just for the sake of it. Because it's trendy or because it goes with the flow?

Am I hopeful SP's film will be a miracle that will cause a paradigm shift in the way MSM report on the Mcs case? NO.

Am I hoping it will make an impact? Somewhat - Probably !
Because it's not a pro-Mcs piece for a start. At least that's the impression I surmise. Also because if rumour is to be believed it's going to be broadcast in the land of the FREE. If it is to be broadcast here, then forget it. I don't see how the product can get past the sub-editor room, let alone survive intact inside cutting room.

I don't have high hope, but my glass is half full, until I see view the contents.
It is too premature to judge.
Using all sorts of perceived imaginary situations totally out of context to bash it is not realistic.

RH that motor mouth damages her own credibility by serving herself on the plate. Will that be a reflection of SP's work? Who knows? Is it a reflection of bad choice to use, definitely so.

I deduce from what I see and hear how this will turn out without having to wait. Certainly not bashing anyone for the sake of it, a fruitless undertaking.
However, where praise is due, give it. Conversely, the same applies with criticism. I know when how a story evolves from inchoate ideas to fruition and this one smacks of unrealistic expectations. I'm almost certain what the actual thrust/topic will be but I won't hold myself hostage to fortune with that.

by aiyoyo 04.05.15 16:35

Mark Willis wrote: I know when how a story evolves from inchoate ideas to fruition and this one smacks of unrealistic expectations. I'm almost certain what the actual thrust/topic will be but I won't hold myself hostage to fortune with that.

That I agree.
Expecting it to be high on standard on factual/evidence accuracy on the case is like waiting to fly to the moon. Won't happen.

However if thrust/topic is on pro-mcs trolls and if she manages to out the identities of those as well as identities of the Dossier compliers, especially if proved they are related or known to Mcs and/or Mcs family members, then that will be something to behold. Provided she has done her homework properly and accurately, or her reputation/career is on the line.

by lj 04.05.15 16:46

Verdi wrote:
Disgraceful conduct, although can't say I'm surprised that you were stopped in your prime. So that's their mode of censorship is it, to instantly shut you up live - charming!
On a lesser scale, despite many attempts I've never had a single comment about the case published in the press online. They seem to stick to low key generalizations about time and money spent on one missing child or mild comments about neglect. Freedom of speech is only applicable to bias, you can say what you like as long as we agree with it.

I think the Daily Mail has a black list of commenters they don't like.
I could comment even on this case, as long as it was not too outspoken. Then I commented on a complete different article about something I know a lot and they clearly know nothing about. It was a very friendly comment, but it corrected several errors in their article. God knows why, they saw it fit to edit my comment in such a way it completely supported their nonsense. You can imagine that the next, and following comments were less friendly, as were emails to the mail. No reaction whatsoever.
Since then I haven't been able to get any comment published. I have tried with even silly comments on the royals like "what a lovely dress": nope nade.
I can still arrow things, but I cannot comment anymore.

I still don't get why they went through all the trouble editing my comment instead just refusing it. Maybe the writer did realize he had not done his homework and didn't want to look foolish?

by Guest 04.05.15 19:41

Mark Willis today @ 30:49 pm

The way I see it, Richard Hall stays focused, sticks to information known without hype and embellisment or dragging people off the streets to sell his work. His videos sell themselves because they are interesting, well documented, well presented, coherent and packed with relevant detail which is pulled apart to expose the lies and hypocrisy that surrounds the case.

No heroics, no comic effigy dropping from the sky (news?) swinging on the end of a sequined gilded parachute with trumpet in one hand and camcorder in the other. One is class the other is crass. Still, the proof of the pudding - I await with unbated breath.

by Guest 04.05.15 19:54

aiyoyo today @ 5:08 pm

If SP wants to be taken seriously, which I presume she does, the company she keeps doesn't do her any favours.

As for her work being aired in the States, I suggest is only because she couldn't find a willing outlet in the UK. Eight years on I can't see what possible interest this case has for the American market, the McCanns tried hard enough to get them on board by Gerry's well publicized visit to Washington and their later zzzzelebrity appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show. That was then and staged Oprah style, this is now.

YouTube is the best she can hope for in the UK.

Btw, I don't criticize for criticisms sake, my opinion of the womans ability is formed on past performance and how I perceive her as a professional.

by Guest 04.05.15 22:04

lj wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Disgraceful conduct, although can't say I'm surprised that you were stopped in your prime. So that's their mode of censorship is it, to instantly shut you up live - charming!
On a lesser scale, despite many attempts I've never had a single comment about the case published in the press online. They seem to stick to low key generalizations about time and money spent on one missing child or mild comments about neglect. Freedom of speech is only applicable to bias, you can say what you like as long as we agree with it.

I think the Daily Mail has a black list of commenters they don't like.
I could comment even on this case, as long as it was not too outspoken. Then I commented on a complete different article about something I know a lot and they clearly know nothing about. It was a very friendly comment, but it corrected several errors in their article. God knows why, they saw it fit to edit my comment in such a way it completely supported their nonsense. You can imagine that the next, and following comments were less friendly, as were emails to the mail. No reaction whatsoever.
Since then I haven't been able to get any comment published. I have tried with even silly comments on the royals like "what a lovely dress": nope nade.
I can still arrow things, but I cannot comment anymore.

I still don't get why they went through all the trouble editing my comment instead just refusing it. Maybe the writer did realize he had not done his homework and didn't want to look foolish?

Crikey, then it's worse than I thought. Not much point in offering the opportunity to 'have your say' if they see fit to censure comments by editing what you submit. So frustrating, no matter how one tries to crack the system you just end up going round in circles.

Having said that, I honestly don't believe public opinion has any sway, it only gives us the chance to have a rant or express opinion on any given subject. Much like the child abuse scandal that was filling the pages prior to election campaigning, the truth has been buried (in more ways than one) and must remain so no matter what.

by lj 04.05.15 22:46

Verdi wrote:
lj wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Disgraceful conduct, although can't say I'm surprised that you were stopped in your prime. So that's their mode of censorship is it, to instantly shut you up live - charming!
On a lesser scale, despite many attempts I've never had a single comment about the case published in the press online. They seem to stick to low key generalizations about time and money spent on one missing child or mild comments about neglect. Freedom of speech is only applicable to bias, you can say what you like as long as we agree with it.

I think the Daily Mail has a black list of commenters they don't like.
I could comment even on this case, as long as it was not too outspoken. Then I commented on a complete different article about something I know a lot and they clearly know nothing about. It was a very friendly comment, but it corrected several errors in their article. God knows why, they saw it fit to edit my comment in such a way it completely supported their nonsense. You can imagine that the next, and following comments were less friendly, as were emails to the mail. No reaction whatsoever.
Since then I haven't been able to get any comment published. I have tried with even silly comments on the royals like "what a lovely dress": nope nade.
I can still arrow things, but I cannot comment anymore.

I still don't get why they went through all the trouble editing my comment instead just refusing it. Maybe the writer did realize he had not done his homework and didn't want to look foolish?
Crikey, then it's worse than I thought. Not much point in offering the opportunity to 'have your say' if they see fit to censure comments by editing what you submit. So frustrating, no matter how one tries to crack the system you just end up going round in circles.

Having said that, I honestly don't believe public opinion has any sway, it only gives us the chance to have a rant or express opinion on any given subject. Much like the child abuse scandal that was filling the pages prior to election campaigning, the truth has been buried (in more ways than one) and must remain so no matter what.

There is one comfort in all this: If the comment section is the edited version of how Britain feels about the conning couple, it is understandable they lay low. They must be truly and deeply hated.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.05.15 14:00

Sonia Poulton and camera crew have been in Praia da Luz the last couple of days filming for the long-awaited documentary.

She's sent us all, via Twitter, this pic:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

...with this intriguing accompanying question:

Who was this mysterious Smithman?

Maybe Sonia will supply the 'final answer'?

Or maybe not.

Here are the 6 main runners so far:

1 The Operation Grange/McCann Team/BBC Crimewatch theory: "It was Maddie's abductor, maybe a burglar or smelly bin man"

2 The Pat Brown/Johanna Renstein theory: "It was Gerry McCann"

3 Richard D Hall and myself: "There never was a Smithman"

4 Just an ordinary bloke in the village, or a tourist, taking his youngster home a bit late in the evening, who's never come forward

5 A McCann Team decoy, maybe Russell O'Brien or Matthew Oldfield

6 A N Other.

I'm not aware of any other candidates.

I can't wait