Why was my post about Medea Benjamin's gaff deleted? March 21, 2006 5:55 AM Subscribe
My post about Medea Benjamin's gaff related to North Korea was deleted. I am annoyed. I did post a link to her Code Pinksite. I was not editorializing pro- O'Reilly. I was editorializing that "This is embarassing" to liberals, because when we are given a chance on the main conservative talk shows, we don't do a good job. Medea Benjamin was given a chance and O'Reilly wasn't unfair to her. There have been many anti-O'Reilly posts here and as liberal as I am, I don't think we will succeed by just not watching him, or not taking him on, as so many have suggested.
I thought it was worthy of discussion.
I thought it was worthy of discussion.
There are flaky shoot-from-the-hip types on the left? And Bill O'Reilly would rather showcase them on his show?
SHOCKED! I am SHOCKED at both revelations. I don't use the word "hero" very often, but you, sir, are the biggest hero in the history of civilization for bringing this to our attention.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:01 AM on March 21, 2006
SHOCKED! I am SHOCKED at both revelations. I don't use the word "hero" very often, but you, sir, are the biggest hero in the history of civilization for bringing this to our attention.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:01 AM on March 21, 2006
I was not editorializing pro- O'Reilly. I was editorializing that "This is embarassing" to liberals
I understand what you were editorializing. I don't think your post was unclear. There are many sites on the Internet where the minutiae of "liberals say this, conservatives say that" can be dissected ad nauseum. MetaFilter is not good at this and it can be argued that this is not what MetaFilter is for.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:10 AM on March 21, 2006
I understand what you were editorializing. I don't think your post was unclear. There are many sites on the Internet where the minutiae of "liberals say this, conservatives say that" can be dissected ad nauseum. MetaFilter is not good at this and it can be argued that this is not what MetaFilter is for.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:10 AM on March 21, 2006
"...and it can be argued that this is not what MetaFilter is for"
Let's just end the argument and simply state it is not what Metafilter is for.
posted by ?! at 6:15 AM on March 21, 2006
Let's just end the argument and simply state it is not what Metafilter is for.
posted by ?! at 6:15 AM on March 21, 2006
I was editorializing that....
See, you just said it all right there.
posted by Wolfdog at 6:18 AM on March 21, 2006
See, you just said it all right there.
posted by Wolfdog at 6:18 AM on March 21, 2006
Thing is, nobody expects anything approaching accuracy or rigor from O'Reilly. Not liberals. Not conservatives.
It's an entertainment show; the audience is amused by watching Bill O'Reilly excoriate a victim or engage is masturbatory self-congratulation. It is -- as I said in your thread -- the equivalent of "professional" wrestling, right down to the cardboard-cutout "good guys" and one-dimensional "bad guys" throwing haymakers.
Serious liberals don't go on O'Reilly -- only attention seeking narcissists and nobodies hoping to become somebody would subject themselves to abuse by that clown.
notmtwain posted "There have been many anti-O'Reilly posts here and as liberal as I am, I don't think we will succeed by just not watching him, or not taking him on, as so many have suggested."
That's exactly how we succeed. Bill O'Reilly's a shock-jock of the right -- to his viewers he'll always be the good guy and his opinions will always be the "correct" opinions, and he'll always "win" his arguments. Just like Howard Stern always "wins" on his shock-show and Howard's fans always side with Howard.
The only sensible response is to ignore Bill O'Reilly. Let him steep in his own juices. Let liberals (and decent conservatives, for that matter) boycott his show. Let his viewers see how empty it becomes when Bill O'Reilly has no one but himself to screech at, like a demented parrot in front of a mirror.
(For a number of years, John McLaughlin went far to over-the-top. What had been amusingly bombastic became tiresome and over-frantic with every panelist talking over everyone else. His best panelist, notably Novak and Germond, left the show, and as McLaughlin got shriller and shriller I got less and less interested. In the last few years, I've been surprised to see McLaughlin become somewhat less self-absorbed with his own ranting, slightly more measured, and willing to let his guests complete a sentence. so now I'll watch his show again, on occasion.)
posted by orthogonality at 6:20 AM on March 21, 2006
It's an entertainment show; the audience is amused by watching Bill O'Reilly excoriate a victim or engage is masturbatory self-congratulation. It is -- as I said in your thread -- the equivalent of "professional" wrestling, right down to the cardboard-cutout "good guys" and one-dimensional "bad guys" throwing haymakers.
Serious liberals don't go on O'Reilly -- only attention seeking narcissists and nobodies hoping to become somebody would subject themselves to abuse by that clown.
notmtwain posted "There have been many anti-O'Reilly posts here and as liberal as I am, I don't think we will succeed by just not watching him, or not taking him on, as so many have suggested."
That's exactly how we succeed. Bill O'Reilly's a shock-jock of the right -- to his viewers he'll always be the good guy and his opinions will always be the "correct" opinions, and he'll always "win" his arguments. Just like Howard Stern always "wins" on his shock-show and Howard's fans always side with Howard.
The only sensible response is to ignore Bill O'Reilly. Let him steep in his own juices. Let liberals (and decent conservatives, for that matter) boycott his show. Let his viewers see how empty it becomes when Bill O'Reilly has no one but himself to screech at, like a demented parrot in front of a mirror.
(For a number of years, John McLaughlin went far to over-the-top. What had been amusingly bombastic became tiresome and over-frantic with every panelist talking over everyone else. His best panelist, notably Novak and Germond, left the show, and as McLaughlin got shriller and shriller I got less and less interested. In the last few years, I've been surprised to see McLaughlin become somewhat less self-absorbed with his own ranting, slightly more measured, and willing to let his guests complete a sentence. so now I'll watch his show again, on occasion.)
posted by orthogonality at 6:20 AM on March 21, 2006
ortho, McLaughlin is the only good part of that show. I watch it every week just to see him, because he's great. As far as the yelling, his regulars (Tony and Eleanor especially) are so horrifically terrible that watching them try to yell over each other is far more entertaining than listening to them talk individually. Some of his occasional guests are pretty good, though.
posted by rxrfrx at 6:23 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by rxrfrx at 6:23 AM on March 21, 2006
So is it ok to post your links on MetaTalk if your crap thread gets deleted on MetaFilter?
posted by chunking express at 6:30 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by chunking express at 6:30 AM on March 21, 2006
Eleanor, yes, has always sucked. But a big part of that was because she let everyone else trample all over her. McLaughlin now does step in to protect her time, and to my amazement, Eleanor now sometimes even fights back herself with a "let me finish".
And Tony, too, seems to do a better job now that John isn't pulling as much "on a scale from 1 to 10, where ten is metaphysical certitude" crap, and just let's Tony finish what he's saying.
But I do miss Germond, a lot, as he was the smartest and politically the savviest of them. And Novak the Prince of Darkness, too, for his sheer delight in looking evil.
But McLaughlin, well, he isn't so great that he doesn't need his supporting cast. And the show really was much deeper with Germond to analyze the politics. Nigh and day difference.
Not to give my age away, but when I was young and callow, I used to watch Agronsky followed by McLaughlin.
posted by orthogonality at 6:32 AM on March 21, 2006
And Tony, too, seems to do a better job now that John isn't pulling as much "on a scale from 1 to 10, where ten is metaphysical certitude" crap, and just let's Tony finish what he's saying.
But I do miss Germond, a lot, as he was the smartest and politically the savviest of them. And Novak the Prince of Darkness, too, for his sheer delight in looking evil.
But McLaughlin, well, he isn't so great that he doesn't need his supporting cast. And the show really was much deeper with Germond to analyze the politics. Nigh and day difference.
Not to give my age away, but when I was young and callow, I used to watch Agronsky followed by McLaughlin.
posted by orthogonality at 6:32 AM on March 21, 2006
Neither OReilly nor Stern will EVER shut up, so ignoring them is best.
posted by mischief at 6:33 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by mischief at 6:33 AM on March 21, 2006
chunking express writes "So is it ok to post your links on MetaTalk if your crap thread gets deleted on MetaFilter?"
Eh, relax. He should have linked to the deleted thread, but the links he did give, give context that helps in discussing the his complaint.
posted by orthogonality at 6:34 AM on March 21, 2006
Eh, relax. He should have linked to the deleted thread, but the links he did give, give context that helps in discussing the his complaint.
posted by orthogonality at 6:34 AM on March 21, 2006
notmtwain posted "I thought it was worthy of discussion."
Did you think the link itself was good?
posted by Bugbread at 6:39 AM on March 21, 2006
Did you think the link itself was good?
posted by Bugbread at 6:39 AM on March 21, 2006
To give my age away, I wasn't old enough to have appreciated the show back when it may have been more honestly good. I've always watched it for the comedy, mostly.
posted by rxrfrx at 6:45 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by rxrfrx at 6:45 AM on March 21, 2006
Eh, relax. He should have linked to the deleted thread, but the links he did give, give context that helps in discussing the his complaint.
I'm not stressed. I just think it's lame to repost something that got deleted on MetaFilter here on MetaTalk.
posted by chunking express at 6:55 AM on March 21, 2006
I'm not stressed. I just think it's lame to repost something that got deleted on MetaFilter here on MetaTalk.
posted by chunking express at 6:55 AM on March 21, 2006
I don't think we will succeed by just not watching him.
Another vote for wrong, wrong, wrong.
I am tired of trying to hold up my end of conversations with people who Just Cannot Believe What O'Reilly Said. It's entertainment bullshit. It does not matter. Do not watch it. Or, if you do, do not tell me about it.
posted by cortex at 7:45 AM on March 21, 2006
Another vote for wrong, wrong, wrong.
I am tired of trying to hold up my end of conversations with people who Just Cannot Believe What O'Reilly Said. It's entertainment bullshit. It does not matter. Do not watch it. Or, if you do, do not tell me about it.
posted by cortex at 7:45 AM on March 21, 2006
Hi. Thanks for your responses. I was away for a while. I didn't relink to the original post because I thought that would be wrong. I thought that the news article from newsbusters.org was well done.
Crunchland, I have no relation with either newsbusters or Code Pink so I certainly don't care about their hit counts.
Mayor Curley, I have heard of Medea Benjamin before but never heard her speak. I did not expect her to be a "flaky shoot from the hip" speaker.
Orthagonality-- He didn't rig the discussion with Benjamin. If she had been any good, she could have made some valid points. He never skewered her. He was polite. Maybe you believe he wouldn't have shown the interview if she had actually trumped him, but I don't have that impression. I wish more liberals would take up the challenge.
Chunking, I wanted there to be discussion about the issue of what liberals stand for and why we haven't got more people who can stand up to someone like an O'Reilly. She had her chance. Benjamin did it to herself. O'Reilly didn't misquote her. He even gave her several chances to amend her response. Is she one of the best we've got?
Cortex, it's not what O'Reilly said... It's what Medea Benjamin said.
posted by notmtwain at 8:28 AM on March 21, 2006
Crunchland, I have no relation with either newsbusters or Code Pink so I certainly don't care about their hit counts.
Mayor Curley, I have heard of Medea Benjamin before but never heard her speak. I did not expect her to be a "flaky shoot from the hip" speaker.
Orthagonality-- He didn't rig the discussion with Benjamin. If she had been any good, she could have made some valid points. He never skewered her. He was polite. Maybe you believe he wouldn't have shown the interview if she had actually trumped him, but I don't have that impression. I wish more liberals would take up the challenge.
Chunking, I wanted there to be discussion about the issue of what liberals stand for and why we haven't got more people who can stand up to someone like an O'Reilly. She had her chance. Benjamin did it to herself. O'Reilly didn't misquote her. He even gave her several chances to amend her response. Is she one of the best we've got?
Cortex, it's not what O'Reilly said... It's what Medea Benjamin said.
posted by notmtwain at 8:28 AM on March 21, 2006
notmtwain, you're missing the larger point. As jessamyn noted, this is not what MetaFilter is for.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:34 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:34 AM on March 21, 2006
MetaFilter: this is not what MetaFilter is for
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:39 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:39 AM on March 21, 2006
It's what Medea Benjamin said on O'Rielly's show after O'Rielly's people decided it'd be good for the show to have Medea Benjamin on.
Once again: not watching and breathlessly reporting from both aisle on the content of The Godfuckit O'Reilly Factor...
posted by cortex at 8:43 AM on March 21, 2006
Once again: not watching and breathlessly reporting from both aisle on the content of The Godfuckit O'Reilly Factor...
posted by cortex at 8:43 AM on March 21, 2006
notmtwain : "I wanted there to be discussion about the issue of what liberals stand for and why we haven't got more people who can stand up to someone like an O'Reilly"
As monju_bosatsu points out, that's not what MetaFilter is for. If, as the result of some kick-ass link, that kind of discussion developed, that would be a (tired, but) acceptable outcome, but posting a link in order to start a discussion that you want to happen is not what this site is for.
posted by Bugbread at 8:48 AM on March 21, 2006
As monju_bosatsu points out, that's not what MetaFilter is for. If, as the result of some kick-ass link, that kind of discussion developed, that would be a (tired, but) acceptable outcome, but posting a link in order to start a discussion that you want to happen is not what this site is for.
posted by Bugbread at 8:48 AM on March 21, 2006
Monju and jessamyn, I'll agree that Metafilter should be reserved for "Look at the truly amazing and unique stuff I found on the web" posts. But there is certainly no shortage of political discussion, news articles, etc. that get posted.
What is Metafilter for? To me, it's mostly in-one-ear and out-the-other posts. There's no persistence-- so today's find is out of sight and out of mind tomorrow. The search engine doesn't return results in chronological order so there's no way of knowing the most recent without scrolling through all the results. (1320 for "O'Reilly") It would also help immensely if people gave you a clue as to what their posts were about in the title or in their first sentence. I especially hate those posts which add links to every word or letter without giving you any clue as to what they are about.
posted by notmtwain at 9:04 AM on March 21, 2006
What is Metafilter for? To me, it's mostly in-one-ear and out-the-other posts. There's no persistence-- so today's find is out of sight and out of mind tomorrow. The search engine doesn't return results in chronological order so there's no way of knowing the most recent without scrolling through all the results. (1320 for "O'Reilly") It would also help immensely if people gave you a clue as to what their posts were about in the title or in their first sentence. I especially hate those posts which add links to every word or letter without giving you any clue as to what they are about.
posted by notmtwain at 9:04 AM on March 21, 2006
Monju and jessamyn, I'll agree that Metafilter should be reserved for "Look at the truly amazing and unique stuff I found on the web" posts. But there is certainly no shortage of political discussion, news articles, etc. that get posted.
That's not a very flattering defense. You agree that Metafilter should strive for an ideal that your post does not meet, and yet, well, everybody else is doing it, so why can't you?
posted by cortex at 9:18 AM on March 21, 2006
That's not a very flattering defense. You agree that Metafilter should strive for an ideal that your post does not meet, and yet, well, everybody else is doing it, so why can't you?
posted by cortex at 9:18 AM on March 21, 2006
It was a crap post and should be deleted.
What is Metafilter for?
Did you read the posting guidlines? Its to find new and interesting things that people haven't seen elsewhere and share them. It is not for you to make your point.
If you want to make a point about something, then get your own blog and make your point there.
posted by dios at 9:20 AM on March 21, 2006
What is Metafilter for?
Did you read the posting guidlines? Its to find new and interesting things that people haven't seen elsewhere and share them. It is not for you to make your point.
If you want to make a point about something, then get your own blog and make your point there.
posted by dios at 9:20 AM on March 21, 2006
So is it ok to post your links on MetaTalk if your crap thread gets deleted on MetaFilter?
posted by chunking express at 8:30 AM CST on March 21
This is a good point. I think we need to remove the links from the metatalk post because all this guy did was just remake his post and his point here. If this question is about an editorial position, there is no need to have his links in it. He apparently included them only because he really, really wants to make *his* point.
posted by dios at 9:23 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by chunking express at 8:30 AM CST on March 21
This is a good point. I think we need to remove the links from the metatalk post because all this guy did was just remake his post and his point here. If this question is about an editorial position, there is no need to have his links in it. He apparently included them only because he really, really wants to make *his* point.
posted by dios at 9:23 AM on March 21, 2006
Dios, sorry but I'm not a member of your church. (http://www.metafilter.com/search_posts.cfm?user_ID=17809)
Wow that was soooooo funny. (How many times did you join?)
posted by notmtwain at 9:28 AM on March 21, 2006
Wow that was soooooo funny. (How many times did you join?)
posted by notmtwain at 9:28 AM on March 21, 2006
Actually, Dios, quite a few of your messages are more point driven than sharing web stuff. It's good to see you've learned from your mistakes.
posted by crunchland at 9:30 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by crunchland at 9:30 AM on March 21, 2006
So you are now trying to defend your shitty editorializing op/ed screed that is clearly against the standards here at Metafilter by stating that you found one of my posts to be uninteresting and unfunny? Hmm. It makes sense now why you can't seem to grasp what we are all telling you.
posted by dios at 9:31 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by dios at 9:31 AM on March 21, 2006
Well, dios, it depends on how much we want to believe him. He has indicated his goal was to get a discussion about liberals and conservatives and whatnot going. If we believe him, then the links can stand, as long as we don't discuss that which he wants us to discuss. If we don't believe him, then, yeah, the links should go.
posted by Bugbread at 9:32 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 9:32 AM on March 21, 2006
And btw dios, who made you the hall monitor anyway? Instead of the endless arguing about what should and shouldn't be in, how about discussing the point? What difference does it make if my links are in or if my post is cut to you? Are you printing out copies of every page of Metafilter and putting it into some big scrap book?
Come on, the point is valid-- liberals spend too much time arguing about what should be argued about.... Let's just discuss the subject already.
posted by notmtwain at 9:33 AM on March 21, 2006
Come on, the point is valid-- liberals spend too much time arguing about what should be argued about.... Let's just discuss the subject already.
posted by notmtwain at 9:33 AM on March 21, 2006
crunchland, it's helpful to note the difference between posts from comments, a difference which you carefully elide with the vague 'messages.' dios' posts have been pretty good as a rule, and with the exception of his first two, have avoided grinding any political axe.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:34 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:34 AM on March 21, 2006
notmtwain, what are you, 14 years old?
posted by Space Coyote at 9:34 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by Space Coyote at 9:34 AM on March 21, 2006
I think we need to remove the links from the metatalk post because all this guy did was just remake his post and his point here.
I feel less strongly about this. Metatalk is much lower traffic than the Blue, the discussion is very unlikely to happen here, and he claims (credibly, I think, but maybe I'm just too credulous) that he didn't simply link to the deleted post because he thought that would be bad.
I don't think the links are anything to worry about in this case, basically.
posted by cortex at 9:34 AM on March 21, 2006
I feel less strongly about this. Metatalk is much lower traffic than the Blue, the discussion is very unlikely to happen here, and he claims (credibly, I think, but maybe I'm just too credulous) that he didn't simply link to the deleted post because he thought that would be bad.
I don't think the links are anything to worry about in this case, basically.
posted by cortex at 9:34 AM on March 21, 2006
er, no. Not here. You'll get another chance to make a better front page post tomorrow. Try again there.
posted by crunchland at 9:35 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by crunchland at 9:35 AM on March 21, 2006
Actually, Dios, quite a few of your messages are more point driven than sharing web stuff.
posted by crunchland at 11:30 AM CST on March 21
Such as?
(And by the way, surely you mean "posts" since a simpleton can understand the difference between the standards for posts and mere comment.)
But lets assume your point is not factually wrong, what does that prove? This is now another person asserting the "well, someone else did it, so its ok for me to do it defense." Surely we are better than that.
posted by dios at 9:35 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by crunchland at 11:30 AM CST on March 21
Such as?
(And by the way, surely you mean "posts" since a simpleton can understand the difference between the standards for posts and mere comment.)
But lets assume your point is not factually wrong, what does that prove? This is now another person asserting the "well, someone else did it, so its ok for me to do it defense." Surely we are better than that.
posted by dios at 9:35 AM on March 21, 2006
And you're right, Monju. I meant posts. Particularly the ones he made in early February of this year, as well as a humdinger from last year about what Bush got right.
posted by crunchland at 9:36 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by crunchland at 9:36 AM on March 21, 2006
Instead of the endless arguing about what should and shouldn't be in, how about discussing the point?
Christ, kid—this is Metatalk. This is even less the place to discuss your conversation-starter than the Blue was. You are lost in the woods.
posted by cortex at 9:37 AM on March 21, 2006
Christ, kid—this is Metatalk. This is even less the place to discuss your conversation-starter than the Blue was. You are lost in the woods.
posted by cortex at 9:37 AM on March 21, 2006
No. My point is that you might want to be more careful accusing others of trangressions that you've clearly made yourself. Your argument is well taken. The front page is not a place for agenda driven stuff, and it's good that you've seen the error of your ways.
posted by crunchland at 9:38 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by crunchland at 9:38 AM on March 21, 2006
Let's just discuss the subject already
The subject of the (blue) FPP? Uh, no. I've started several comments on the "subject" but deleted them because they aren't relevant to this discussion. (Not that that usually stops me.)
Your post was deleted. Get over it.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:41 AM on March 21, 2006
The subject of the (blue) FPP? Uh, no. I've started several comments on the "subject" but deleted them because they aren't relevant to this discussion. (Not that that usually stops me.)
Your post was deleted. Get over it.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:41 AM on March 21, 2006
What Would Mark Twain Post?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:43 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:43 AM on March 21, 2006
You are lost in the woods. It is pitch black. Your post is likely to be eaten by a mod.>
posted by Gator at 9:45 AM on March 21, 2006
notmtwain : "And btw dios, who made you the hall monitor anyway?"
Matt did. And he made me hall monitor. And he made you hall monitor. We're all hall monitors, and we all report to the principal, Matt, and the vice principal, Jessamyn.
notmtwain : "liberals spend too much time arguing about what should be argued about.... Let's just discuss the subject already."
As a liberal, I would rather argue about whether your links stand. If you are liberal, you might enjoy arguing with me about how we should argue about liberals. In our disagreement, we will be liberals arguing about what should be argued about. And then we will evolve into higher forms of life.
posted by Bugbread at 9:47 AM on March 21, 2006
Matt did. And he made me hall monitor. And he made you hall monitor. We're all hall monitors, and we all report to the principal, Matt, and the vice principal, Jessamyn.
notmtwain : "liberals spend too much time arguing about what should be argued about.... Let's just discuss the subject already."
As a liberal, I would rather argue about whether your links stand. If you are liberal, you might enjoy arguing with me about how we should argue about liberals. In our disagreement, we will be liberals arguing about what should be argued about. And then we will evolve into higher forms of life.
posted by Bugbread at 9:47 AM on March 21, 2006
it's good that you've seen the error of your ways.
posted by crunchland at 11:38 AM CST on March 21
Wow. You sound awfully like AlexReynolds with that tone, crunchland. You said "quite a few" of my posts were agenda posts, which isn't true. My second post is the only post with editorializing in it, and I have said before I didn't care for it. Every post since then has been a good faith attempt by me to prove good links. I am curious, then, why the ungracious tone as if I was raping babies and somehow was rehabilitated after my 30 year stint in the clink?
Where did I step on your toes and turn you into another person out to try to score points on me?
posted by dios at 9:50 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by crunchland at 11:38 AM CST on March 21
Wow. You sound awfully like AlexReynolds with that tone, crunchland. You said "quite a few" of my posts were agenda posts, which isn't true. My second post is the only post with editorializing in it, and I have said before I didn't care for it. Every post since then has been a good faith attempt by me to prove good links. I am curious, then, why the ungracious tone as if I was raping babies and somehow was rehabilitated after my 30 year stint in the clink?
Where did I step on your toes and turn you into another person out to try to score points on me?
posted by dios at 9:50 AM on March 21, 2006
Yo, dios, crunchland, just stop, or take it to email, please.
posted by Bugbread at 9:52 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 9:52 AM on March 21, 2006
The babies were asking for it.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:53 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:53 AM on March 21, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by crunchland at 6:00 AM on March 21, 2006