VA Citizens Defense League
SB-RXWYOJYJ

Gun Bloggers

417908-392852-thumbnail.jpgThe Right of the People To Keep & Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed!

RSS Feed
ODBA
BNN CASTLE FEED
JustHillary
VPAP Trusted Source for Info. on $ in VA Politics
Square Space
Powered by Squarespace
Technocrati
Login
Email Me
Carnival of Cordite
Spank That Donkey

Donkey.gif

Duncan Hunter 2008
Search STD
« D-Day Just a 'Troop Surge' - France: Call It Off! | Main | Floggings Will Continue until Morale (&Truthfullness) Improves! »
Wednesday
07Feb

When Bloggers Seek to Intimidate....

not_for_waldo.gif(Shamelessly stolen from The Ward View)

 I saw this comment today by Waldo on Ward's Blog and I will let it speak for itself:

Now, Wesley, why is it that I need to apologize for delaying a trackback — Alton’s trackback is showing up just fine, after all — but Ward doesn’t need to apologize for delaying a whole series of comments? Was Ward “caught red handed” deleting those posts? What’s the difference?

How about Lynn Mitchell, aka “SWAC Girl”? She deletes comments and crows that she’ll delete anything she wants for any reason. Ditto for Kurt Michael, aka “General Grievous’ Dog,” and Alex Davis, aka “Jonathan Maxfield”? Both delete anything for any reason, without apologies. Have you “caught them red handed”? Is there any way that you can explain this apparent hypocrisy?

Everyone whom I have met in the blogosphere knows my name as Chris Green, as they garnered this information from my name tag at last years Sorenson Conference or The Blogs United Conference in Martinsville.  Isn't it curious that Waldo would use the name Wesley (which is my legal first name) to refer to me?  Why do you think he would do that, and where do you think he might garner that information?  Also, why would Waldo bother to find out my entire legal name?

I read it and thought to myself, now how would he know my first name?  What struck me first was that he easily could have gotten it from his wife, who works at the Sorenson Institute.   I had to give her my Credit Card information to pay the $50 fee.   I  of course will not throw her first, middle, maiden or any other name out into the blogosphere, because:

  1. That is not how I blog, and I would be embarrassed to do such.
  2. There is no purpose my using her name, because even though I may disagree with my fellow bloggers, I never purposely seek to intimidate them, by engaging in said behavior.
  3. I would expect to be challenged by bloggers both on the left & the right for divulging personal information of another blogger, much less take the time to actually do the research.
  4. Liability issues involving privacy.

Let's also take a look at Waldo's other exploits, he names SWAC GIRL, The Journal of The Common Man, and speculates by name the identity of GGD.  Why is Waldo specifically using names, might he be seeking to intimidate?

This brings me to Waldo's chief Defender in the GGD/Waldo/Maxfield Affair, Shaun Kenney.  I give you his post Apologia Pro Waldo Jaquith, and he says:

THIS GETS ME TO THE POINT OF THIS ENTIRE POST. (so please read)

Waldo Jaquith's prime metaconcern has always been with the tone of the blogosphere. He isn't alone. Chad Dotson, Norm Leahy, Cory Chandler, myself, Jon Henke, the gang at SST, Jim Bacon, and much of the "Old Guard" that consist of the larger and longer existing blogs have been keen enough to understand what might happen if things got out of hand.

 

 

Really now, Waldo's metaconcern is the tone of the blogosphere?  What about this little ditty "Rep Schrock... he likes the Penis", on former AG Kilgore and Candidate for Governor:

I think that this lends some credence to my speculation that fellow anti-gay Virginia politico, Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, is, in fact, a repressed gay man, who overcompensates by sponsoring things like the so-called “Marriage Affirmation Act.”

Nice 'Tone'.  Oh, and when it comes down to outright speculation on Senator Allen beating his first wife, Waldo is right there to break a totally unsubstantiated anonymous accusation with "Man says Allen's Ex-Wife Admitted He Abused Her", and excerpt:

I do not know this gentleman, and know little other than that he is a 29-year-old man who is a Widespread Panic fan. I cannot vouch for him or his story. But I can say that I’ve heard variants of these allegations time and time again from past and present friends of Sen. Allen’s ex-wife or her parents, who heard the allegations from those individuals.

Does spreading this story in such a way help the 'tone' of the VA Blogosphere? What about open cursing in blog posts?  Try searching Waldo's site for the "F" Bomb.  How about this example of 'setting the tone' just from last week, "Goode To Enter The Mouth of Hell Attend a Muslim Service":

RT-D: Rep. Virgil Goode has agreed to attend a Muslim religious service at the request of an interfaith group. To crazy bigots requesting permission to totally lose their shit? Permission granted.

Has it ever occurred to some bloggers who's 'Prime Metaconcern has been the Tone of the Blogosphere', that middle school and high school kids read blogs too?  Not to mention that anyone who disagree's with Waldo's position is essentially a 'bigot'.  All to advance the 'Tone' of the blogosphere...

I have a couple more questions, in retrospect to the entire GGD/Waldo/Kenney Affair, and the subsequent challenge that I put out begging the blogosphere to show where we attacked Waldo, but there were no takers.  Who regrets now putting up 'I support Waldo' posters on their blogs?  Would you still do so today,  and why don't you?

Who out there agrees with Waldo's tactic of placing my actual first name out into the blogosphere?  What about repeatedly using other bloggers names (and speculative bloggers) with who he disagrees with, but omits other's with whom apparently has no quarrel?  I mean seriously, can there be any doubt as to why he is conducting his blogging in such a fashion?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (46)

Checkmate.

The Almighty Knower of Things has once again been exposed. I wonder who will step up to the plate and bring forth comments on this blog post? You present so much damning evidence, I don't even think HE can rebound from your research.

It's STD meets Alton's MZM research.

The Almighty Knower of Things is steadily losing his smarts...
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterjohnmaxfield
If other bloggers want to defend him for what is obviously meant to be an act of intimidation, let's see them!

What seems to be happening is an escalation on his part, whereby, he throws out the information anyone would need to figure out my full legal name...

The message being, I have researched you, and unless you quit rebutting my posts, there will be more to come...

That is not an exchange of ideas.... That is something else entirely, and I put this out for my fellow bloggers to decide.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSpank That Donkey
I backed off of my criticism of Waldo for pulling posts because that whole episode got confusing. But in doing so I did say that Waldo has a tendency to not be so "factual."

In comments Waldo took offense at that and challenged me to provide proof. I declined because it just wasn't something I wanted to spend time with.

So, thanks for documenting it here. I'll link back to it later.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterWard Smythe
Ward,

I have been following your blog quite closely over the past few months. I have been very impressed with your art work and find it humerous, cutting edge, and relevant...especially the one with Jim Webb's eyebrow during the State of the Union. LOL.

It is good to see another bloggers changing the face of the blogosphere by using cartoons to get a point across.

Your work has impressed me and I look forward to continuing to follow your blog. Keep up the good work.

The Dog

P.S. You and I will have to differ about Waldo. I would not back off of criticism of Waldo. He has been given a free pass way to long.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterGrievous Dog
GCD,

Thanks. Although I can't take credit for the Webb-brow. A friend did that for me.

As for Waldo, he's certainly fair game for criticism. Just no ~so much~ on this one.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterWard Smythe
Thanks for the research, STD. The personal attacks on bloggers are, indeed, an act of intimidation by Waldo and will continue going into the next election cycle.

The libs have shown how they can "macaca" our candidates. Now they will do the same to us. Waldo has already done this by going after Keith Drake, chairman of Albemarle GOP, and now he intimidates by calling you by your first name (and repeats it when responding to you, a bold act of trying to shut down dissent, coming from such a "civil" blogger ... some "tone" he's setting for the rest).

The blogosphere is changing. It used to be dominated by individuals who kept their own blogs and worked alone ... but no more. The lefty bloggers changed that. The future is small groups of bloggers working as a team, and those who work alone will eventually become dinosaurs.

February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSWAC Girl
Terry's throwing a temper tantrum over here:
http://www.capitoltalk.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=65

If it didn't require signing up for an account, I'd point out to him that Waldo makes the decisions regarding who is and is not on his blogroll. That point, of course, being what set a lot of this in motion.

But, as we've seen before, facts seemed to avoid Terry like the plague.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterWard Smythe
"If it didn't require signing up for an account, I'd point out to him that Waldo makes the decisions regarding who is and is not on his blogroll. That point, of course, being what set a lot of this in motion."

Oh please, I'm well aware that Waldo decides who is and is not on his blog roll. My point was that if you're going to criticize him all the time, don't turn around and take advantage of the "services" he's providing. If you "lothe" him as much as you all seem to, remove yourselves from the blog roll.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterTerry
Okay, Terry. Slow down and read what you wrote just one more time.

You said:

1) I'm well aware that Waldo decides who is and is not on his blog roll.

and

2) If you "lothe" him as much as you all seem to, remove yourselves from the blog roll.

Well, which is it?

And, sorry, I know some of these concepts are difficult for you. But I can actually disagree with Waldo on a number of issues and actually still have a civil discussion.

If Waldo doesn't want me there, he can remove me. But it will be his decision.

And it won't be because these posts get under your skin.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterWard Smythe
Terry,

What is your love affair with Waldo all about? I am starting to think that he controls you and worst yet, tells you how to think. Waldo is a big boy… let him fight his own battles. The infatuation with Waldo you on the left espouse is beyond normal.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterGrievous Dog
Terry says:
"Oh please, I'm well aware that Waldo decides who is and is not on his blog roll. My point was that if you're going to criticize him all the time, don't turn around and take advantage of the "services" he's providing. If you "lothe" him as much as you all seem to, remove yourselves from the blog roll."

Terry:
None of us are on Waldo's aggregator.. I was the first to ask to be removed, and Waldo tossed SWAC GIRL, Elle, TJCM, and Alton also asked to be removed... Who are you talking about?

GGD:
Unfortunately the same pattern was followed by others, when I challenge them they don't come to my comments section, they send like their brother!
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSpank That Donkey
Terry’s mantra, “I am Chiwawa, hear me yap… Waldo sent me over here because he is too much of a girlie boy to fight his own battles… yap, yap, yap…”

February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterGrievous Dog
But at least Terry has Gravitas unlike Shaun and Waldo.

February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterGrievous Dog
"None of us are on Waldo's aggregator.. I was the first to ask to be removed, and Waldo tossed SWAC GIRL, Elle, TJCM, and Alton also asked to be removed... Who are you talking about?"

I know that YOU are not on there, I was referring to Ward, who attacked Waldo yesterday, yet still uses his blog roll. It's hypocritical.

"Terry’s mantra, “I am Chiwawa, hear me yap… Waldo sent me over here because he is too much of a girlie boy to fight his own battles… yap, yap, yap…”"

Oh please, please prove that Waldo sent me to "fight his battles" otherwise what you're doing is libel. I've never had any contact with Waldo except via email to ask him to update his blog roll to reflect that I had moved to my new blog.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterTerry
Terry, you are a cheese eating surrender monkey.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterjohnmaxfield
Now Maxfield. No name calling. You could be sued for libel. Of course, Waldo can say anything and Terry looks the other way. Hypocritical. LOL! Terry you, Waldo and his friend Shaun are a joke. Interesting how Waldo has his fingers in RPV now. With Shaun at the helm, and Waldo calling the shots, the party is headed for distruction.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterGrievous Dog
First of all, Thank You Terry for coming over here and putting up a fight... It shows you do have gravitas! Max, someone else might fit the bill for CESM status :-)

& Terry says:
"I know that YOU are not on there, I was referring to Ward, who attacked Waldo yesterday, yet still uses his blog roll. It's hypocritical."

Again, Ward attacked Waldo? Ward disagreed with Waldo, and stated the reasons...

This is the same rhetoric that was thrown at us when we supposedly 'attacked' Waldo for censoring the Dog... on what was his bi-partisan aggregator!

Is this not plain for everyone to see?
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterspankthatdonkey
Spank said, <i>Again, Ward attacked Waldo? Ward disagreed with Waldo, and stated the reasons... This is the same rhetoric that was thrown at us when we supposedly 'attacked' Waldo for censoring the Dog... on what was his bi-partisan aggregator!</i>

Thanks for pointing that out, Chris. When we state facts, we're accused of being unreasonable, uncivil, and attacking. When they really DO attack with profanity and personal slams, it's considered okay. Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy.

February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSWAC Girl
Chris,
Great job.
I don't like this first name intimidation tactic one bit. Waldo's true colors are showing!
Terry can argue all he wants, but Waldo lost a lot of credibility these past few days. Not that this is anything new to me.
I saw the true colors way back here in the comments.
http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2005/11/willie-mae-kilgore-lawsuit/

When a grown man makes fun of how a woman, mother, grandmother looks...Nuff said. I can easily assume he would say the same of my mother.
I shook his hand once. That will never happen again. Those ethical bloggers for Waldo...Makes me sick.
February 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterKilo
It appears to me that the "ethics" of blogging have mostly been one-sided.

I never had the luxury of knowing a "civil" blogosphere since I came on board during the falsehoods, innuendos, and mud slinging of the Allen campaign. Calling STD out by his first name is juvenile, just as it was when they called George Allen by his full name.

Where will this lead? Waldo has already shown he intends to personally attack the grassroots by going after the Albemarle GOP Chairman. To him no one seems to be off limits and that, to me, is NOT ethical and, in fact, something RPV needs to pay attention to. We need to meet fire with fire.


February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSWAC Girl
Lest we forget, these are the people who key scratch your car if it has the wrong bumper sticker, or slash the tires of vehicles that would be used to take voters to the polls.

Tolerance and diversity my a**!
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterTugboat Phil
Don't you find it ironic that on a post regarding intimidation, Terry tries to do that very thing by throwing the word "libel" around?

They just don't get it do they...
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterElle
I think SWAC Girl is right. You have to meet fire with fire. And, she is also right that leftie bloggers don't want to be friends.

You can't trust them.
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRowhey
I prefer to meet fire with graham crackers, marshmallows, Hershey Bars and facts. When facts from the Right are already perceived as being attacks, I think to suggest that we start fighting fire with fire only further cements the opinion that the Right is cruel, uncaring, etc.

Let's stick to facts and let the Left be responsible for their own undoing. Some of them even have trouble spelling the word "loathe" even after B. Clinton brought their attention to the word in describing his feelings toward our military.
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbadrose
Badrose,

Why I mean by fighting fire with fire is to be aggressive in framing the debate and argument without getting personal, trite, nasty, or mean. Please don't misunderstand what I am trying to communicate because I think that we agree. We have the right ideas and right issues. We just have to be more aggressive in framing the debate.

Liberal bloggers have been pro-active as opposed to reactive. They have largely shaped the debate until now.

Success for us is a function of initiative. SWAC Girl is onto something by pointing out that we need to breakdown what they have done in the past and learn from it.

So, when I say that we need to meet fire with fire, I mean that we have to respond with purpose and reason. We have to be prepared to be called homophobes, racist, etc., etc. ad naseum. That's what they do.

But, we shouldn't pass up opportunities to throw grenades into their camp once in awhile.

This Nancy Pelosi fiasco regarding her demand of a jumbo jet is a prime opportunity to take the fight to them.




February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRowhey
When I say "fight fire with fire" I mean we cannot back down. I keep hearing this talk about being "civil." Well, we cannot afford to be "civil" while the other side is stabbing us in the back with a knife.

Common sense is what I'd like to see used when fighting the other side. Mix that with facts, and we shouldn't let them back down.

Last fall during the Allen campaign the conservative bloggers continually asked that we discuss the issues. The lefty bloggers ignored the issues and concentrated on smut.

We lost.

We have to be ready next time. Watch what they're doing, do op research, be prepared.

Otherwise, we will continue to lose.
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSWAC Girl
SWAC Girl,

I think that you are right about oppo research. I have no problem with that. They've done it to us. But, I think that it needs to be used in a defensive mannner without crossing any ethical or legal boundaries.

Let's not forget what someone (we know his name) did to Mr. Maxfield. The individual who outed Mr. Maxfield went well beyond the pale of decency and in my mind probably committed some actionable torts.

I've had my own cyber admirer. That individual tried to go right for my professional jugular by posting a combination of erroneous and incomplete information about me. He/she still tries to get my goat from time to time but I am not going to back down.

I am here to stay. And, as long as I have an interest, I hope that I can add something useful to the debate.

The point is that anyone of us could be victimized in the same way.

I learned in my boxing experiences at VMI that the best way to keep from being punched...is to throw punches before the other guy does.

I'm not advocate fighting dirty. I do advocate fighting aggressively. Hit or be hit.

All in all, I have no doubt that once conservatives get a handle on all of this great technology that we will change the nature of the debate. In fact, I think that the debate is already changing to our advantage.

Take a look at what is happening to John Edwards right now over his own blogger flap.


February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRowhey
You are right Rowhey, the JumboGate for Pelosi, after the TunaGate is a great issue, and I will hope to put up a post tonight!
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSpank That Donkey
Rowhey - I did misunderstand. I took "fight fire with fire" to mean that we use the same tactics employed by the Left. Purpose and reason didn't come to mind. But you're cool with the graham crackers, et al thingy, right?

SWAC - The Left won A BATTLE not THE WAR. Time will be their undoing.
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbadrose
Badrose, I agree they won TWO battles (elections). That's even more reason we can't sit back and wait. We have to be ready and armed with information, facts, and a willingness to not back down ... to stand the storm.

Oppo research is essential; look at Waldo "outing" STD's first name as another form of intimidation. His going after the Republican Chairman of Albemarle County is another example. My post on the future of blogs talks about what we need to do.

Each election is another battle ... and Daily Kos gave fair warning when they threatened to "macaca" John Warner if he ran for reelection. What they really meant to say was they would "macaca" ANY Republican who runs for election ... and Waldo is proving they are willing to macaca those of us at the grassroots level including bloggers.

Who was it who said when they pull a knife, you pull a gun? Be prepared.
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSWAC Girl
I agree Rowhey. Fight agressively. Hit or be hit. We did it the genteel way in the Allen campaign and these liberal carpet baggers simply did not understand---and still don't--gentlemanly politics. It is time that we conservatives get on the rebound.
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterjohnmaxfield
Speaking of fighting fire with fire, didn't anyone notice that Terry came to this discussion with the completely irrelevant and already laid to rest issue of Waldo's aggregator?

Terry, I know of no one that hasn't said from the beginning that Waldo can do whatever he wishes with that aggregator. I've said it. Chris said it. SWAC girl said it. Even the dog said so.

Why bring it up again as a straw man?
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterAlton
Badrose, I am cool with the graham crackers...but have to admit that I am on a diet. Do they come in tofu flavor? Lol.

John and SWAC Girl, in my way of thinking, you strike before they get a chance to pull the knife. Don't let them get the drop on you.

Push stories aggressively. Beat them to the punch. Rapid response is sometimes necessary. But, it is defensive in nature.

We've necessarily had to fight a rearguard action against them in defense of Goode. But, remember, we are reacting to them. They threw the first punch.

From now on, we need to beat them to the punch.

John will understand this and SWAC Girl will to. Stonewall Jackson was a man of the Valley.

In the Valley, he was able to tie down and defeat three armies with his one because of initiative. I have no doubt that we can do the same.

I'm a man of the Valley myself -- from Lexington. I'd like to think that I understand how to be a gentleman. But, politics has never been a gentlemanly endeavor. It is trench warfare.



February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRowhey
Rowhey, you hit the nail on the head when you said this is trench warfare ... and we need to go on offense.

Last fall they kept us on defense the entire time. We couldn't get our footing before they hit us again ... and I'd like to be prepared and armed so that doesn't happen again.

February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSWAC Girl
Really, I think the difficulty is finding the proper blend between national, state and regional issues. But, it seems that the nature of the debate has shifted to become more of a "blogger v. blogger" thing.

I'm new to all of this blogging but not new to politics. Right now, it seems that this "blogger v. blogger" dynamic is something akin to the rivalries which used to exist between newspapers back in the newspaper glory days.

So, in a sense, it isn't just about issues. Territorial disputes and egos have become involved.

I don't need my ego stroked but I suspect that certain lefty bloggers wake up every morning thinking that they are the blogger kingpins.

I'm not motivated by personal gain. I want to see the conservative message boldly crafted and effectively delivered.

In the end, it's about getting our candidates elected.
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRowhey
Graham crackers crumble and marshmallows are soft. Find blogger who know how to fight and we will win ever battle...battles win wars.
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered Commentergrievous dog
You're spot on Rowhey. Conservative bloggers need to take on the persona of Jackson and his Valley Division. We need to hit, hit, and keep hitting. We need to run the liberals ragged and into the ground as Jackson ran Fremont, Shields, and Banks (or is it Waldo, Shaun, and the RPV) all around Virginia. Not only must we raise the black flag against the radical Muslims, but we must raise the black flag of our intelligence against their ignorance and stupidity.
February 8, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterjohnmaxfield
We have Won the last battle, which was the defense of Goode.. Waldo tried to resurrect it, and Alton slammed his appendage in the door!

and the rest of us came in to pour the salt on...

They got Kilgore and Allen.... Next we need a real Conservative to get into the Senate... What the heck are we going to defend in Warner?
February 9, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterspankthatdonkey
Warner can and must be defended. I'd rather have 1/2 of a loaf...or even 3/4 of a loaf than none at all.

I don't agree with Warner on a lot of things. However, he is much better than any Dem.
February 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRowhey
I like the idea of Tony Snow running! An Ollie North match up would be nice again.. How about Virgil Goode?
February 9, 2007 | Registered CommenterSpankThatDonkey
I love the idea of Tony Snow running or Virgil -- if Senator Warner decides to retire. Ollie hasn't expressed any interest in running again for years -- that I know of anyway.

My biggest concern about losing Senator Warner is not political. Lord only knows that he doesn't vote the way that I would like him to much of the time. My concern is primarily that Virginia would lose all of his seniority on Armed Services, etc.

We have one very bombastic junior senator right now who seems more interested in grabbing headlines for himself than getting anything of substance done. We need someone with seniority to do the heavy lifting.

While it is true that Senator Warner has often left us conservatives in the dark, he has always come through for Virginia as whole.
February 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRowhey
Rowhey,

Don't overvalue the Armed Services seniority. Warner was already bumped as ranking member by McCain (the Senate GOP term-limits Chair/Ranking Member terms), and how much can he really do for the military in VA after throwing the president under the bus?
February 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterD.J. McGuire
The Senate is already cooked... Let's just get behind a real Conservative who can be a voice for Conservatives...

These moderates are imploding the party. I understand the Military angle, but I think VA is and will do fine with our present bases...
February 9, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSpank That Donkey

Using someone's first name is a form of intimidation? Huh? Certainly it's rude when you'd rather be called something else. But hardly intimidating.

April 18, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterJackson Landers

Jackson, there is no excuse for putting forth anything more than Chris, by which Waldo knows me well...

You know him, ask him why he chose to do that.

April 18, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSpank That Donkey

In the words of one fine American," Can't we all just get along?"

April 21, 2007 | Unregistered Commenteranonymous

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>