I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Up?
Top 5?
Waaaaaaaah!
Waaaaaaaaah!
What a whiny ass titty-baby.
And he STILL has the fucking story wrong (Abramoff "directed" clients' money to Democrats).
How do these people keep their jobs?
Already sent him my "You are *such* a liar" email. Bastard.
Brady...wanker.
(waves at J. Brady)
Why yes, Jim, you are an idiot.
The mistake was corrected? Not even. Not ever, as far as I know.
"the trouble with you
is the trouble with me
you've got two good eyes
but you still don't see"
I have to go to the store more often!
Come home, I have six SNPA waiting for me, and a new thread!
.
I don't envy you the selection of WOTD... there's just SO DAMN MANY!
-
Lying sack of shit Haloscan.
lurking. Though not skulking.
One thing they STILL haven't even tried to account for:
When the comments originally disappeared, they said that it was due to a technical glitch. Then it became about 'hate speech.' It may well be that there was a tech glitch followed by an editorial decision, but that seems like a stretch. More to the point, they haven't even tried to explain this discrepancy. So is it an oversight or does the Post's past record of explanation 'not uniquely comport' with the truth?
How many comments were deleted again? 50? Hundreds? Now it's a hundred. Huh.
And he got called bad names on the Internets. Uh....
So?
Nice - Lowery's euology on the SPAN right now.
So, who's the wanker, again? (goes to look)
.
Jeebus, Atrios, why topical threads fresh after open threads? You suck.
funny, i saw the opening on the rss reader earlier today but couldn't find the article. I knew it was going to be one big wwwwwwaaaaaahhh-fest by this douche bag.
"...the blog had become ground zero for angry readers complaining about a column by Post ombudsman Deborah Howell on the newspaper's coverage of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. If I had let them, they would have obliterated any semblance of civil, genuine discussion."
Wah...wah...wah...waaaaaaaaahhhhhh
WATB.
Oh wait, I'm obliterating any semblance of civil, genuine discussion.
As if the Repukes have not already successfully accomplished that over the last 14 years, and especially the last 5. This is how the game is played now. Not our fault if we have to stoop to their level. If we don't, they'll kill us.
Wow, that Rev. Lowery is GREAT!
-
But what do I know? I'm an idiot.
Truer words were never spoken.
My favorite fallacy isn't Appeal to Authority, but it's a good one.
Has anyone at WaPo tried to ascertain whether or not there was a change in the proportion of donations given by Abramoff's clients to Democrats and Republicans? Did Republicans begin to receive a higher percentage after Abramoff took on a client?
That might make for some interesting journalism.
A far worse breach of civility? Altmouse has called Atrios a heffalump.
Shocking.
Jim Brady is SUCH a sensitive flower.
Is it because his dad jacked off in a flower pot and Jim came up a blooming idiot?
Jeebus, Atrios, why topical threads fresh after open threads? You suck.
NTodd, Land Shark
Give it about 20 more comments, and this thread, too, will be an open thread.
isn't the lincoln memoroial a falac symbol?-
yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
what a whiner. (that's Maxx above. he's not so great at spelling)
Nice - Lowery's euology on the SPAN right now. - JeffCO
SHIT! They offed him already?
and this thread, too, will be an open thread.
Marcia Brady ∞ |
the threads are always open baby!
Jeebus, Atrios, why topical threads fresh after open threads? You suck.
Atrios used to be cool, like at 6:30 tonight. Now everyone says he just lost it.
Holy mackeral, what a smackdown by Lowery... no wonder the Shithead Right is pissed off!
I'm sorry I missed this the first go-around...
-
Already sent him my "You are *such* a liar" email. Bastard.
JeffCO
Gee, I hope it was civil. Only Zell Miller gets to challenge people to duels.
Heckuva job, Brady, um, Brady-ady.
Heckuva job, Brady-ady.
Marcia, I hope you're not related...
Major WOD
Ugh.... I can't keep up.... But I've got all my limbs.... Fuck this war and this criminal administration.
I teach at a college. The other day in class I brought up a program my college is running to help fund a rehabilitation center for disabled Afghanistan and Iraq War vets, letting the students know that they could help out if they wanted to.... So, there's an Afghanistan war vet in my class, as it turns out. He says, really loud, "We had to spend a week in therapy when we came back to the States!" I said, "Tell us where you were and what you're talking about." He sort of explained. Another student said, "Why did you have to have therapy?" and he said, "Dudes come back and kill their wives, man!" And he laughed this really crazy laugh....
Fuck it all anyway.
Peace.
I'm sure I remember reading about the Abramoff involvement in the tribes at least two years ago in The Texas Observer. Because one of the affected tribes was in El Paso. Also, probably what with Delay being, y'know, a Texas based problem, the Observer extensively covered the Marianas stuff over a year ago. So did The Nation.
Those extremist publications don't count with the Post, I suppose.
Jeebus, Atrios, why topical threads fresh after open threads? You suck.
NTodd, Land Shark
Ummm, don't look up.
Marcia, I hope you're not related...
Eli
Nah, I'm pretty much my own species.
Nah, I'm pretty much my own species.
Would it be flattery if I called you a genus?
Gee, I hope it was civil. Only Zell Miller gets to challenge people to duels. -Marcia Brady
Here's the guts:
You have yet to offer one single shred of *evidence* that "Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties." You keep *saying* that he did, and you've referred to some kind of documentary record of it, but *nothing* published in the Post or elsewhere supports your contention. That some tribes *did* give to Democrats while working with Abramoff is a fact. However, it is also a fact that they gave *more* to them *before* they started working with Abramoff. Further, they gave *much more* to Republicans after working with Abramoff.
It is flat-out a distortion to conclude that Abramoff was *advising* them to give to Dems, when all the evidence points to his advising them *not* to give to Dems, but rather to Republicans. That, of course, would be consistent with his entire known history of fundraising and lobbying, whereas your repeated assertion makes zero sense and is unsupported by anything but your repetition of it.
JeffCO, why are you so mean? Why do you have to speak in less than a respectful tone to your media betters?
What a whiny ass titty-baby.
I guess there must be a lot of peer group pressure inside the Washington beltway to adopt the dishonest damage control methods of Bush and the GOP. Brady might as well be Scotty in front of the gaggle.
Would it be flattery if I called you a genus?
Eli
Are you punning at me so early in the evening?
Every time somebody uses an asterisk, I go looking for a footnote...
-
Heckuva job, Jim, um, let's see here, hmmm, Jim-immy.
Heckuva job, Jim-immy.
I agree with NTodd (HI everyone! -- my sermon is ready for tomorrow -- YEAH! -- now someone please stop the snow...)
JeffCO, pointing out facts and employing logic are awfully mean spirited, don't you think? Look how well Lieberman is getting along with Republicans and their minions. We should all follow his example.
Great email!
really, who cares. these are the cries of a 5 year old baby. with a national outlet to cry from, thats all.
so fucking sad.
JeffCO, why are you so mean?
I know, I keep looking over my shoulder in fear of imminently being struck by the stainless steel hanky of Politenessman.
Well I think he's giving us some very valuable information here. When we hit them the same way that the right has been hitting them for years, we draw blood. We've got to keep on doing whatever it takes to draw blood. Eventually at least some of them will figure out that if they're going to get beaten up no matter what they do, they might as well go ahead and print the truth. I say we flood the WaPo again telling him what a WATB right-wing hack he is. Oh, and he's still a liar.
As a liberal Democrat I've been called a communist, a socialist, a terrorist, a terrorist-sympathizer, objectively pro-terrorism, a terrorist appeaser, a traitor, a fascist, an Islamo-fascist sympathizer, a collectivist, a Fifth Columnist, a fag, a fag-lover, an elitist, an intellectual elitist, a moonbat, an idiotarian, a welfare cheat, a heretic, a baby-killer, a hater of troops, a hater of America, a tree-hugger, a pussy, a liberal pussy, a liberal faggot, an anti-Christian bigot, a Nazi, and a Bush-basher.
Only the last one has any basis in reality.
So when Jim Brady accuses me or any other liberal commenter in blog-land of obliterating genuine, civil discussion, my friendly suggestion to him would be to go tie himself to a rail fence and take 20 inches of stallion up his tailpipe.
Marcia, I wouldn't sweat such a specious pun.
Every time somebody uses an asterisk...
...God kills a kitten.
What Hecate said.
Let's make him cry till he screams "uncle!"
Whiny ass titty-baby liar.
Brady writes:
“As it was, things got pretty ugly, and it's worth figuring out why. In her Jan. 15 column, Howell erred in saying that Abramoff gave campaign donations to Democrats as well as Republicans. In fact, Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties, but he had donated his own personal funds only to Republicans.”
What evidence does Brady have that Abramoff “directed clients to give donations” outside of the quid pro quo arrangements Jack has plead guilty to? If he can’t figure out that his “everybody does this” bullshit in the absence of acknowledged, proven, or even alleged misconduct is why “things got ugly”, then yeah, he would seem to be at least tone deaf, and at worst an idiot.
I sent a flavor of that to his aol box, which was a waste of time, I'm sure.
My email was
Given that you're not an idiot, why did you write
"In fact, Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties, but he had donated his own personal funds only to Republicans."
instead of
"In fact, Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties, but under that direction more money went to Republicans than Democrats. He had donated his own personal funds only to Republicans."
I e-mailed this nob: "Tell it to Hugh Hewitt, that paragon of civility and sense ... again. You're breaking my heart, Mr. Brady. So the 'net is tough and often implacable and vulgar ... boo-hoo. My sympathy goes to the families of soldier Bush sent to their deaths with your paper's imprimatur on his lies -- oh, I'm sorry, his misstatements. Quit clutching your pearls and start telling the truth about these scumbags in charge, and people will be nicer to you -- like you should even care. You're a journalist, remember? Not a guest on Dr. Phil. Grow some ____s, as you would say."
Don't stop with the Washington Post. Send your love to all the media outlets that pull this shit.
My email earlier today to the Associated Press...
In two stories you have recently published attemping to connect
Senator Reid with Jack Abramoff's efforts on behalf of his clients
to keep the minimum wage on the Marianas Islands low, you neglected
to mention what is probably the most crucial detail of the story.
Senator Reid opposed those efforts and in fact cosponsored legislation
to increase that minimum wage. There is absolutely no ethical excuse
whatsoever for making such an omission.
Is generating a "big story" so important to the AP that you
are willing to fabricate, by lies of omission, a scandal where
there is none? After two shameful stories, it looks to me like
you are carrying on a deliberate smear compaign against Senator
Reid. Am I wrong?
-----
Tell the AP what you think of their "reporting" ...
info@ap.org
BRADY: "It was a mistake, it was corrected." See, now that's what I call a lie. It was not a mistake, it was a deliberate statement that happened to be untrue. It was not "corrected;" it was defended. And even then Brady persists in pretending that he is unaware that what actually happened is that the new Ombudsman spouted Rovian talking points that seriously distort the fundamental nature of the Abramoff all-GOP, all-the-time scandal into the familiar "they all do it" narrative that comforts the criminals in charge.
Everyone on This blog knows that. For him to persist in spreading oldthink disinformation helps explain why the WaPoo's future is in the toilet.
Brady knows damn well that everyone is angry over that whole "Abramoff directed" distortion - it's been raised over and over, was raised that day in the comments on the Post, and Al Franken raised it with him on the air. He's pretending not to know because he's playing to the older, less internet-literate rubes who don't know how to fact-check him. That of course ratchets up the anger and intensifies his lying. I was willing to give him some benefit of the doubt at first, but he's proven he is just a garden-variety weasel.
JeffCo --
I believe that you are correct-- Brady is lying & knows that he is lying & knows that we know that he is lying (& I will stop there before I lose my train of thought)
in the subsequent four days we received more than a thousand comments in our public forum. Only, the word "comments" doesn't convey the obscene, vituperative tone of a lot of the postings, which were the sort of things you might find carved on the door of a public toilet stall. About a hundred of them had to be removed for violating the Post site's standards, which don't allow profanity or personal attacks.
"About a hundred" out of "more than a thousand." What a sad commentary on the decline of decency in America ever since Cheney told Leahy to go fuck himself!
I really can't blame them for refusing to correct the error, after an onslaught like that. I think that people who use bad language forfeit their right to be accurately informed.
I am a twit without a functioning brain.
Yes, and...?
Inadvertant error. Yeah, right.
-
And he mentioned a bloggers ethics panel!!!
His parody is actually an acidental parody and he still doesn't realize it. This is genius.
Ok, I want to clear this up, people. First I said there were over a hundred inappropriate comments. Then I said less than fifty.
Now I'm up to a hundred again.
The truth is, the actualy number is "umpteen plus three."
I hope that settles things.
I actually felt embarrassed for Brady reading it. What a transparently self-serving piece of snivel. Waaahhhh.
One day he will read what he wrote and break into a cold-sweat of shame and regret.
Maybe not, if he's a republican.
My email:
Outside the DC Bubble
this self obsessed "pity me" routine doesn't cut much. Your reporters are lazy. Your public editor is a disgrace...and your paper is becoming an embarrassment.
After reading your self indulgent screed, Jim...we finally learn the truth.
It is all about you.
You can dish it out, but like most of your ilk...you can't take it.
Ye gawds, an 1800 word column and he still won't rationally discuss the actual complaint that started the entire business. Has the man never been sworn at in his entire life? He goes on and on about it . . .
It works like this, people: when you go to a stadium for a sporting event, a certain number of people in the crowd are going to swear, scream, and generally spew foul language. They're part of the experience and everyone learns to live with them; when you go to a rock concert, a certain number of fans in the crowd are going to be drunk, stoned, and are going to scream and swear and spill puke on each other; and of course, when you publish something read by a large crowd on the Internet a certain number of them are going to swear, spew, and generally write like drunken, hostile idiots.
They do this largely for the same reason the people in the crowds at football games and concerts do it: because the contexts favors hostile, hyper-emotional venting and provides the anonymity to do so without risk of consequences.
So you learn to ignore it and enjoy the game.
...At least, that's what I've been told -- in much stronger language -- by dozens of people who have never met me.
But what do I know? I'm an idiot. Just ask the people who don't know me.
So what now, according to Brady, we're required to tolerate a cocktail party with this guy so that one may have credibility when commenting on his words and actions? Spare me, but still make mine a martini with three olives. I haven't had dinner yet.
I can't believe that baby is still whining about this, or that he's stupid enough to publish such a self-pitying response.
Jimbo, get a clue. The people who send you the most vulgar, offensive comments, are only going to be *encouraged* by your latest column.
Jim Brady has a serious condition of WATB Syndrome.
Boo fucking hoo, you giant crybaby.
You know your dealing with a wanker when they list their email at some AOL account.
This is the email is just sent to the WATB. It took a remarkable amount of self control to limit the profanity (if not the shouting:
While I agree with some of what you write, I am afraid that you have seriously mischaracterized the debate, again.
A mistake was made. But let's put the context around the mistake. The context was that the paper's ombudsman defended the mistake of another reporter. Both that reporter and ombudsman seem to have a history of problems separating facts from Republican spin. A correction was made. Grudgingly and in itself not accurate (Jack Abramoff who has called his Native American clients "morons" in emails steered money that otherwise would have gone to Democrats to Republicans. This is the ONLY fact that contrary to what you have written is indisputable)
The Republican Party has spent forty years working the referees. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, co-opting the hero of the Watergate scandal for crying out loud, and successfully working reporters who had relevant information so that the first White House staffer indicted in over a century was put off until after the 2004 election. These people have no shame and no scruples. They are willing to cheat to subvert the will of the people.
You wonder why people are made. You take their vote away and by God they will be angry. You work the press until the most outrageous (and inaccurate) spin appears as "fact", not just once, not just twice but every d**n day. Most people have long commutes, busy jobs and big families and can't afford to obsessively follow the news. The republicans count on this. This is the basis of how they conduct politics. It is shameless, unethical and grotesque, but there you have it. The fact that the ombudsman of a major newspaper (where electronic media reporters go for their background, opinion and reading of trends in the news) someone who is paid to research facts and correct news reporters propagates such an obvious falsehood is a major systemic problem that is subverting democracy itself. This is some serious stuff.
People are angry. They have every right to be angry. You shouldn't be taking it personally. You should listen to them, listen to yourself and you should be making it right, not adding fuel to the fire.
I used to be a moderate until this conspiracy of gangsters started to get what they want by cheating. The fact that they have gotten away with it and that there is no press willing to call them on it has made a bad situation worse. Now I am no longer a moderate independent. Now I am an angry obsessive blogite.
DO YOU JOB so I can go back to my life and NOT BE SO OBSESSIVE AND ANGRY ANYMORE!!!!!!
Please.
I simply sent him the following email:
I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's admonition: "It is better to stay silent and let people think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Thank you for removing all doubt.
Geez. I only read the comments because I thought what I just read had to be a parody. A hijack. A hack.
A not very funny hijack. Just not the drowning whinge that I am now convinced it was. No, not that.
You cannot be serious.
WATB. eom.
So, the post is a "family newspaper"?
Right there, anybody should recognize the political dodge of hiding behind the "protect the children".
When the news media, or government starts restricting anything to protect the kids, they know the argument they make is weak. They cannot present it as a restriction of adults rights or choices, for then it would fall apart, as Mr. Bradys does anyway.
Brady et al are deliberately missing the fundamental point:
HOW CAN A SCANDAL BE "BIPARTISAN" WHEN THE POINT OF THE SCANDAL IS TO KILL ONE OF THE PARTIES?
The whole point, raison d'etre, modus operandi of the Abramoff/Rove/Delay/Reed/Norquist axis was to destroy the Democrats (while stealing millions in the process). Just to name a few:
Indian money was directed to NH for phone jamming to kill Democratic chances.
Corporations were told by the K Street Project to fire their Democratic lobbyists.
Choctaw money was donated to TRM PAC for Texas redistricting to kill Democratic seats.
But. as Timmie said in a "correction" on "Today": Dean was only "technically" right when he said that no Dems received Abramoff cash.
WTF, everyone else is weighing in on this, why not me?
Btwe, I'm emailing this to Keller and I don't care if people say that I'm falling into his trap by using four letter words. This will have to be sent in a private email, since he doesn;t allow comments (surprise, surprise) so I won't be able to publicly embarrass him (except within the confines of my humble blog).
Give Mr. Brady a break: he got shot in the head during the Reagan assassination attempt.
You mean it's not THAT James Brady?
my letter to brady...
subject: We're not idiots either
Your continued whining about the commenters shows your lack of regard for the fact that your paper got the facts wrong, refused to issue a proper correction, and you still insist on blaming your audience for your problems. I wasn't among the brood of angry readers who voiced their opinons that day, but having come into this story late in the game I can objectively see why they would be calling you names.
At least Jayson Blair had the fortitude to admit he was being dishonest when caught. You can't even correct a mistake, if that's what it really was. This arrogant attempt to redefine reality is far worse than his making up interviews out of thin air because of who you are aiding and abetting. The free press isn't supposed to serve as a propoganda arm of the government. You're supposed to be telling your readers the truth to the best of your ability.
So far, that ability seems compromised.
'Howell's inaverdent error'!
Quick. someone sell Mr. Brady the Golden Gate Bridge.
A stunning effort to tell a "favorite story" without mentioning the blogger by name (Jane of Firedoglake). Have you ever heard a kid tell a lie and then embellish it with sloppy details which make it sound even more fake? Even when he doesn't make things up, the wanker latches onto a method to make it seem that way. The guy needs an editor.
My favorite story from this adventure involves one blogger who proudly runs a no-holds-barred blog that relishes name calling. Nonetheless, we invited this blogger to participate in an online discussion about ethics on the Web. During the discussion, this blogger peppered me with many of the same questions that I'd answered in other forums. In one of my responses, I noted the investigative nature of her questions and suggested that when she was done playing Columbo, she might actually discuss the topic we'd invited her to discuss. More than 50 of this blogger's readers later sent e-mails to me demanding a public apology for comparing this blogger to a fictional television detective. One of the complaints about my manners closed by telling me to go do something unprintable with myself "and that Wa:Po rag you ride about town." Uh, thanks.
I sure you're welcome.
I don't know you, Jim, but I still think you are an idiot. Sorry, can't help myself...uh, and, oh, I read a lot of stuff, too, just like important journalists inside the beltway. Kinda thin-skinned aren't ya? But then, you guys are professionals and bloggers are just hacks with no "ethics." Wankers.
Well, at least the last line he wrote was correct.
Open letter to Jim Brady,
Jim,
If you don't want to get called names, figure out how to do your job.
Love,
frankly0
Yeah, Jane really got under his skin didn't she? Maybe it was the fact that she called him on his manipulation of that "chat" to exclude her comments at all costs and to engage in just the sort of "name calling" he pretends to deplore.
Plus, as a former sports editor, I'm sure he's pissed he ever has to deal with a woman that isn't fetching him a scotch and soda...
gord brown | 02.11.06 - 10:41 pm | #
Great Letter! Well said!
benton | 02.11.06 - 8:47 pm | #
Berken | 02.11.06 - 10:28 pm | #
Both excellent posts I'm really impressed with both of your comments.
Sorry I couldn't tell you sooner. I look forward to more from you both.
Wow, what a crybaby.
oops!
someone suggests the media actually DO THEIR JOBS and they get all sensitive.
aww
Jesus Christ.
That monologue could have been lifted from my sophomore year literary catalogue.
World Class Mea Culpa! Ohhh, it burns!!!
Yep. Brady stepped in deep doo doo again.
I sent the following to good old Jim:
Jim,
Less than a paragraph in to this rant you DID IT AGAIN. You said,"Abramoff directed clients to give money to both democrats and republicans." Let me spell it out plainly for you.
Democrats have gotten money from tribes for a long time because they care about civil rights and Indian issues.
The tribes that hired Abramoff gave, now read this word carefully, LESS, to the democrats that they had previously given to.
So Abramoff directed money, here comes another important word, AWAY from democrats.
Why can't you get why this is important. No matter how you try to spin this it is a REPUBLICAN scandal.
I can't believe you are this stupid so I can only take it to mean that you are a right wing "tool".
Sincerely,
Dean Simon
Keshena, WI
A WUSSY and a WANKER. God allmighty. When will the press start doing its damned job?
My too-nice letter to Jim:
Dear Jim,
I can relate to your column today, having written it ten years ago myself. I think everyone should get 15 minutes to write a frustrated "how the world works" column after being char-broiled by anonymous e-mailers.
Unfortunately, these columns are unread by those who should read them, a little creepy (in a "protest too much" way) for those who know what you're talking about, and, ultimately, unhelpful for pretty much everybody. Even the author.
Still, I can relate, and you seem to have held onto some dignity in a column model that, unfortunately but by nature, rarely rises above "whiny."
The problem with the original story, as I'm sure you already know, unless you really are the hair-twisting moron people accused you of being, isn't the "error" you refer to many times; it's the adoption -- however subtle -- of the Republican spin on the Abramoff scandal. There is no, zero, nada Democratic component to this scandal. Abramoff directed no one to give money to Democrats. Some of his Democratic-leaning clients -- on their own and AGAINST his direction -- gave money to Democrats. That's obscenely thin guilt by association, which is the core of the Republican obfuscation of this scandal. The Post should never allow itself to be used in this manner by any entity: left, right, or Martian.
If there's a Washington Post banner on the page and a positive assertion in the News section ("X happened, period." -Washington Post), we should be able to trust that assertion has a basis in truth. This one was the opposite, but it continues to carry The Post's banner despite after-the-fact (and always, if I may say, surprisingly milquetoast) corrections.
So I can't blame people for taking The Post to task, not only for allowing errors to go unchecked in ostensibly factual reporting, but in allowing spin-based assertions to take the place of facts. That's what letters to the editor are about, whether they come from Yahoo or just some yahoo with a postage stamp.
anybody who can't understand the anger felt towards this regime and for anybody who serves to prop it, is they themselves living in a bubble.
how dare this man play the civility card, after propping up an administration that has been anything but. was it "civil" to propogate WMDs lies and bury stories that questioned it? was it civil to ignore the consequences of doing so?
what is more uncivil? protesting blatent abuses or indifference in the face of it?
that brady is this thin-skinned tells me he isn't used to being held accountable. how dare anybody question this great, great man. a legend in his own mind. how dare the hoi polloi, the unwashed masses question this man's judgement? the audacity!
That on-line version of the Brady column fails to show what it looks like in the print version. Large, bold, and RED type for the "nasty" words (e.g. "twit", "censored", "dangerous ideologue") in the first several sentences. Although it's below the fold on B1, he makes no mistake that he wants to be heard.
Poor widdle Jimmy. You meanies have hurt his feelings.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
