Creepy Dutch TV Host + Paedophilia Thread.
April 23, 2008 9:06 PM   Subscribe

The 'Creepy Dutch TV Host' thread is fast becoming a train-wreck, for various reasons. Context seems to be one issue; possible acts of paedophilia seems to be the other.

First, the thread itself carries no NSFW warning, and doesn’t tell people clicking the link that we're essentially about to watch paedophilia. As others have said in thread, there may be some humorous context here which is supposed to make this OK, but as I have said in-thread, there is no context that can make what I saw OK.

Secondly, the post reads like an AskMe question. I quote "Perhaps it's a joke, perhaps the guy is sozzled? That is all. Actually: if you know more about the video, do tell." That, krautland, is an AskMe question.

Perhaps if you had asked for context about a video you saw on Break.com where some dutch TV host seems to molesting a kid (with an option to link to it in the [more inside].... and this is very optional), no doubt people would have helped you get the context you're seeking and a train-wreck would have been avoided. Instead, you're presenting a video on Metafilter which to all intents and purposes is depicting paedophilia; this is going to start a train-wreck, one way or the other.

Put simply, krautland's post is all sorts of wrong and needs to be deleted.
posted by Effigy2000 to Etiquette/Policy at 9:06 PM (151 comments total)

Breathe deep, my little fiamo, and sing sweet.
posted by carsonb at 9:24 PM on April 23, 2008


It's also LOLDUTCH, though admittedly I have no clue why anyone would find that routine funny.
posted by owhydididoit at 9:29 PM on April 23, 2008


Put simply, krautland's post is all sorts of wrong and needs to be deleted.

For what it's worth, I flagged it as soon as I saw it. More people need to flag it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:31 PM on April 23, 2008


I thought it was sort of anti-American, myself.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 9:32 PM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm arguing against deletion. Although I think my last two comments to yazi were probably unnecessary, I think the rest of the thread is pretty good. Sure, the first link doesn't provide much context. But several folks quickly explain who it is, and that de Leeuw is actually a well-known personality in Holland (and, although anonymously, pretty well-known on the Internet). The streaker clip is pretty fantastic as well.

No kids were harmed, and the clip more closely resembles performance art than anything else. Add a NSFW tag, and the post is saved!
posted by KokuRyu at 9:32 PM on April 23, 2008


More people need to flag it.

Thanks for the reminder. I often fail to flag before I move on.
posted by owhydididoit at 9:45 PM on April 23, 2008 [2 favorites]


the clip more closely resembles performance art than anything else.

Indeed. A picture's worth a thousand words, but the internet is proof that pictures can be doctored and/or misleading. I wish that there was more context, and in the absence of it, it's a crappy post, but I don't think that the video clip itself was particularly out of bounds, per se. (Of course, if it's eventually determined that the dude did eventually do bad things to the kid, mea culpa, but shooting first and asking questions later isn't really the MetaFilter way.)
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:45 PM on April 23, 2008


Yes, it's a poorly worded, unresearched post and needs a 'possibly NSFW' marker, but in terms of link quality it's no less "zomg you guys gotta see this!" than a lot of SLYT links that stay.

Of course, the subject matter is somewhat more controversial, and the 'jj.am' watermark generally spells doom for well thought out responses.
posted by cosmonik at 9:52 PM on April 23, 2008


But should "calm down, it's probably not actually pedophila" be a good enough reason to let it stay on the front page? What if it's simultaneously not pedophilia and also not funny or interesting or worthwhile? Which, I submit, is what's happening here.
posted by penduluum at 9:53 PM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oftentimes with borderline crap, the measure to whether or not it should stay is based on comments. And unfortunately, self-restraint is not a valued character trait on the 'net, and while we do better here, it's still a lowest-common-denominator game.

Reap what you sow. It's not a huge loss to the community, and maybe someone can get some context and make it better tomorrow. As it stands, though, there's nothing of value in the comments, and the link was marginal, at best... and at worst the equivalent of a SLOE.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:58 PM on April 23, 2008


Wow. I read through that thread first and then watched the video... it's really not worth getting all het-up over. I don't speak Dutch, so I have no clue what the skit's about. I do know, however, that the singing is atrocious, and the kid looks completely comfortable with the shtick. And it is, obviously, some kind of schtick. Yes, taken out of context it can be misconstrued, like many things, but chill out. This is a shitty post, but it's neither NSFW or some kind of NAMBLA manifesto, as far as I can tell. It's just very very far from being the best of the web, and it lacks the context to make its weirdness instructive or enriching.
posted by mumkin at 10:02 PM on April 23, 2008


I alluded to this in my comment (which contained the backstory needed to better appreciate the post), but it's a bad post simply because it's lazy. It's one thing to post a single link to something that's cool, but to purposely post a single link and ask everyone else to post background info about it when it's fairly simple to find does not set a good example. I'm not necessarily saying it should be deleted, but it's a very weak post.
posted by dhammond at 10:10 PM on April 23, 2008 [4 favorites]


While I hate to admit to visiting there, I first saw this on /b/ of fourchan months ago. It's really just an internet shocker. I really don't see how anyone is entertained, educated or edified by this post in any way.
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:25 PM on April 23, 2008


It's pretty creepy but the thread is no worse than lots of others - it was no worse than the smooth jazz thread.

Yes, I just compared smooth jazz to pedophilia
posted by GuyZero at 10:36 PM on April 23, 2008 [8 favorites]


*insert Simpson's think..children quote here*
posted by arse_hat at 11:01 PM on April 23, 2008


dhammond is right.

I felt a little ripped off after discovering that the host was a comedian. I wanted, nay DEMAND to see a real pedophile.

Crap post because of that, would have been an OK post if context was given.

Comments like "Dutch people are weird...." are iffy IMO

KokuRyu's comment's were OK.
posted by mattoxic at 11:42 PM on April 23, 2008


More people need to flag it.

Flagged -- as awesome!

While I don't know for sure, I'd hazard a guess that this is one of his two adopted kids. Its hard to imagine another reason why he'd feature a kid who can't sing in a duet on his show.

But perhaps gay men just don't have any business showing affection for their adopted children in public -- just in case people get the wrong idea, you know?

And like, I know that the Dutch are liberal and all, but I'm pretty sure that even they aren't in the habit of awarding their out swowbiz paedophiles with knighthoods.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:53 PM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ugh. swowbiz is obviously Dutch for showbiz.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:55 PM on April 23, 2008


Yeah, whatever you think of this comedian or whatever... that kid couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. God, that was painful.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:56 PM on April 23, 2008


Sorry, you're right, Dutch people are totally normal.
posted by hjo3 at 11:58 PM on April 23, 2008


But perhaps gay men just don't have any business showing affection for their adopted children in public -- just in case people get the wrong idea, you know?

The fuck?
posted by crossoverman at 11:59 PM on April 23, 2008 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: it's probably not actually pedophila.
posted by univac at 12:04 AM on April 24, 2008


Train wreck? I ran here as fast as I could! Where are the best gawking spots?
posted by Krrrlson at 12:22 AM on April 24, 2008


The fuck?

OK, so it doesn't actually appear to be one of his adopted kids. Point still stands. Gay man shows affection for kid. Mob screams paedophile.

dhartung sums it up perfectly.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:40 AM on April 24, 2008


Gay man shows affection for kid. Mob screams paedophile.

I must be one of those self-hating gays, then. But it was a shitty post either way. No matter, a spooge-eating monkey post is no doubt on the way to distract me.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:18 AM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Based on some people's reaction, one would expect the video to show some wet kisses, genital or other "bad" touching, evident sexual arousal on the part of the host, and a scared kid trying to scape, being scarred for life after the incident.

To those people, your threshold for "paedophilia" (which by the way is not equal to raping or seducing a child), is way fucking low. How many of you would have reported to the police a man trying to develop pictures of himself kissing a newborn boy on the groin/belly button?

Since moving to the US, you keep reminding me that, as a bearded male foreigner, I must keep as far away as possible from small children. It was some of you giving me dirty looks, pointing and whispering when I handed that kid the bag he dropped, it was you who plucked your toddler out of the frame when my wife was taking a picture of a fountain, yelled at her, and made the kid cry. Thanks for that. After those incidents, rest assured that if I ever see your kid lost and crying in the park or the mall, instead of comforting and walking him to a safe place, I will escape as fast as I can.
posted by Dr. Curare at 2:20 AM on April 24, 2008 [27 favorites]


I looked it up and quickly found out the context. I found one site that explained the song was a love song and the host was miming the part of the girl's voice in the song. It was obviously pre-planned and rehearsed and he was hamming it up, trying to make the kid laugh with his shenanigans.

Also, I think it's stupid to think Dutch people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a child molester and a TV performance. Being American doesn't mean everyone else in the world is ignorant because they live in a different country, wtf?

Still, I think Krautland could have added a lot more context because I have better things to do than hunt it up and wade through comments of "omg, that is sick!" when it was something else entirely.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 4:20 AM on April 24, 2008 [2 favorites]


First, the thread itself carries no NSFW warning, and doesn’t tell people clicking the link that we're essentially about to watch paedophilia.

Wait. The clip did originally air on Dutch television, didn't it? I mean, I didn't watch the whole thing, but there's no nudity, is there? 30 seconds into it (when I lost interest and hit the back button) all it showed were a man and a boy singing a song.
posted by Dave Faris at 4:46 AM on April 24, 2008


I think some of you need to go sit on the roof and poop dimes.
posted by Sailormom at 5:15 AM on April 24, 2008 [6 favorites]


I added a maybe NSFW warning but I'd prefer to not have to watch creepy video before I've had my coffee, what's pedo about it?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:27 AM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Thou shalt not think any male over the age of 30 that plays with a child that is not their own is a paedophile. Some people are just nice.
posted by flashboy at 5:50 AM on April 24, 2008 [12 favorites]


The slobbery kiss was perhaps excusable as overzealous relative/creepy grandma type, but when I got to him holding the kid by upside down by the legs, rubbing him up and down on his crotch - well that's what's so pedo about it to me. And I just skipped through parts.
posted by cashman at 6:06 AM on April 24, 2008


Goes to roof, drops trousers, begins to poop dimes...
posted by fixedgear at 6:13 AM on April 24, 2008


show me, on the doll, where the bad man touched you.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:37 AM on April 24, 2008


The solution is quite simple. First we ban all Dutch people from MetaFilter. Next, Matt filters out all video content that has some tie to those nutty Dutch child molesters. Lastly, we soak our brains in a combination of bleach and floral fragrances and speak only of buttercups and rainbows.

"The fuck" indeed.

Dhammond saved the thread with his link to the video backstory. I read it and said to myself, "oh! ha now I get it." Maybe the original poster could have done some basic Googling to find the same thing. In that sense, yeah the post sucked. But I don't think deleting it is the answer here.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:50 AM on April 24, 2008


I don't think it should be deleted either.
posted by delmoi at 7:15 AM on April 24, 2008


as a bearded male foreigner, I must keep as far away as possible from small children.

If you would just turn in your beard at the border, you'd save us all so much trouble.

Just kidding, I feel your pain. I'm a mile tall and "radiate homosexuality" as someone once told me, and I often attract curious looks from young people, and suspicious looks from their parents. It was also part of what made substitute teaching the worst job ever-- the kids were more or less fine with me, but I was uncomfortable, knowing there was always a weapon they had against me if they dared use it, and you could tell that some of them dared.
posted by [NOT HERMITOSIS-IST] at 7:16 AM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


People look because you radiate BEAUTY, darling.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:20 AM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


In fact, you may be pregnant.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:24 AM on April 24, 2008 [6 favorites]


rest assured that if I ever see your kid lost and crying in the park or the mall, instead of comforting and walking him to a safe place, I will escape as fast as I can.

You'd step outside your own life to help a lost child? Man you really are a foreigner. Stick to your own sphere, keep your head down, and you'll assimilate eventually.

Oh yes. You will assimilate.
posted by cosmonik at 7:35 AM on April 24, 2008


Keep the post, but rail the poster. BTW, I read dhammond's contribution BEFORE checking out the post, because Yod knows I too would prefer non-creepy before coffee etc. It was disappointing not to have that information within the fpp.

My expectation is that posters of fpps do simple research on a subject before posting.

I mean, it's not like krautland's new here.
posted by humannaire at 8:13 AM on April 24, 2008


The post was crap, but the link itself isn't the real problem. The problem is all these 'GASP! PEDO!' moonbats. Who might have been smart enough to keep their fucking gobs shut if, as has been suggested, the poster had done his research and made a post with backstory of the video and some derision of the retarded and unjustified controversy over this harmless video.

Some of the posters in that thread... Christ. I mean, talk about xenophobic.

Grow the fuck up.
posted by The Monkey at 8:18 AM on April 24, 2008


Who might have been smart enough to keep their fucking gobs shut if, as has been suggested, the poster had done his research and made a post with backstory of the video and some derision of the retarded and unjustified controversy over this harmless video.

I thought most of the conversation was about the fact that, despite being fully apprised of the back story, it still looked creepy as hell and that people were sincerely seeking to understand what cultural differences might be at play in making it funny to some and not at all to others.
posted by psmealey at 8:44 AM on April 24, 2008


To those people, your threshold for "paedophilia" (which by the way is not equal to raping or seducing a child), is way fucking low. How many of you would have reported to the police a man trying to develop pictures of himself kissing a newborn boy on the groin/belly button?

Gay man shows affection for kid. Mob screams paedophile.

Thou shalt not think any male over the age of 30 that plays with a child that is not their own is a paedophile. Some people are just nice.


Did any of you actually watch the video? The guy wasn't kissing a newborn on the belly, playing with a child, or showing affection for a kid. He was deliberately acting like a pedophile for comic effect -- see, e.g., turning the kid upside down with his head right next to the guy's crotch, chewing on his shirt, lascivious wet kisses, etc. Fine, it was all some sort of gag, but it's disingenuous to argue that being creeped out by this performance is equivalent to homophobia or the other types of false panic you describe.

Anyways, I just saw a male teacher across the street holding a child's hand, so I have to go call the police now.
posted by brain_drain at 8:58 AM on April 24, 2008


Actually, I just caught up with the rest of the comments in the thread, and there are some good points providing better context that may reduce or eliminate the squick factor if known before viewing the video. I'm not going to watch it again, though.
posted by brain_drain at 9:08 AM on April 24, 2008


I think it's interesting that in the US, it seems like pedophilia is a worse crime than almost any other. Worse than murder. Worse than rape. Worse than serial killing. About the only thing worse than being a child molester is being a terrorist.
posted by Dave Faris at 9:09 AM on April 24, 2008


Well this is interesting, cultural differences might be the whole thing. I'm not Dutch, but I'm also not American, so there's another level to it again. But allow me to just say that when I watched the video I pretty much saw what it later turned out I thought I saw - a TV host acting weird and making a kid giggle. So all the "CREEPY" was just out of left field as far as I'm concerned. (Weird isn't necessarily creepy. Not funny isn't necessarily creepy.)

But if it's a cultural thing, then it's a difficult conversation. We'll all be coming to it with the implicit belief that our own one is the superior one (and clearly only I would be right about that), so where will we ever get to?

Maybe nowhere, so let's move on to the vegan streaker, which I thought was a great clip. For me it turned a crappy post with really fucking weird comments into a crappy post with really fucking weird comments and... a sweet ass-link.
posted by The Monkey at 9:14 AM on April 24, 2008


. We'll all be coming to it with the implicit belief that our own one is the superior

I'd disagree with that. In terms of acceptance of diversity, legalization of recreational drugs, environmental progressivism and treating healthcare as a right and not a privilege, Dutch culture is head and shoulders superior to my own.

I think it's interesting that in the US, it seems like pedophilia is a worse crime than almost any other.

I can't tell from your profile if you are from the U.S. or not, but if not, let me explain. There is a media created and encouraged hysteria about child abduction and rape here. You see in the papers, on billboards, on milk containers (for fuck's sake), radio, and any time you watch the local news there's an "Amber Alert" or some story about some ancient child molestation case. I think why this touches a nerve with most affluent suburban people, and that they obsess on it more than anything else, is simply because they cannot relate to crimes like murder because few have no personal connection to or experience with it. But, if they have kids they altready have an innate concern or fear that something will happen to their children while they are not around. All the media hype feeds these fears, people react to it, which sells more ad space more air time, rinse, lather, repeat.
posted by psmealey at 9:22 AM on April 24, 2008 [5 favorites]


Actually, I just caught up with the rest of the comments in the thread, and there are some good points providing better context that may reduce or eliminate the squick factor if known before viewing the video.

So would you say that, oh I don't know, perhaps there had been some degree of false panic?
posted by The Monkey at 9:22 AM on April 24, 2008


I just made a cheese and mustard toasted sandwich, but I didn't kiss it.
There wasn't enough mustard.
There wasn't enough cheese.
I added more mustard and cheese, but I still didn't kiss it.
posted by tellurian at 10:31 AM on April 24, 2008


I saw the post last night - part of me was delighted to see a bit of Paul de Leeuw on the blue but I decided to stay out of it, not in the least because of the horrid framing and the looming trainwreck.

But today, seeing how most other NL Mefites have weighed in and now it's in MeTa, I feel compelled to respond.

Almost without exception, I tend to feel "you just can't understand this if you're not from there, mahn" arguments are totally lame, if not simply untrue: often, people should just try splainin' a bit harder.

But here, I'm truly a bit lost for words. How does one explain Paul de Leeuw to someone who hasn't been exposed to his media presence in any way before, and is introduced to him only in such an unfortunate way, with a guaranteed context-free throwaway clip pulled from "Holland's Most Random Nineties TV Moments, Vol. VII" (now on VHS!) and delivered through one of the lower circles of internet OTT editorialization hell?

It's not like, say, my frothing diatribes about Theo van Gogh a while ago, where okay, a strong argument could be made that the guy was a certifiable asshole - to some people at least - but that he was my asshole, dammit: Paul is just this guy, you know, who's been on telly for as long as I can remember, and who I've seen prance around and make dick jokes since I was, what, four? As someone who loves dick jokes with a passion, you could count him among my major influences.

To me, the most grievous thing about this whole affair is not the lazy, accusative presentation, which merely makes it a terrible post, but he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that (I've made some frivolous throwaway FPPs in my time, plus the time comes to mind where I inadvertently linked to a hate site in a WWII post, where I could have known better had I been more thorough in my research). It's not the OMG PAEDOPHILE collective kneejerk, which is ill-informed but understandable. It's the immense disservice to his person done by completely ignoring any sort of background or context there might be to the guy.

So how would I characterize him? Completely outrageous, for sure, but in a standard method of operations kind of way - he's being absurd and irreverent so all the time that people tend not to notice anymore. That, and immensely warm and disarming: the past few years his show tends to focus on fulfilling audience members' wishes, although often with a playful, if not ludicrous, slant.

Anglophone parallels don't seem to be readily available. To Brits and Irish, somewhere between Jimmy Savile and Graham Norton, perhaps. To North Americans: who knows? Halfway Mr. Rogers and Tom Green?

As PeterMcDermott lucidly pointed out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is not in the business of handing out knighthoods to celebrity paedophiles.

I must add that many Dutch in the thread have mentioned that they're not fans of Paul's style: I am, but I think I can see why people wouldn't be (I rarely seem to agree with my compatriots here on issues concerning NL anyway, and I don't expect them to here).

Lastly, as a feeble attempt at providing a shred of context, I'll quickly and dirtily translate some sources, starting with the link from DreamerFi's excellent comment from NU.nl, a "new media"-ish news site:
Paul de Leeuw not pleased with Youtube

AMSTERDAM - Paul de Leeuw is fed up with Youtube. The presenter deplores that the video web site allows him to be painted as a paedophile based on an old clip from his chat show.

"Surely there has to be some kind of editorial oversight through which such errors can be tracked down and acted upon," he posits in his weekly colum in Vara TV Magazine.

In the video he sings "'Kon ik nog maar even bij je zijn" (If only I could see you one more time) with Keesje Groenteman, relative of presenter Hanneke Groenteman. In an attempt to break the boy's concentration, De Leeuw kisses the boy on the neck, hugs him and hangs him upside down. International Youtube visitors respond furiously to the video, titled "Creepy Dutch paedophile Paul de Leeuw".

Context

De Leeuw acknowledges the clip is taken out of context and thus may confound an international audience. "After ten years it is suddenly being rediscovered by complete strangers who know nothing about me and assume that it's from the Netherlands and therefore automatically malevolent."

Broadcaster Vara's flagship celebrity feels taking independent action would prove ineffectual: "We didn't want the video removed, out of fear of a 'where there's smoke, there's fire' type reaction."
The following excerpt from a 1997 NRC (a broadsheet) article refers to another clip from the same era, oddly enough featuring the same song:
"You're off-key," he snapped at the dejected-looking child. "Why don't you go stand in the corner for the rest of the show". The boy's lip trembled. A wave of outrage ensued. It had been a mere joke, De Leeuw would later proclaim, guffawing. With the performance - which had been entirely scripted - he had intended to address the strictly disciplined drills real-life child stars are made to endure. But it didn't help much. The entire cast of Sesame Street demanded an apology.
The bottom line, for me: the post should have been deleted. Not because the linked content itself is inappropriate, rather, because of the way the FPP and the Break.com entry were framed they cast serious aspersions upon someone of whom the poster had little further knowledge, and I feel further research was warranted (and would have been entirely feasible, this clip is all over the web with his name attached).

I understand that I have a stake in this because I am Dutch and I love Paul dearly, but even besides that I am convinced Metafilter is not a forum for posts of the type "This is a weird video of $NON-ANGLOSPHERECELEBRITYWEKNOWNOTHINGABOUT who, incidentally, likes to fuck $CLASSOFBEINGSGENERALLYCONSIDEREDUANCCEPTABLEFORMATINGWITH", nor "Hey guys, I found this and I haven't done any research on its background, will you do it for me?", and this post was both.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:01 AM on April 24, 2008 [30 favorites]


keep it. thanks for the context, gnfti.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:09 AM on April 24, 2008


I'm not going to say to much more than I'm really glad gnfti posted, and that I would so hate to be in the position of trying to explain weird bits of Greek TV to Americans, or weird bits of U.S. TV to Greeks... but mostly the U.S. TV, because I'm actually American, and who wants to try to explain Jerry Springer, for example, as part of one's own culture?

At any rate, the post sucked. It wouldn't have if it were something that explained the actual background of the clip and how it's making an odd and unintended impact on the internet, etc., etc. - but really it's just silly and inflammatory as posted.
posted by taz at 11:24 AM on April 24, 2008


There is a media are a number of dedicated people who have created and encouraged hysteria awareness and willingness to discuss about child abduction and rape here.

Fixed that for you!

I've known a number of people who were sexually abused as children. It's not funny, they are not okay and they might not ever be. They went through hell trying to come to terms with it, and in many cases NO ONE would believe them - including their own parents. If that means that I find myself disgusted by someone mimicking pedophilia for yucks, then so be it - I don't find rape jokes funny either.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 11:49 AM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


and who wants to try to explain Jerry Springer, for example, as part of one's own culture?

I think Jerry Springer participants are so close to the stereotype of most Americans that they need no separate explanation.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 11:51 AM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Fixed that for you!

Go pound sand. You didn't need to fix anything for me.

My point was not to diminish the gravity or import of child rape (which I don't think anyone disputes), just to point out that the fear of it in today's society is completely out of proportion to the actual threat. And I say that as someone who has actually... well, has personal experience with the effects of it... all I want to say on the topic.
posted by psmealey at 11:55 AM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think it's interesting that in the US, it seems like pedophilia is a worse crime than almost any other. Worse than murder. Worse than rape. Worse than serial killing. About the only thing worse than being a child molester is being a terrorist.Dave Faris

A few years ago when I was teaching the Inferno, I asked my students to "update" the Inferno-eliminate the sins they felt were "outdated" (ie depression) and include sins that weren't invented yet (like identity theft being aspect of thievery). Almost all of my students put child molesters in the last ring, but Hitler only at the 4th ring or 5th ring. Thus anything that even smacks of child abuse is likely to produce a response unlike any other crime.
posted by miss-lapin at 11:55 AM on April 24, 2008


Just quit with the "Fixed that for you" crap already, would you all?

It's not witty. It's annoyingly passive-aggressive and makes you look like the kind of person that still goes "neener neener!" and "la-la-la I can't HEEEEAR you!!" during arguments.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:56 AM on April 24, 2008 [14 favorites]


Carrying on, this (1993) is one of De Leeuw's most famous moments in television, carved into Holland's collective consciousness, I'd argue: René Klijn sings Mr. Blue, mere weeks before dying of the consequences of AIDS. For an earlier episode (1992, RealMedia warning), in which Klijn intimately and openly discusses his illness (note the historical context), De Leeuw was awarded the Montreaux Festial Bronze Rose and the silver medal at New York's "TV Programs and Promotion Award Competition 1993". A recent homage (2007) shows De Leeuw before a stadium audience, sharing a virtual duet with the deceased singer using recorded audio and video.

From a recent human interest-type article (2006) in Algemeen Dagblad (a broadsheet, perhaps the slightest bit more populist than NRC):
Domestic joy has calmed De Leeuw. "The need to succeed has faded. I've got more perpsective now. Why? My kids. Absolutely! I'd walk to the end of the world for them. A bad show or a dud record may get me down a bit, but at six-thirty in the morning, the boys will always wake up again.

"In the end, you're still just buttering sandwiches. More acutely: when we were sat next to our youngest, at the ICU in America. Just hoping he would make it. In that situation, nothing else matters."

De Leeuw, together with husband Stephan is father to two adopted sons, Kas (5) and Toby (3). The boys were born with dismal perspectives in Philadelphia in the US; now, they go to school in Blaricum, villa capital of 't Gooi [rural-suburban area with a lot of broadcast types, Blaricum is about the richest town in the country]. Smiling from ear to ear: "They're doing very well, get along with their peers, have nice playmates and recently, when [Stephan & I] were out one evening, they tearfully pleaded with the babysitter: 'Where are the daddies?'."

His life has changed indefinitely. "I feel I'm getting more out of my family now than work. I'm acutely aware of my responsibilities, too. Kas and Toby trust us unconditionally. We can never allow that to be damaged. They had no base [in the US]. Now they do, in Stephan and me. Perhaps later, they wil blame us for taking them away from there, but right now I think: 'they're not so terribly bad off with us'.

"We're a happy family [uses English phrase as a sort of affectation]. I genuinely enjoy doing all of this: reading them bedtime stories, decorating the classroom, chatting with the other parents in the schoolyard. Of course, I sometimes worry: will they be accepted when they get older, what with them being the black sons of two white fathers? Children can be real bullies.

"Recently, Kas asked me, a bit sportingly: 'Why don't I have a mother?' 'Because you've got two fathers!' End of discussion. For now. Later we will explain everything. We want to be honest.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:00 PM on April 24, 2008 [6 favorites]


And, The Light Fantastic, do you think you have some sort of inside track on people abused as children? In my circle, at least, it'd be safe to say more people were than weren't. So save the self-righteous "If You Knew What I Know" tut tutting. Jeez. Nothing gets me more riled up than people claiming an inside track on common truths.
posted by small_ruminant at 12:01 PM on April 24, 2008


Do we think this guy was "mimicking pedophilia for yucks"? After reading here, there, and around about what the background to the clip was supposed to be, I got the impression he was pretending slavish love for the boy's talent - because he had made fun of his singing or something and gotten lots of kicks from the viewing public, so was playing "make-up" to the audience and the kid in a highly exaggerated, silly way. Something along those lines.
posted by taz at 12:01 PM on April 24, 2008


Sounds like De Leeuw is a fine gentleman, and the clip and post simply cast him in an unflattering light. I still don't understand the joke (and it makes me uncomfortable), but it seems the post borders on defamation.
posted by owhydididoit at 12:23 PM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


small_ruminant

And, The Light Fantastic, do you think you have some sort of inside track on people abused as children? In my circle, at least, it'd be safe to say more people were than weren't. So save the self-righteous "If You Knew What I Know" tut tutting. Jeez. Nothing gets me more riled up than people claiming an inside track on common truths.

Wow. What. the. Fuck. You are actually giving me shit for this? Fuck you.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 12:36 PM on April 24, 2008


Actually, while I don't think I usually clamour for a post's deletion much beyond stating my opinion and moving on, in this case I'd appreciate it if jess and/or cortex would weigh in on whether the post will stand or not, and the motivation for either decision. I'm also curious as to whether it's been flagged much.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:39 PM on April 24, 2008


My bet is that it's staying because a couple of people made some thoughtful comments to save the thread. The problem is, a good reader would actually have to find these comments to allow the thread to have any sort of redeeming value, which is a coinflip at best.

Just nuke the damn thing. Either that, or edit out 85% of the shit that's already in there. Leaving it alone is just bad moderation.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 1:06 PM on April 24, 2008


Leaving it alone is just bad moderation.

Your are confusing light moderation with bad moderation. The word[*] "moderate" is in there for a reason.






[*]Ok fine, the root, not the whole word, but you know what I mean.
posted by dersins at 1:17 PM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


The boys were born with dismal perspectives in Philadelphia in the US;

Wow. Do the Duth really see growing up in Philadelphia the saem way we Amerians see growing up in Africa, as something that a celebrety adoption would save a child from?

Not saying their wrong, mind you ...
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:18 PM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


The post should be deleted, and not for the reason Effigy 2000 gives, but because the post is D grade You-Tubery ignorance and lacking context. The original post, this call out and loads of the comments show Metafilter in a moronic, xenophobic, homophobic light.

Thanks for the back story GNFTI and others.
posted by meech at 1:28 PM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Do the Duth

You're the boss!

*does the Duth*

It's the dance craze that's sweeping the nation!

Uh, anyway, the post and the resultant thread are a complete disaster.
posted by Skot at 1:32 PM on April 24, 2008


My bet is that it's staying because a couple of people made some thoughtful comments to save the thread.

It's staying because it's not so universally hated that it's going to get deleted and because, my guess is, none of us is going to watch that video. I don't see a consensus here to delete it, theres opinions all over the place. I wish krautland had made a better post. However, with context, it's a sort of interesting weird cultural "stupid/weird stuff on the web that people like to look at"

I take it back, I decided to watch it. Everyone is a little out of the office today. And, I guess I don't see the big deal. It's people in another country, with no context, acting in a way that looks a little hinky. That's my take. I don't see a reason to delete it, personally.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:36 PM on April 24, 2008


My god, won't someone think of the children?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:46 PM on April 24, 2008


Netherlands: automatically malevolent.

If anything good came of all this it was that observation.
posted by fire&wings at 2:26 PM on April 24, 2008


Just for the record, it saddens me that a link to a page which literally says, "Apparently being a pedophile is ok in Holland as long as you host a national singing show" about someone who is a well-respected - if not uncontroversial - public figure stays up, because I cannot shake the suspicion that had it been a page that said, "Here's a 100% guaranteed context-free video of [Michael Stipe | Stephen Fry | $RESPECTEDQUIRKYGAYCELEB] with a boy on his lap doing outrageous things to the boy - he must be a paedophile!" it would have been a different situation.

I may be paranoid, and I may be mistaken. But this is how I feel.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:30 PM on April 24, 2008 [2 favorites]


I can't see any reason why it shouldn't stay up:

It's an out-of-context, non-researched, one-link Youtube post with a "LOLDutch, amirite?" flavor to it, for one.

"Best of the web"? Nope.

I would like to see gnfti put something up on the blue featuring this comedian with some thoughtful links and prose, though.
posted by misha at 2:40 PM on April 24, 2008


Astro Zombie: "The boys were born with dismal perspectives in Philadelphia in the US;

Wow. Do the Duth really see growing up in Philadelphia the saem way we Amerians see growing up in Africa, as something that a celebrety adoption would save a child from?

Not saying their wrong, mind you ...
"

Sorry, I caught this late, and assuming you were not being ironic: apparently there are organisations which specialise in arranging adoptions of newborns from Western countries (the United States at least) who have no prospect whatsoever of being supported by their parent (singular, because it's almost always a single mother). I don't think it's a leap of faith that, say, a (homeless? drug addict? one can speculate) woman giving birth in any large Western city would qualify for this scenario.

This is what I remember from reading interviews with De Leeuw; I could try to dig up some sources if you want.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:46 PM on April 24, 2008


I would like to see gnfti put something up on the blue featuring this comedian with some thoughtful links and prose, though.

I'll do it if this one is deleted. :)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:46 PM on April 24, 2008


apparently there are organisations which specialise in arranging adoptions of newborns from Western countries (the United States at least)

What about grown children? I'd love it if a nice, Dutch couple were to adopt me. I'm 41, but I'm housebroken, and have a few marketable skills.
posted by psmealey at 2:48 PM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


No, I was being ironic. There are kids out there in the US with terrible prospects and little chance of adoption. I'm sure De Leeuw had given them a quality of life that would have been almost impossible for them otherwise.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:49 PM on April 24, 2008


I got that, AZ. I originally wrote "I know you were being ironic, but" and then I thought, "but what if he wasnt'!?". So there.

psmealey, I'll adopt you - but your other dad will make you sing "Kon ik maar even bij je zijn" every. fucking. day. And he'll fondle you if you don't do it right.

But he will mean nothing by it.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:04 PM on April 24, 2008 [4 favorites]


I'm 41, but I'm housebroken, and have a few marketable skills.

Do you like being smothered in gravy and juicy smacking kisses?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:12 PM on April 24, 2008

Do you like being smothered in gravy and juicy smacking kisses?
Well, who doesn't?
posted by scrump at 3:20 PM on April 24, 2008


the thread itself carries no NSFW warning,

and it shouldn't. there is no obviously foul language or nudity involved. it's a guy sitting on a stage with a kid in his lap. giving an NSFW tag to this would have done nothing but deflate the meaning of said tag.

That, krautland, is an AskMe question.
negative. all I indicated was that if someone felt like sharing I wouldn't object. the point of the post was to highlight a video I had found. that, dearest Effigy2000, is a mefi post.

relax, kiddo.
posted by krautland at 3:34 PM on April 24, 2008


I'm 41, but I'm housebroken, and have a few marketable skills.

If one of them is sheetrocking.... *makes "call me" handsign *
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:38 PM on April 24, 2008


Oh, I'll rock your sheets.
posted by box at 3:58 PM on April 24, 2008 [4 favorites]


Thanks for weighing in in this thread, krautland.

Honest question: do you think it's okay that a Metafilter post links to a page that labels someone a paedophile who - to the best of established knowledge on a public figure - clearly isn't?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:04 PM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


giving an NSFW tag to this would have done nothing but deflate the meaning of said tag.

Perhaps putting this on Metafilter deflates the meaning of "best of the web".
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:08 PM on April 24, 2008


do you think it's okay that a Metafilter post links to a page that labels someone a paedophile

so what you're saying is that links to any webpage containing a possible error should not be posted to mefi. how do you feel about linking nyt.com? is a site to be not mentioned if they feature a picture of katie couric with a doctored waistline?

I didn't label him a paedophile, which is something I would take responsibility for. I also didn't pass anything off as factual information about the video or characters visible in it. what I did do was express my suspicion that said video was a joke - one so cringeworthy that I felt it deserved to be highlighted.
posted by krautland at 4:46 PM on April 24, 2008


Perhaps putting this on Metafilter deflates the meaning of "best of the web".
hm. no.
posted by krautland at 4:47 PM on April 24, 2008


I didn't label him a paedophile, which is something I would take responsibility for.

Fair enough. Thanks for your answer. However,

so what you're saying is that links to any webpage containing a possible error should not be posted to mefi.

sounds disingenuous to my ears, and is clearly not at all what I'm trying to say. I'm sure you will agree an article in, say, the NYT which may or may not contain a factual error is a different beast from an entry whose only text beside the accompanying video is "Apparently being a pedophile is ok in Holland as long as you host a national singing show.".
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:56 PM on April 24, 2008


Metafilter: people in another country, with no context, acting in a way that looks a little hinky
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:02 PM on April 24, 2008


I'm genuinely taken aback by the number of people who were so keen to scream "paedo!", both in this thread and the original, and who don't seem to feel the need to do the decent thing and admit that, hey, now I know the context, turns out I was a bit over the top there and maybe I grossly defamed a perfectly decent guy.

I generally hate the whole thing of psychoanalysing people based on their internet comments, but in this case I just get this overwhelming sense of these people basking in the golden light of their self-righteous indignation; a blissful state of being that would be unpleasantly disrupted by having to do such a base thing as admitting you were wrong.

But, hey - a crappy post turned out crappily. We shrug, move on, and meanwhile Paul de Leeuw gets the word "paedophile" ever more closely associated with his name in Google's Big Internet Brain. Hurrah for the justice of the perpetually offended.
posted by flashboy at 5:07 PM on April 24, 2008 [9 favorites]


I took your question to mean that I should take responsibility for what someone else wrote. had the authors statement that this host was a paedophile been a point I had endorsed or made, you'd be right and I should distance myself from my previous statement. thing is - I didn't and I made sure you (the reader of the post) were clear that I didn't know anything about this video. take it with a grain of salt was all but spelled out in the title, as was this is a creepy video. those who still opted to view it did so at their own choosing. I did not represent the link to go to anything but the kind of video it did actually go to.
posted by krautland at 5:07 PM on April 24, 2008


I want it on my Permanent Internet Record that I heartily endorse pedalphilia.
posted by everichon at 5:14 PM on April 24, 2008


Realizing I'm a "n00b" (and how I hate that nomenclature and pretty much all other Internet Cliches. Has anyone seriously laughed at All your base or FTFY or a "MetaFilter: your stupid tagline" or about a million others in YEARS?) I have a question. Obviously using cliches is an shorthand way of communicating some things and God know I use them myself. But can 'Best of the web' be retired maybe? It's pretty much meaningless, or at best highly subjective. My humor may be your horror.
It's just that I keep seeing people exclaim,"But it's not best of the web!" when best of the web has been pretty much synonymous with James Taranto for a decade now.
Grammar and misspelling is cool, but damn the laziness with the tired old phrases. Create a new one! and as soon as it catches on, disavow it.
OK. Now I'm happy again. Carry on. Most interesting of the web.
posted by dawson at 5:46 PM on April 24, 2008


Just quit keep with the "Fixed that for you" crap already, would you all?

Fixed that for you.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:53 PM on April 24, 2008 [2 favorites]


take it with a grain of salt was all but spelled out in the title, as was this is a creepy video. those who still opted to view it did so at their own choosing.

krautland: I will gladly acknowledge this, and to be absolutely clear, I do not suspect you of having any ulterior motives. I'm honestly glad to engage you in debate about this.

I cannot and do not expect you to take responsibility for another person's words. In fact, I believe your intentions to be good, and I assume good faith in both your posting and in this discussion.

However, as I have tried to point out upthread, what rubs me the wrong way about this is the marked lack of context (I honestly feel you could have got to know more about this subject had you done some more research), and, especially, the notion that Metafilter is now, through this post, contributing to smearing someone who has done little or nothing to deserve such a smear.

And personally, I believe this is not a purpose Metafilter should serve, nor is it something its community should tolerate.

I do not condemn you for posting this - as I tried to point out upthread, I have written numerous posts of my own which may by some be considered superficial or ill-researched. My problem is with your linking to a page with says, basically, "Paul de Leeuw is a paedophile". Whereas he clearly is not.

Again, I appreciate your commenting in this thread, honestly.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:05 PM on April 24, 2008


I honestly feel you could have got to know more about this subject had you done some more research
that I could have done but keep in mind I didn't even know the guy's name - it's not mentioned on the site. a commenter here brought that into the equation (which brings up the question if I should take blame for that) I would have had to care a lot to dig that much, which I didn't. I found the video interesting, not the host's backstory. I also don't think the thread is smearing him - it's pretty clear from the comments it's not what it seems.

And personally, I believe this is not a purpose Metafilter should serve, nor is it something its community should tolerate.
I suppose I disagree on these two points with you. the post has provoked a lot of reactions of all varieties, which cancelles out your should for me. as far as the tolerate is concerned ... I think you're being a bit too serious about that. if this were that bad, half of the front page should get deleted every other day. otherwise it would be just inconsistent.

Again, I appreciate your commenting in this thread, honestly.
no worries, mate. how could I not join this fun.
posted by krautland at 6:22 PM on April 24, 2008


It's way past my bedtime. I'll return to this thread after a good night's rest.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:40 PM on April 24, 2008


krautland: "[the thread should not contain a NSFW warning]. there is no obviously foul language or nudity involved. it's a guy sitting on a stage with a kid in his lap. giving an NSFW tag to this would have done nothing but deflate the meaning of said tag.

I strongly disagree. Although we have established the guy isn't a pedophile and wasn't intentionally acting as a pedophile in the video you linked to, it took a lot of discussion and teeth wrangling and context to clear that up. If someone clicked that video, without the ensuing discussion in your original thread and this MeTa thread, and was spied watching it by his or her boss, no doubt their boss would have the same initial reaction I and many others did. There may be no nudity or any of the other usual requirements of a NSFW tag but given the fact that the initial reaction of many outside the country of the videos origin is "this guy appears to be a pedophile", I think a NSFW tag was required. Better safe than sorry and what not.

krautland: negative, [it is not an AskMe question]. all I indicated was that if someone felt like sharing I wouldn't object. the point of the post was to highlight a video I had found. that, dearest Effigy2000, is a mefi post."

I accept it to be true that you wanted to highlight a video you had found. But perhaps I didn't make my point here clear enough.

My point was to try and say that it is your job to provide the context in a Metafilter post you've generated, not to ask others to find it for you in the ensuing discussion. It is all well and good to generate a Metafilter post highlighting a video you had found. That is but one of many things Metafilter is for. But a Metafilter FPP is not the place to ask "Hey I found a weird video, can anyone tell me what's going on here?" That is a function better suited to AskMe.

Finally, like goodnewsfortheinsane, I would like to commend your involvement in this thread.
posted by Effigy2000 at 7:41 PM on April 24, 2008


hm. no.

Perhaps you're not the best person to make that call, what with this thread being about the post in question, and all.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:45 PM on April 24, 2008


Although we have established the guy isn't a pedophile and wasn't intentionally acting as a pedophile in the video you linked to, it took a lot of discussion and teeth wrangling and context to clear that up.

Only because we've a clusterfuck of retards who are so daft as to think a live-audience televised broadcast would feature a pedophile engaged in the act of harming a child.

Some people in that thread proved themselves dumber than dogshit, and things aren't going all that much better in this thread.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:47 PM on April 24, 2008 [3 favorites]


...teeth wrangling...

Tell me more about this teeth wrangling. I'm intrigued.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:58 PM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


flapjax at midnite: "Tell me more about this teeth wrangling. I'm intrigued."

With context, you will see that this makes perfect sense.

I fucked that up.
posted by Effigy2000 at 9:10 PM on April 24, 2008


Only because we've a clusterfuck of retards who are so daft as to think a live-audience televised broadcast would feature a pedophile engaged in the act of harming a child.

Some people in that thread proved themselves dumber than dogshit, and things aren't going all that much better in this thread.


No. Actually, you have a "clusterfuck of retards" that think pedophilia is NOT FUNNY and has no place, no matter how contrived, in a comedy act. Call me a tight ass bitch, call me a "retard" call me "dumber than dogshit" but there is a limit to taste, and that act crossed it. Not only that, but posting the link also crossed the line of taste. I'm truly stunned at the raging anger expressed by the people who found this funny. Fine, you found it funny - congratulations, you are either far more evolved than I am, or you are a disengaged cynic who gets off on liking things that others find ugly. But please, don't insult my intelligence and tell me that the clip in question wasn't supposed to create this type of controversy - and get off my ass for caring.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 9:11 PM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Whee-ooh. And don't even get me started about that "white people" site!
posted by blacklite at 10:00 PM on April 24, 2008


The joke may be offensive and unfunny, but it is just a joke, and apparently, not so big a deal to some reasonable people. I didn't like it, but there are a lot of perfectly fine things that I don't understand or like. And the post was thin-- I've done that before and certainly understand posting urgency (too well). But the thread in full is unpleasant. Still, I guess in a way it's a foil to the YouTube clip.
posted by owhydididoit at 10:22 PM on April 24, 2008


The Light Fantastic: tight ass bitch, "retard", "dumber than dogshit"

I mean, right?

....but loved.
posted by humannaire at 10:32 PM on April 24, 2008


Also, really, if you check my history I am anti-child abuser #1, but this post? It was was a joke.

Seriously, killing someone who is an abuser of children—to me—is like taking care of yardwork: A chore but otherwise sufferable. Sexual abuser of children? Soylent green, baby! And I'm a vegetarian! In other words, no problem.

But this? The post has been a mockery all along. Not to say relax, but relaxing could apply here.
posted by humannaire at 10:44 PM on April 24, 2008


Yep, upon review, strikingly xenophobic.
posted by humannaire at 10:50 PM on April 24, 2008


Fine, you found it funny - congratulations, you are either far more evolved than I am, or you are a disengaged cynic who gets off on liking things that others find ugly.

I didn't find it funny in the least. Indeed, I found it rather icky. But I'm not as dumb as dogshit, so I didn't think to myself "OMG!!eleventyone!!! The Dutch pay pedophiles to broadcast their comedy acts on television! Engage In Mass Panic!"

please, don't insult my intelligence and tell me that the clip in question wasn't supposed to create this type of controversy

No, I'll insult your intelligence and tell you that the clip in question was supposed to create laughter in an sizable live audience, not controversy. You'd have known that if you'd bothered to read the several in-depth explanations from people who are familiar with that performance.

Of course you might be talking about the meta-performance: to wit, the attempt to create controversy by posting the video with the caption "Apparently being a pedophile is ok in Holland as long as you host a national singing show." Which isn't so much controversial as it is an ignorant slagging of Holland.

But you're not: you're in the OMG!PEDOPHILE! camp.

Pedophiles are bad, m'kay? So let's be careful about tarring-and-feathering performers, foreigners, and foreign performers unjustly. And pediatricians, too. Real harm comes to real people when the word is misapplied.

there is a limit to taste says someone who didn't have one word to say about abortion as art. So squished abortions a big thumbs up, lumpy lounge singers licking children's faces a big thumbs down?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:00 PM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


When it's dark, people see monsters in the shadows. It doesn't make them dumber than dogshit. It means that they let their fears get the better of them. In the light of day, the shadows turn out to be nothing, but the fear is real.
posted by Dave Faris at 3:06 AM on April 25, 2008 [3 favorites]


Inspector.Gadget: I think Jerry Springer participants are so close to the stereotype of most Americans that they need no separate explanation.


I was staying at a bed and breakfast in London once. The hired breakfast helper, a woman, said, "oh, you're from America! Tell me, are all Americans fat like the people on Jerry Springer?"

Not only was I not fat (thus disproving her theory), I was aghast at the thought that everyone in the UK thought the guests on Jerry Springer were representative of all Americans. Yikes.

Damned good breakfast, though. Included a plate of beans too.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 3:20 AM on April 25, 2008


I don't like Paul de Leeuw's shows. I found this one in particular slightly icky. But I agree with everything gnifti says in this thread. I learned a lot from these threads. I used to think that people on Mefi were smarter and less prejudiced than this.

I don't know if it is still necessary to repeat it, but just to be sure: this performance had NOTHING to do with paedophilia. Nothing at all. Paul was not "mimicking paedophilia" and there was no intent of controversy. Absolutely nothing. That may be unbelievable to American ears, but especially ten years ago nobody in the Netherlands would see it that way.

I also agree with gnifti that had this video been of a famous American or British person that was clearly wrongly accused of paedophilia, the post would have been deleted. Jessamyn says the post stays because the video is harmless, but it is not the video that is the problem, it is the post itself.
posted by davar at 5:27 AM on April 25, 2008


no doubt their boss would have the same initial reaction I and many others did
sounds forced to me. if said boss saw something like the video, the assumption would be the viewer was a pedophile? for that the video would have to serve an arousing purpose to such a viewer, which clearly it does not. this is someone sitting in a television studio in front of an audience. it has every sign of a performance. I don't think you have a point here, even though you are trying very hard to come up with one.

"Hey I found a weird video, can anyone tell me what's going on here?"
you can insist this to be motive as long as you like, it wasn't and I made that quite clear already. so please see above.

Perhaps you're not the best person to make that call
nobody is, that was my point. it's all subjective. good morning.

killing someone who is an abuser of children—to me—is like taking care of yardwork
are killers fair game for this gardener as well?
posted by krautland at 5:56 AM on April 25, 2008


Does this mean I can post video of that lady squishing a kitten? Some people find that terribly amusing.
posted by IronLizard at 7:33 AM on April 25, 2008


Awesome non-sequitur, IL. You're doing the daft proud!
posted by five fresh fish at 7:54 AM on April 25, 2008


I watched this video and it's beyond me how anyone could view this as serious. Then again, knee-jerk reactionism to anything even approaching hinting at pedophilia seems to be as American as Apple Pie. I think gnfti's comments here have been great, and I too am a little pissed off with some of the Anti-Dutch reactions.
posted by ob at 8:44 AM on April 25, 2008


ob, I totally agree with you, except I didn't take the anti-Dutch reactions as serious either. I mean, who hates Dutch people? That's just weird.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:39 AM on April 25, 2008


I mean, who hates Dutch people? That's just weird.

The US Army Corps of Engineers. You guys made them look bad when the leeves broke in New Orleans.
posted by psmealey at 9:49 AM on April 25, 2008


There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
posted by the other side at 10:02 AM on April 25, 2008


But you're not: you're in the OMG!PEDOPHILE! camp.

No, I'm not, and if you'd bothered to look at my posts on this topic, rather than racing to the "abortion as art" post to see if I'd commented (I didn't because it was obviously posted to create controversy and I didn't feel like dealing with it), you would realize that I'm actually offended by the "you're a dumbass" comments in this thread.

I personally don't find even the allusion to pedophilia (or rape for that matter) to be funny in the least. I don't think that I need to be lambasted as an idiot for that. I also don't think that the fact that some Americans find some of this video to reference pedophilia some sort of indictment of American culture. I love how comments on this thread are being construed as bashing of the Dutch (really?) and yet there's absolutely no understanding of how this might be offensive to others.

You're perfectly welcome to like what ever you want. Insulting me for not agreeing is idiotic and says far more about you than it does about me.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:08 AM on April 25, 2008


The Light Fantastic: did you actually read the comments? It has been repeated over and over again that there is no allusion to paedophilia in the video. None! Are you going to admit that you were wrong when you said: But please, don't insult my intelligence and tell me that the clip in question wasn't supposed to create this type of controversy?
posted by davar at 10:47 AM on April 25, 2008


The Light Fantastic: I personally don't find even the allusion to pedophilia (or rape for that matter) to be funny in the least. I don't think that I need to be lambasted as an idiot for that. I also don't think that the fact that some Americans find some of this video to reference pedophilia some sort of indictment of American culture. I love how comments on this thread are being construed as bashing of the Dutch (really?) and yet there's absolutely no understanding of how this might be offensive to others.

Okay. Fine. You're right, it's annoying that people will just stoop to insults in the heat of a debate rather than carefully reasoned positions.

Now then: what carefully reasoned responses can you offer to the somewhat impressive and impassioned comments by several, including especially goodnewsfortheinsane, who argued earlier that, while the fact that some Americans find some of this video to reference pedophilia might not be an indictment of American culture, there are aspects of American culture which make us more leery (paranoid, maybe, sometimes?) of pedophilia, and that, completely separately, there is a strong case to be made that this video has nothing to do with pedophilia, and is taken entirely out of context here. The fact that the man in the video is very upset and angry that the video has been posted on YouTube without context is telling to me. At the very least, it'd be almost impossible, I think, to claim that he intended this to happen, and the background provided up to this point makes it very difficult to believe that even a reference to pedophilia was part of the point of the act.

You're perfectly welcome to dislike what you want. But "don't insult me by calling me names or implying that I'm wrong just because I'm American!" isn't an argument that you're right.
posted by Viomeda at 11:09 AM on April 25, 2008


The light fantastic, if you had paid any attention and read the relevant links that people have been providing, you would realize that the clip in question wasn't supposed to create this type of controversy
posted by Dr. Curare at 11:52 AM on April 25, 2008


Viomeda: Personally, I think the perception that Americans are OMGparanoid about pedophiles is a fabrication of the media bolstered by personal anecdotes. Are there instances of over-reaction by parents in suspicion of pedophiles? Of course. There are also instances in which children HAVE been victimized and have actually been believed, rather than silenced, due to better education. There are also children who have managed to avoid abuse due to education in schools. Like any topic newly (as in the last 20 years) "exposed" there will be a lot of hand wringing and hype, but I consider that a symptom caused by a release from previous repression, rather than some psychological pathology.

The reason I brought up the fact that I've known people who were sexually abused as kids is that these people were abused prior to this new "hysteria" and their abuse was never acknowledged nor were they offered any type of help. Some of them didn't even tell anyone, because they didn't know what to do. Many of these people are parents now, and if they are a bit oversensitive to sexual intention towards their kids, perhaps you might find that understandable.

I think that like most cultural changes, the dialogue is still ongoing, and it's important that everyone be involved. I'm saddened to hear that men are feeling discouraged from teaching children due to fear of accusation, but perhaps it's time for them to enter the conversation as well (rather than staying out of the profession), and help find ways to address these concerns in ways that work for everyone.

What is not helpful is diminishing the importance of the topic just because one doesn't like the dialogue. This is a sensitive subject for many, and dismissing people's (sometimes quite justified) fears as hysterical does nothing to assuage them and stifles a vital cultural discussion.

Dr. Curare: Whatever the original intention, the skit brought up a lot of unpleasant associations for many people. This may be a cultural divide, or it might be a case of overplaying the "naughty" aspect of the interchange during the skit and having it be misconstrued. Either way, I don't consider myself to be an alarmist in the slightest, and I found the comic's interactions with the child to be incredibly creepy and sexualized. Just because subsequent articles revealed that the insinuation wasn't intentional doesn't render the viewer reactions moot.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 12:48 PM on April 25, 2008


Just because subsequent articles revealed that the insinuation wasn't intentional doesn't render the viewer reactions moot.

well, it kinda does. 10 years later and in a different continent, you were squicked out by something that wasn't there for any of the original participants. That's kind of your problem, and you really can't blame the original participants for being "creepy" and "gross" when it turns out you projected those associations.
posted by mdn at 12:56 PM on April 25, 2008


well, it kinda does. 10 years later and in a different continent, you were squicked out by something that wasn't there for any of the original participants. That's kind of your problem, and you really can't blame the original participants for being "creepy" and "gross" when it turns out you projected those associations.

I don't agree that the burden of communication is placed entirely on the recipient. Just because the intention of the piece was misconstrued doesn't negate the perception. The artist may not be a pedophile, but the skit struck more than a few viewers as sexualized, and that could be attributed to many factors, including the possibility that the artist completely missed the mark and portrayed something in a way that was entirely different that the original intent.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 1:21 PM on April 25, 2008


the skit struck more than a few viewers as sexualized, and that could be attributed to many factors, including the possibility that the artist completely missed the mark and portrayed something in a way that was entirely different that the original intent.

This I believe is known as projection.
posted by humannaire at 1:32 PM on April 25, 2008


the skit struck more than a few viewers as sexualized

I think that's the fault of the YouTube poster. Clearly the clip as posted on YouTube was intended to generate this very sort of controversy.
posted by owhydididoit at 2:08 PM on April 25, 2008


The Light Fantastic: What is not helpful is diminishing the importance of the topic just because one doesn't like the dialogue. This is a sensitive subject for many, and dismissing people's (sometimes quite justified) fears as hysterical does nothing to assuage them and stifles a vital cultural discussion... Just because subsequent articles revealed that the insinuation wasn't intentional doesn't render the viewer reactions moot.

You're absolutely correct, and I think you're right to say that people will have their own reactions to something, especially if they've dealt personally with it. But what did you think of this interesting comment above?

Dr. Curare: Since moving to the US, you keep reminding me that, as a bearded male foreigner, I must keep as far away as possible from small children. It was some of you giving me dirty looks, pointing and whispering when I handed that kid the bag he dropped, it was you who plucked your toddler out of the frame when my wife was taking a picture of a fountain, yelled at her, and made the kid cry. Thanks for that. After those incidents, rest assured that if I ever see your kid lost and crying in the park or the mall, instead of comforting and walking him to a safe place, I will escape as fast as I can.

It seems to me that there will be a lot of sides to this, and what Dr. Curare has experienced and speaks from is just as much his own vantage as the perspective of abuse is a vantage for others. Not that there's competition there; on the contrary, I think that it's got to be possible to take all sides into account. Abuse has been ignored in the past, and more light needs to be shed on it, more victims need to be allowed to speak and more perpetrators of abuse should be uncovered. At the same time, the United States does have a system of litigious attitudes (I know, I live here too) and, while I feel that Europeans dramatically overstate our so-called "backwardness" and "isolationism," at the same time I can't help but note that we're pretty steeped in individualism here and can't seem to come to terms with what 'unsexual affection' looks like. Maybe this is an international problem, I don't know; but I know what he's talking about. In the same way that kissing or homosexuality in and of themselves don't cause AIDS, though AIDS is a serious thing which demands respect and caution, there can be hidden assumptions in our fear of pedophilia that might lead to our unjustly treating people badly.

In short, we can fight pedophilia without the "collateral damage" of false accusations; and you can't blame anybody for wondering whether prejudices might be at play when people mistake the contents of a comedy video for pedophilia.

The people doing the mistaking, of course, were the people on YouTube who saw it and posted it with that title. There wasn't much else to go on here but a suggestion of pedophilia.
posted by Viomeda at 4:00 PM on April 25, 2008


I don't agree that the burden of communication is placed entirely on the recipient.

I completely do not see how de Leeuw, half a world and an entire decade away, can bear any of the burden of communication. Especially considering we're accidental recipients: he was directing his communication to the live audience and whatever Dutch viewership he anticipated the broadcast might have.

Please explain how de Leeuw bears any responsibility for our collective misunderstanding of his work.

Just because subsequent articles revealed that the insinuation wasn't intentional doesn't render the viewer reactions moot.

It reveals far more about the viewers than it does de Leeuw or the Dutch in general.

The blue thread's proceedings remind me quite a bit of the niggardly brouhaha back a while ago. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the word, yet some poor schmuck got canned because a bunch of OMGRACIST!!1! types insinuated offensiveness.

People really do get hurt when over-sensitive people go into hysterics about an imagined insinuation. People get fired, their offices get trashed, they end up in prison.

You can't drop the P-bomb and R-bombs casually. Pedophilia, rape and racism are biggie accusations that can quickly generate mass irrationality and real-life harm to the person accused.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:28 PM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


Heh, I was going to refer to the same event to say pretty much exactly that. Happy-ish ending: the guy's resignation was reversed a bit later.
posted by CKmtl at 5:40 PM on April 25, 2008


I don't agree that the burden of communication is placed entirely on the recipient. Just because the intention of the piece was misconstrued doesn't negate the perception. The artist may not be a pedophile, but the skit struck more than a few viewers as sexualized, and that could be attributed to many factors, including the possibility that the artist completely missed the mark..

The skit struck youtube watchers ten years later and out of context as sexualized. The artist didn't miss his mark at all with his actual audience. At the time, the viewers & participants were not troubled by any actions taking place. Why should a performer have to prepare himself for any possible audience every time they get on stage? No one involved with this production seems to think anything untoward was going on. Accept the possibility that you're bringing something to the table here.
posted by mdn at 5:42 PM on April 25, 2008


Awesome non-sequitur, IL. You're doing the daft proud!

Bullshit (except for the awesome part, thanks). Everyone has their particular limit. If I told you the kitten was a mercy killing, would you feel better about it? Or would you take issue with the methodology? That's the way I feel about the excuses for this particular video. Whatever the intended meaning, it came out very wrong.
posted by IronLizard at 5:54 PM on April 25, 2008


Are you equating acts with pedophilia with acts of kitten-squishing?

How utterly bizarre.

Anyhoo... That's the way I feel about the excuses for this particular video. Whatever the intended meaning, it came out very wrong.

I believe you are saying that the "intended meaning" of "this particular video" "came out very wrong."

You are mistaken. You mistake your interpretation of the meaning of the video for being the intended meaning. It is literally impossible for that to be the case: de Leeuw's intention was to make a mid-ninties crowd of Dutch fans laugh. He had absolutely no intention of making you laugh, nor of making you think he is a pedophile.

That's assuming you're referring to de Leeuw's performance itself, and not the intentions of the person who extracted that bit of the performance and publicized it on the net as pedo-porn. Although in that case you'd still be wrong: it's quite obvious the guy who did that fully intended to get everyone's knickers in a knot.

Unless you're referring to krautland's intentions in posting the link to MeFi. In which case you are correct: krautland has time and again explained his desired objective in making his post. Based on the evidence of the blue thread, it did come out wrong: he didn't get what he wanted.

But I'm pretty confident you meant to convey my first understanding of what you wrote: you're projecting your ten-years-too-late interpretation of his performance on him. And that is just a plain wrong thing for you to do. You don't get to drop the P-bomb like that.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:45 PM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


He was licking the child, holding the child upside down and grinding his genitals against the child, gnawing on the child's shirt, and at the end of the video, he bent the child over and mimicked anal sex. I appreciate all of the extra context that was provided in this thread, but I really must disagree that there was nothing sexual in the video.
posted by Danila at 6:54 PM on April 25, 2008


But simulated anal sex is how the Dutch say goodbye to one another. It was the end of the song, the kid was going to be sent off the stage: it was the polite thing to do.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:12 PM on April 25, 2008


He was licking the child

You mean the bit where he sticks his tongue out? I saw no licking, his tongue wasn't on the kid. He stuck his tongue out in that "Erk, tricky maneuver!" way while grabbing the kid's foot to get him in that baby-cradling position.

holding the child upside down and grinding his genitals against the child

One was an exaggerated figure skating style pose, where he had to have his hips against the kid to support the kid's weight while flourishing to the side. The other wasn't very sexual grinding, if it was crotch-grinding at all. The camera's panned very low and you can't see his hands, so he might have just been adjusting his grip on the kid's legs so he didn't faceplant on the stage.

he bent the child over and mimicked anal sex.

He had his hands on the kid's shoulders and was making him bow to the audience in an exaggerated way. It looked nothing like anal sex, unless the anal sex you've seen involves no thrusting. That would be very boring sex.
posted by CKmtl at 7:36 PM on April 25, 2008


That bending over bit? If you watch carefully, you'll see that starting from his seated position while the boy standing in front of him, he reaches forward to press the boy's back to prompt him take a bow, but it's awkward from that low sitting position - he really needs to press down on the boy's shoulders to get him to take a bow ... and that's when he stands up - and "bends him over."

I absolutely, totally disagree that his purpose was to "mimic anal sex".
posted by taz at 7:46 PM on April 25, 2008


You don't get to drop the P-bomb like that.

But I can certainly register my disgust, which is what I'm doing.
posted by IronLizard at 8:11 PM on April 25, 2008


Do you honestly not see what taz sees? Do your perceptions force you to see something worse? Does that mean de Leeuw and the hundred people in his audience are wrong?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:05 PM on April 25, 2008


If we all saw the same thing, this thread wouldn't be here. Shop this around any 100 random people, check out the reactions.
posted by IronLizard at 9:13 PM on April 25, 2008


I've always said . . . that the best folk music . . . comes from the Dutch. @ 1:08.
posted by exlotuseater at 11:59 PM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


The Dutch truly do have a powerful lobby. I bow to the (Dutch) masters.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 12:25 AM on April 26, 2008


Oh god, it's the literal/metaphorical viking all over again.
posted by Catfry at 12:34 AM on April 26, 2008


Well, Occam, blah, blah: What makes more sense?

Dutch TV Audience Laughs and Applauds Simulated Sexual Abuse of Child

or

Video Clip Presented Out of Context Ignites Misunderstanding

Logic truly does have a powerful lobby.
posted by taz at 1:54 AM on April 26, 2008 [1 favorite]



You mean the bit where he sticks his tongue out? I saw no licking, his tongue wasn't on the kid. He stuck his tongue out in that "Erk, tricky maneuver!" way while grabbing the kid's foot to get him in that baby-cradling position.


I'm talking about the part where he licks the back of the boy's head and the boy's shoulder. Long before he grabbed the kid's foot. I know what you're talking about, but what I'm talking about happens earlier, after all of the tender, sloppy kisses and the shirt biting. I just checked, it happens at 1:04-1:09, what you're talking about happens at 1:41.

I've lost track of what exactly is the dispute. I mean, no he's not a pedophile, I get that. But the humor is in mimicking inappropriate behavior in an attempt to knock the kid off his game. He's not pretending to love the kid like a father.

One was an exaggerated figure skating style pose, where he had to have his hips against the kid to support the kid's weight while flourishing to the side. The other wasn't very sexual grinding, if it was crotch-grinding at all. The camera's panned very low and you can't see his hands, so he might have just been adjusting his grip on the kid's legs so he didn't faceplant on the stage.


Yeah, I saw the figure skating pose, I'm talking about when he put the child in between his legs and pulled him up once and then again, the double-grind. In between the legs grind the kid's head is not "proud papa".

Now that I look at it again (and again, yeesh it's four times now, trying to be fair), I think where it goes wrong for me (besides the way it was framed by Break.com) is when he did those "I suck your face" kisses and licked the child. Much of the rest of it is just silly distractions, like bunny ears, figure skating and singing loudly to throw the kid off.

It looked nothing like anal sex, unless the anal sex you've seen involves no thrusting.

No there definitely is a thrust, although maybe this was unintentional. He might have just been "adjusting his position" again.

Oh god, it's the literal/metaphorical viking all over again.

Yeah, I feel the same way. That's exactly the thought I had as I watched those kisses and the way he was gazing at the child (with the lidded eyes) and then when he gnawed on the shirt and licked the back of his head and wondered how anyone could not see how...sexual they were. That first kiss was the exact moment when my stomach did a flip. Maybe those were, eh, whatever.
posted by Danila at 4:46 AM on April 26, 2008


Did you read the part about how in an earlier episode the gag was that he was really cruel about judging the boy's singing talent... "oh, you can't sing at all; you're awful, go stand in the corner, etc."? And that part of his shtick is his 'acquiescence' to audience demands, in which he obliges their requests, but usually in some unexpected, off-the-wall way?

So his viewing audience had apparently 'protested' his pretend harsh criticism of the kid's singing, and thus he brings him back on and does this surreal pretend adoration thing.

And, of course, in a great many countries, the comfort zone for adult interaction with kids is just very different than in the U.S.; kissing, hugging, picking up kids and putting them on one's lap, giving them treats, etc., is very common in many places. Just yesterday, we were sitting at an outdoor taverna (in Greece) and behind us was a group having a merry time, and nearby was a little boy waiting in the car for his dad. But the boy was getting antsy, and got out of the car and was sort of hanging about, and the people behind us start asking him questions, "what's your name", etc., until someone asks him what the best football team is, and when he answers that Olympiacos is the best team, one fan-guy is hugging him and demanding to buy him a soft drink. People in the U.S. wouldn't feel at all comfortable with that kind of scenario, but it's a different culture. I don't know... maybe if someone saw a video clip of this fellow hugging a strange kid, they might assume he was a pedophile.
posted by taz at 5:37 AM on April 26, 2008


oh! I should add that those people ended up buying us a drink, too - and I'm about 75% sure they didn't want to have sex with us. :-)
posted by taz at 5:41 AM on April 26, 2008


and then when he gnawed on the shirt and licked the back of his head and wondered how anyone could not see how...sexual they were.

Danila, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. In fact, I do not entirely disagree: as far as metaphorical vs. literal vikings go, I'm slightly on the side of "okay, I'm willing to entertain the notion that some 'sexual imagery' may have been intentional". Note that as noted upthread, I'm saying this as a Dutchman who's familiar with De Leeuw's work and who's not too big on cultural relativism in this case (Holland and the US aren't that far apart: I suspect taz would have had less of a hard time integrating in Dutch culture as opposed to Greek. This is speculative, and it's a wholly different story altogether, but there you are.)

Now, I'm putting "sexual imagery" in quotes, because you and others perceive this with I assume American eyes, but so do I and I suspect many Dutch viewers in that audience, in front of the TV at the time and now on the web.

So why do they not cry foul? Here's where the cultural relativism bit comes into play: I think it would be overly simplistic to say it's because they're Dutch. Rather, I believe it's because they know Paul, because they trust him, like one trusts a magician that they're not really going to saw them in half.

This has by some been described as performance art, and while I would think that a bit of a rich term to describe this obnoxious yet kind ADD-suffering chubby doofus who's graced our screens for a few decades, there's a kernel of truth to that: half of Paul's shtick is based on the shared knowledge that he's wouldn't really verbally abuse and put disproportionate pressure to perform on the kid (in the other clip I posted upthread), that he's not really a child molester (in this one).

And then sometimes he just likes to stir shit up, like in the vegan streaker incident that was mentioned, or the equally "infamous" Eurovision bit ("Kalisperma" never fails to crack me up). That one is in English, by the way.

So that's where the "eye of the beholder" factor kicks in, and if you fail to see it then, while I can't say I don't sympathize, I just don't know what to say to you. If you'll indulge me in this imprudence, this Onion article (NSFW text) comes to mind.

An interesting parallel can be drawn between Keesje in the singing video and his latest protege-slash-doormat Adje, again an actor (remember, Keesje was probably a family friend given the relation to Hanneke Groenteman, another presenter, and at least he was at least roughly aware of what was going to happen - my guess is fully aware) playing a submissive role who's continually being impeded by Paul in outrageous ways.

For a (tame) taste, see this humorous re-enactment (2:30 onwards) of the infamous "wine incident" (00:15 onwards) in which Joran van der Sloot, originally the prime suspect in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, tossed the contents of a glass of wine into the face of crime reporter Peter R. de Vries directly following a late night chat show.

Actually, this Volkskrant article on the recent controversy about the old video seems to confirm that the kid in the original and my clips is the same one (Keesje Groenteman). I had originally thought this could be the case, I just didn't think they looked that much alike. Huh.

Regardless, given that it's been fifteen years, he should be an adult now, and I'll bet you that his friends will bring it up from time to time: "Hey, aren't you the kid that Paul de Leeuw felt up ten years ago?", and they will laugh about it, and so will he, and he will not be "damaged" any worse than, say, the Nevermind baby.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:49 AM on April 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


I agree with you that the Netherlands and the US aren't that far apart, gnfti, but with regards to this specific subject, wouldn't you also say that especially fifteen years ago paedophilia just was not as much on the radar in our country as it is in the US now? We still do not have most of the problems that the US has with pictures of naked children and with adult men being distrusted with children. The situation that taz described with the kid being hugged by a stranger could easily happen here even now.

The other day my husband was playing with our and other children in the neighborhood. He picked up our child and put her upside down and they were just having fun. The other kids (boys and girls) also wanted that he held them, and he did. And then I spoiled the fun afterwards by saying that he perhaps should be a bit more careful with strange children because you never know.

But I am the exception, because I read all those terrifying stories on the internet. Most people here are still like my husband and see no harm. I am sorry for helping make our country a more paranoid place :(

BTW: from the Volkskrant article I notice that the video is no longer on YouTube? I wonder if Paul changed his mind about not fueling the rumors.
posted by davar at 5:18 AM on April 27, 2008


« Older Is there some kind of residual...  |  MetaFilter Music request: woul... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments