Twitstorm: Rachel Sklar, Andy Levy, and Baratunde Thurston Have it Out

twitstorm

Even though I completely missed it, I still insist on taking credit for yesterday’s pitched Twitter battle over Baratunde Thurston’s Mediaite story, “When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?”  Even though I was sleeping off an Inglorious Basterds hangover, my autotweets were still awake making mischief.

As such, I feel it is my sworn duty to preserve said Twitstorm, along with re-creations of tweets that I would have sent, had I not been fast asleep and missing everything.  I’m also going to go ahead and ignore that 140-character limit.

Andy Levy: Disgraceful. RT @TommyXtopher: When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?: http://bit.ly/AGla5 #tcot #tlot about 17 hours ago from UberTwitter

Tommy Christopher: Dude, that was an auto-tweet.  @baratunde wrote it. #seriesoftubes #readthebyline

Andy Levy: Dear @mediaite: U think it’s ok 2 publish a column that refers 2 “right wing terrorists?” Fine, I think it’s ok not 2 read u anymore. #tcotabout 16 hours ago from Tweetie

Tommy Christopher: Heh. Reminds me of the time Homer Simpson wrote a letter to “Die Hard.”

Dear Die Hard,
You rock. Especially the part where that dude is on the rooftop.
P.S. Do you know Mad Max?

Rachel Sklar:@andylevy Oy, Andy, considering the kind of stuff said on RedEye, you’re really pulling this? It refers SPECIFICALLY to the rhetoric.about 16 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to andylevy

Andy Levy: .@rachelsklar Sorry, I didnt realize @mediaite was a comedy website. And I shudn’t have 2 tell u that comparing ppl 2 terrorists isn’t cool.about 15 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to rachelsklar

Tommy Christopher: Really, Andy?  Not a comedy website?  C’mon,  “Fox-twa” was funny.

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs @andylevy I pubbed @Baratunde‘s column. It CLEARLY frames his issue (“fearful, hate-filled, ignorant rants”), defines thusly.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to snarkandboobs

Snark N. Boobs: @rachelsklar @andylevy What was CLEARLY FRAMED was the comparison to Terrorists.about 16 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to rachelsklar

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs @andylevy Also – the quote “right wing terrorists” did NOT occur in @baratunde‘s piece. It was CLEARLY FRAMED. You KNOW this.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Dan Abrams: Interesting and passionate tweet war on right now between @andylevy and @rachelsklar about an @mediaite column.about 15 hours ago from web

Tommy Christopher: Way to include the link. #Barnumfail

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs @andylevy Also – the quote “right wing terrorists” did NOT occur in @baratunde‘s piece. It was CLEARLY FRAMED. You KNOW this.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs @andylevy Don’t read Mediaite – fine. But represent – and quote! – accurately. That’s the larger root problem here, anyway.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Tommy Christopher: For the record, I agree that ombudsmen should quote accurately #SklarpwnsLevy, but I disagree that it’s fine not to read Mediaite.

Also, @andylevy, up there on your high, misquoting horse – you forgot to include the link. http://bit.ly/mkyy1 Scared of context? #tcotabout 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Tommy Christopher: Don’t feel bad, @Rachelsklar. @Andylevy never includes my links when we argue, either.  I am sure he is just being consistent in this regard.

Rachel Sklar: @andylevy That response gets another OY. It’s news + commentary – we do the same thing. And the modifier “psychological” was CLEAR. #tcot.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to andylevy

Rachel Sklar: @andylevy @Baratunde‘s column isn’t cool but “death panel” and “socialist” and “Dear Leader” rhetoric is? What-EVA.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to andylevy

Andy Levy: @rachelsklar Flip it around if you want: “death panel” and “socialist” and “Dear Leader” rhetoric isn’t cool, but “terrorists” is? What-EVA.about 15 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to rachelsklar

Tommy Christopher: I am SO not taking either of you to the Jonas Brothers concert. What-EVS!!1!

Andy Levy: .@rachelsklar “When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?” Is that “represented” correctly?about 15 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to rachelsklar

Rachel Sklar: Abso-fucking-lutely. RT @andylevy: “When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?” Is that “represented” correctly?about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Rachel Sklar: @andylevy IT IS CLEARLY FRAMED AS AN ISSUE OF EXTREMITY AND RHETORIC. You, pal, are safe from the label unless you are similarly batshit.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to andylevy

Andy Levy: @rachelsklar Fine. WE ARE ON A BREAK!about 15 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to rachelsklar

Rachel Sklar: FINE! BUT I WANT MY FAVORITE TSHIRT BACK. about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Andy Levy: @rachelsklar Like I’d ever wear a shirt that says “MY POLITICAL OPPONENTS ARE JUST LIKE TERRORISTS”about 15 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to rachelsklar

Tommy Christopher: You guys are making Chandler cry!  Crap, I just copped to getting a “Friends” reference. #manlinessfail

Rachel Sklar: Did you READ the piece? Or is it just easier to parrot? RT @snarkandboobs: What was CLEARLY FRAMED was the comparison to Terrorists.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Snark N. Boobs: @rachelsklar Yes, a dum-dum Conservative girl does know how to read. And whom am I supposedly parroting? I have my own mind, thank you.about 16 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to rachelsklar

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs I’m sorry, did I say “dum dum Conservative?” Sheesh, hella chip on that shoulder. Well, you missed the FRAMING. Kinda key.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to snarkandboobs

Snark N. Boobs: @rachelsklar OK, dum dum part was wise-ass of me.You’re right there.But, I don’t believe I misinterpreted framing.Maybe I will lay out whyabout 16 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to rachelsklar

Tommy Christopher: #jellowrestling

Rachel Sklar: @andylevy @snarkandboobs Either of you want to write a rebuttal – have at it. I will publish it and promote it. Correct facts is all I ask.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs If you wanna do it, I will pub it. Now the Sound of Music is on and I am retreating into the pursuit of Von-Trappiness. tcotabout 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to snarkandboobs

Snark N. Boobs: @rachelsklar Maybe I will. Thank you. Enjoy Maria and the passel of singing kiddies – Auf Wiedersehenabout 16 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to rachelsklar

I don’t feel so bad about missing the party.  Baratunde arrived just in time to mop up:

Baratunde Thurston: @rachelsklar thanks for the defense, but you should stop. this is not a winnable rhetorical battle via twitterabout 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to rachelsklar

Baratunde Thurston: @snarkandboobs pls do re-read. i am not opposed to dissent. i am opposed to hate-inspired, ignorance and idiocy. i.e. birthers, deathers etcabout 14 hours ago from TweetDeck

Snark N. Boobs: @baratunde I will.I’d *love* to be wrong in this case.Just don’t see how use of that term wasn’t purposefully inflammatory/way to intimidateabout 15 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to baratunde

Baratunde Thurston: @snarkandboobs because the people i’m talking about are un-intimidatable (NEW WORD). was def inflammatory. intentionallyabout 14 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to snarkandboobs

Snark N. Boobs: @baratunde Hey! *I* make up new words. OK, mostly by sticking a “y” at the end of existing words, but still. That’s my shtick!about 15 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to baratunde

Baratunde Thurston: @snarkandboobs actually *I* invented the additional y on words. i’m very word extender-y. nice to make your twitter acquaintanceabout 14 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to snarkandboobs

Ugh. Get a room.

For the record, I agree with Rachel, and not just because she’s my Editor-in-Chief.  Before any of you even start, I insist that you first read my defense of Ann Coulter along similar lines.

Also for the record, Rachel doesn’t just wade in against conservatives.  She also had my back when the left attacked me for criticizing Keith Olbermann.

Advertisements

16 Comments

  1. FWIW, this was my reaction just after reading that yesterday:
    @achura: Personally, I’d have titled that one “When will the White House realize you can’t reason with the irrational?”
    @achura: Terrorism may be stupid but, stupidity isn’t terrorism
    @achura: Bush is gone and the GOP’s out of power. It’s okay now to stop labeling things we don’t like as terrorism. (to which somebody replied “Today we call it socialism”)

  2. This is a pretty direct question Tommy: Don’t you know the vast majority of The Right’s argument is intellectually dishonest? Perhaps you say you answer that here. If so, forgive me. All I see is that you agree with Ms. Sklar and refer to your post about Anne Couter. Is

    The piece is light and that’s fine, but, to me, the crux of the issue is lost here. Or avoided. If your contention is merely Baratunde has the right to say something, like Coulter, that’s a cop out. If you agree with Ms. Sklar simply b/c she stands by the post, that’ too can reasonably be perceived as evasive as to the issue:

    Considering all the intellectual hogwash, and Baratunde’s hyperbole calling it “intellectual terrorism,” is it not fair to say that an absurd amount of The Right intentionally are dishonest. The days of assuming things are done in good faith are over. At this point, that is a fallacious and myopic assumption. Today, people have agendas.

    You rattled off some of Glenn Beck’s lies today. There are many more The Right utilizes. They use people as mere means. A lot are intellectually dishonest. Liars. Intellectual Terorists is an understatement.

    Indoctrination. All the Glenn Beck mantras repeated by others. Sins of Omission. Socialism. “Deathers.” Caleb still thinks Obama’s indoctrinating kids with the video. C’mon. That’s hogwash. Specifically, intellectually dishonest. Same with CollegePolitico.

    What about forced circumcision. I mean, the hits keep on coming.

    The central point of Baratunde’s point should be trumpeted loudly, not muted. And so my question to you Tommy is this, there is an overwhelming amount of intellectual dishonesty from the right. The likes of which are sickening. The entire debate, virtually all of it on everything, is pure nonsense.

  3. Cube,

    you act as if I don’t write about this every day on 2 national online publications, and here. Cop out? Really? You’re going to accuse me of copping out, knowing how many millions of words I’ve written on this silliness?

    I stuck a fork in good faith back in February, glad you’re catching up.

  4. gee! I had to get a fucking wordpress account just to comment! wtf! fucking bullshit man! That’s why FSM invented openID!

    Anyway, the cube is right… you can’t argue with unreasonable people… also, I’m so shocked that you got flack for criticizing Olbermann… so untypical of the left… yeah…

    this just in: ironic hashtags are the new ironic html tags. details at 11…

  5. Tommy,

    You avoid the crux of the issue. Your defense was “Fuck You” which you tried to pass of as some kind of joke. Let me first address that:

    Publicly, you write “fuck you” to me in response to fair questions. Worse, you insult my intellegience by trying to pass it off like you were kidding. Please. Instead, why not own up to a mistake? You were “joking.” No reasonable person on Earth would see that way. You ought publicly apologize, as it was wholly unwarranted. No ifs, ands, or buts. I wouldn’t pull that crap with you, but, that is irrelevant.

    Second, you fail to adress my point or you tapdance around it at best. Instead, you resort to blogging cred. Great. I’ll grant out whatever credibility you want. You fail, utterly, to hit the issue I raise. Furthermore, you could be blogging for Harvard, and I would still want to see a cogent argument. One not made here.

    Objectively, you skirt the issue. Specifically, you ignore the the gravamen of Baratunde’s point — an absurd amount of intellectual dishonesty. An overwhelming amount.

    On twitter, a haven for intellectual gobbledygook, both the right and the left, wanted to know what you felt about the 800lb gorilla in the room. To say the conclusion here is “obtuse” insults shapes. To say that you “copped out” or “avoided” the central issue is one way of putting it. Instead, this post is about meaningles twitter banter. It avoids the central premise of the question posed by Baratunde: Intellectual dishonesty. On health care, socialism, and what was written.

    Your statements on twitter were inconsistent and, as pointed out by many, did not not answer the question Baratunde raises. Here, you merely agree with your editor. With what was said on Twitter? It’s unclear. Flat out, why can’t you admit, with regard to health care (let alone the plethora of examples of intellectual dishonesty from the right elsewhere) the debate is bullshit. It is “intellectual terrorism.” People, who you know, knowingly engage in decet and are intellectually dishonest.

    The eniire reason Baratunde’s piece got pop was b/c it was brilliant use of literary technique. The issue is not some fluff and nutter banter and reading a wall of fucking tweets. No. The issue is honesty. The dishonesty surrounding health care debate is blatant. Forced circumcisions, Socialism, Government run health care, “indoctrinattion” euthanasia…

    At one point, you say you have no duty to write about it. Later, you claim you would not use the verbiage he used. At another point, you agree that he was talking about “intellectual terrorism” and that use of the phrase was justified given context.

    So, because the conclusion here is “obtuse” or unclear or a cop out as to the major issue, is not a slight on you personally (although that’s how you spin it to avoid the quesiton I pose), rather, it is a serious question: Why do you not trumpet what Baratunde says? Call it intellectual dishonesty. Call it a “dining room table.” But, you avoid the issue here.

    Instead, rather than critically analyze the matter, you resor to calling me names (mind you, a person who has supported you in your darkest times) to avoid being pressed on the issue. Clearly.

    I understand you are freinds with people on the Right. I get it. It is hard telling them that they are being intellectually dishonest. Or, lying. Or, engaging in what Baratunde phrased as “intellectual terrorissm” on health care. People we know, intentionally make the debate dung and know better. They do not argue in good faith.

    You have garnered credibility from the Right particularly b/c you go to bat for them in instances where most wouldn’t. You are in a unique position to call them on utter bullshit. And, making little gags about tweets, while within your discretion and is fine, was not the tune you were singing afterwards when pressed.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, ultimately, you coneded. Along the way, you managed to rest on laurels, make an ad-hominem attack on me to avoid answering the questions, and shy away from the main issue. There is no reasonable discourse. “Fuck You.” That is exactly the sort of banter that speaks for itself.

    So yes. The article does “cop out” as to the central issue, and, it still does. Is that personal? No. It is a way of saying you talk about the most irrelevant part of the debate. Tweets from Snarkandboobs. WHAT? Are you kidding me?

    On twitter (what a joke that I have to preface my remark with that, as is a twitter chronicle) you ultimately seem to agree with Baratunde. This article, fails to elucidate such. You ought put these dishonest cretins in their place. They knowingly lie. This is no debate. And, rather than call out those purveyors of intellectual smut, you choose to insulate yourself by saying “fuck you.” To me. It’s cool though. It was a joke.

    Respond to the analysis. Be fair. Here sir, you have been anything but fair.

  6. Your attitude offends me greatly. You proceed from a host of false assumptions, not the least of which is that you are somehow the boss of me. When you trolled me on Twitter, I was genuinely annoyed, so my “Fuck you” was a joking, familiar indication of that. I’m surprised to hear Mr. “Nothing’s Off Limits” suddenly crying about what is an obvious joke. Well, it was obvious to anyone who knows we’re friends, which apparently doesn’t include you.

    I don’t have a duty to sound off my agreement/disagreement at your whim. If I had wanted to write a treatise about intellectual terrorism, I would have done that. Since Baratunde did such a good job, I don’t really see the point in that. As it is not something that can be summed up in 140 characters, I’m not willing to play your “Gotcha!” game, and I am willing to answer any charge that I ever fail to call anyone out. That is a vile insult to me, Cube, and deserving of a sincere “Fuck You!”

    That you didn’t get one of those is a testament to the affection that I have for you, but I won’t apologize, and I await your apology.

  7. It’s what I would call a “material omission” from the story. You are now reversing your course. This was the first argument you made. Then, you were pressed. What, for the first time with me? Didn’t you respond that you agreed with Baratunde? Last night?

    Also, you take it personally, it’s not. A necessary corrolary of Baratunde’s article would be commentary or an explanation. Yours, in this instance, I respectfully think is vague.

    Don’t spin this into something it isn’t. Whims are not at play. Your omission (actually a nebulous ending to the post) is relevant and curious to me. Why do you resort to low blow tactics?

    How many others called you on this last night? Not just me. You are inconsistent. First the cliche “whim” duck and weave. Then, some argument that you disagree with the use of the phrase “intellectual terrorism,” followed by agrreement with the article in context, back to the “whim” argument. And. Always when you are against the ropes, you deflect bullshit back with some form of personal attack.

    Nevertheless, I won’t stoop to your soft level.

    You await my apology? Child please.

  8. You want to know intellectual dishonesty? Read your last comment.

  9. The people I conversed with on Twitter, aside from you, were courteous, respectful, and asked my opinion as an adjunct to my post, not a requirement. That’s the difference. The issue here is your dickish attitude, which you have refused to back away from.

  10. Ok look. I was corteous, respectful, etc… on twitter. I asked pointed questions. Hard ones. Never did I reduce the dialog to a “fuck you.” I was very careful w/ how I chose my words publicly, unlike you.

    You cannot point to one instance on Twitter where I was anything but respectful.

    You were evasive until others, from both points of you, asked, or in some cases, outright called you out. What was it? “Doing what you always do.” But, what you did was project on to me b/c 85% of the time or so I agree with you (that’s an exact figure).

    So, don’t try to pin this courtesy nonsense on me. I could have easily heaved intellectual nonsense and insults at you. I chose not to. Out of respect.

    Instead, other people made the same claim as I did which boils down to this and you have yet to answer:

    Respectfully, how discuss the issue of what Baratunde raises without discussing it?

    Also, what is your view on the matter? The omission of such, with such a great piece, is material or important and hightly probative.

    I remember asking you what’s your conclusion? You said go read your story. I did. I said there was no conclusion. This much (that this article is devoid of a conclusion) you grant out above. It’s not subject to “whims.” Yet above, you concede to making some kind of conclusion on twitter. Further, (It’s really hard to read what I write b/c of the black bkrnd, so forgive the typos). you try to distinguish the tone? Please. I asked a straight up question and then, after you failed to respond, I brought the argument to a proper forum. Here. Alllegedly.

    But, you take the debate outside, on twitter, and are inconsistent. Even here, you have yet to write what you think of Baratunde’s article and larger point. Which is important. Ironically, you and I agree as to the answer. Which is what baffles me about your position.

    It’s like pulling teeth with you. What? For once, I’m not allowed to ask you a pointed question? A good one. Like, what do you think about intellectual dishonesty? How it’s ruining civil discourse and the process is fucked? And, after reading your tweets, you state at one point, after receding and making other unfair arguments, that you agree with what Baratunde said in context.

    So then, it’s fair to say that you agree w/ what Baratunde said in context. You did say that at one point. Well, what do you think he said? He called out a huge section of the right for basicallly being intellectually dishonest. He used a catchy phrase. What was that. Oh yeah. “Intellectual Terrorism.” The intentional misrepresentation of issues. It’s non stop with health care. You can’t even bring yourself to utter the words he wrote. And, you know it’s true.

    I’ll water it down a little bit and take care of some hyperbole and literary flair. Intellectual dishonesty. Lying. These are the tactics of many. And, when done intentnionally (as in countless examples) is is an asault on logic. On reason. On discourse. Gargage in, garbage out. The process is FUBAR.

    The irony is killer here. Take for example, the (drumrolll) INDOCTRINATORS! Now, I know you don’t buy the indoctrination crap. When the Right engages on this, what do you think that is? It’s called lying.

    Alternatively, do you not want to parrot the words “intellectual terrorism” b/c you don’t want to offend people? I can understand that. That was a helluva piece. I can understand that. Perhaps you want to use a different word.

    Regardless, the omission is material as it relates to the story. I inquired. Still, on this blog, you have not stated a conclusion. That’s fine. It’s your right. As is mine to ask why. Nor was I inflamatory or rude in any way. You were. And, there’s no getting around that.

    I asked you, what’d ya think. Instead, you take cheap shots at me. To avoid what? Someone belting you from the right for Baratunde’s hyperbole? You project. Unfairly.

    And, I know that an admission of wrongdoing is beyond you. Lord help us if Tommy decides to say, “Hey, you know what? I shouldn’t have said ‘fuck you’ to Rawls on twitter.” Why?

    Bottom line tommy, your last comment is non-responsive and unfair again. And, WE AGREE! You believe that what Baratunde said was correct given its context. That’s what you wrote after some prodding.

    Now, let’s move on.

  11. Oh. If you care to debate me live on the issue of intellectual dishonesty and I can rattle off 25 instances without batting an eye, WE’LL DO IT LIVE! One by one. I’ll set up an argument, you can answer whether you think it’s honest or not. Or whatever. Any time. We have the technology. We can have respectful debate. And, try maybe to hit the intellectual part of the health care debate. Which is rarely even touched on.

    And to move on, any of you indoctrinators out there? Try me.

    The Brissers.

    The Deathers, Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Mind Control, Those who made the fucking Ice Cream Cone argument (I didn’t forget about you), what Michelle Obama is wearing, Birthers (actuallly, eat me), Euthanizers, guntoting douchebags, those who don’t give a shit about their porch, end of life folks, gov’t paid abortion, all of Glen Beck’s bitches, peaceful assmebly and discourse as opposed to endorsing shouting down others… and the beat goes on…

    Any time. Drop me a note and I’d be happy to DO IT LIVE.

  12. I guess we have different ideas about courtesy and respect. I’m not going to repeat myself. Your unrelenting accusatory tone, from the beginning, is what caused me to “evade” your questions. Notice how respectful tweeps got better results?

  13. Yes. Coming from the dude who said what he did. Whatever. There was nothing accustory about my initial questions. I asked you what your conclusion was. That’s when you went bonkers. Also, this is a perfect example of dishonesty. You told me “fuck off.” Tried to pass it off as a joke. Yet, I get messages how people appreciated how reserved I was.

    “Fuck off” you try to couch as a joke to cover for your misguided anger and out of bounds remark coming no where near anything I wrote. And then, when other people called you out for the same thing, you say nothing. And, try to spin it. P.S. You’ve still avoided the issue.

    Courtesy. respect. No. You’re full of shit on this dude. Nothing I said rose to that level. Intellectual honesty. My ass.

    People should read this to wathc a person try to spin away from saying “fuck off” and trying to cover it up by saying it’s a joke. That, is “intellectual dishonesty.” Don’t take it up with those who called you out for being “obtuse” or “doing what you always do.” God forbid you admit to a mistake. And through it all, you have yet to provide analsysi. The most ironic part now is you can’t even own up to what you said. There’s a very cliche way for you to get out now..

    Here’s a simple rule, don’t tell a friend to “fuck off” on twitter. Don’t use me as a tool to deflect a question and cast it away with bullshit repsonsesy. Respect. Please dude. I didn’t just fall into the raggedy ass gene pool. You use me as a pretext to cover for a fallacious conclusion you made or didn’t or did.

    Still, here, you have yet to respond to the argument. You twist the argument, reasonably put, into an absurdity. When, you agree with my point. Ha.

  14. “This is a pretty direct question Tommy: Don’t you know the vast majority of The Right’s argument is intellectually dishonest? Perhaps you say you answer that here. If so, forgive me. All I see is that you agree with Ms. Sklar and refer to your post about Anne Couter. Is

    The piece is light and that’s fine, but, to me, the crux of the issue is lost here. Or avoided. If your contention is merely Baratunde has the right to say something, like Coulter, that’s a cop out. If you agree with Ms. Sklar simply b/c she stands by the post, that’ too can reasonably be perceived as evasive as to the issue:”

    That’s what you equate to disrespect or the like? For real? Sheesh. That certainly merits and is on the level with “fuck you.” I think you’re being unfair. And with that, I withdraw due to conflict of interest.

  15. I took offense, and still do, with your characterization that I “copped out,” and when confronted with the offense, you sextupled down on it. When I said “fuck you,” it was a joke. Now you call me a liar. Now, I am not joking when I say “Fuck you.” Go troll some other writer, and maybe look up “friend” in the Wikipedia or some shit, and figure out how to treat one.

  16. And there’s the cliche out I predicted.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s