Forum:Another day, another call from the White House

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Another day, another call from the White House

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5559 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Srsly. It's an interesting day when your boss gets a call from the White House to complain about one of the wikis you host. And even more interesting when we have to round up our lawyers to look at the complaints. So, the end point was, a partial deletion from an UnNews article. Which should be enough to calm things down... although I admit there were face-pullings at the idea of not deleting it completely. But then I guess that's half of what we pay them for, to pull faces at us (or more often, you)

So to prevent more interesting days, please don't restore the history of UnNews:Exclusive: White House Visitor's Log. The part removed is basically cyber-bullying of a non-famous White House worker, and it's best stayed gone. Thanks -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

White House reads Uncyclopedia? Well, I got one thing to say: We want Sophia to be painted on the side of the White House. Do it, Obama! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I admit, this is pretty crazy, but it doesn't beat Mike Gravel promising a cabinet position to Rev. Zimulator. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? Right? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is srs federal biz. --Charitwo^Talk 00:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone paste it here so the community can decide? I don't like the idea of unquestioningly accepting State censorship. -- wet Ape (activate) (Riot Porn) 00:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously pasting it here would totally defeat the object of removing it, same as for any other deletion. However, any admin can view and verify the content. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Federal issue aside, it's still cyberbullying. It isn't really a question of censorship. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it cyberbullying? Really? I don't believe it is, as that one guy wrote it, and we won UN:FP. But still. That one guy should want to cyber with a bully. I do. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we still allowed to comment on these heartless, scheming bastards? ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is content that we now own and we are entitled to put it on the front page if we want. All I'm asking is that we don't accept the "call from the White House" as a reason for deleting it. Paste it here, and if we decide its bollocks, delete it again. -- wet Ape (activate) (Riot Porn) 00:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All hail the revolution? It's just a line. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As an admin who's able to view and judge the deleted content, I have viewed and judged the deleted content. Surely, it did contain information (and a picture) of a real human being that the author knew and knowingly included. Apparently, the person in question worked didn't want to be included, all White House-ness aside. Therefore, it breaks Cyberbullying rules, and cannot be allowed. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like if the White House would address us in a formal press release. Seriously. Think about that as free advertising. Do it, Robert GIBBS, ya damn cracka! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just saw us mentioned on CBS. Awesome! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not serious. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 01:12, Aug 6

That article was ages ago. Those guys in the WH need a new refresh button--Sir Sunbeam no u F@H KUN 15:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record

I asked for this content to be pasted uncensored onto this forum. My request was denied. I then asked for the content to be pasted with the name and picture removed. My request was denied. Clearly, if the person is not identified, the content is not libellous. I pointed this out, my request remained denied. I was told, by sannse, to ask an admin to show it to me in private. I asked TKF. He told me that if I posted the content on the wiki or shared it with a non-admin I would be banned forever. The content was mindless cyberbullying which implied that an intrepid UnNews Reporter managed to obtain a copy of the White House Visitor's Log, by sleeping with a (named) receptionist. There then followed explicit details of the sex act. Obviously the content was stupid and would have been deleted under normal circumstances. This is besides the point. Since the White House asked us to remove it, it was de facto state censorship, and should have been discussed transparently with the community. The fact that it wasnt troubles me somewhat. That is all I have to say on the matter. Ban me if you want. -- wet Ape (activate) (Riot Porn) 01:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Ape. I was looking at the deleted page, and it really doesn't look that bad. I dunno how famous the person is, but this is a parody website and is thus pretty much immune to "libel" charges, and even still, there's like half a line stating that the reporter 'rode whatshername like a circus pony' or some such, and then received a document of some kind. Honestly, I thought it was kind of funny, in a twisted sort of way, and would just as soon see it restored with a made up name or something. And comparatively speaking, we've done things in way worse taste. But whatever. I guess this sort of thing just doesn't sit right with me. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:01, Aug 6

I have decided I am going to write: HowTo:Access the White House Visitor's Log as a parody of this. -- wet Ape (activate) (Riot Porn) 02:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is over the naming of a specific individual, rather than the content surrounding it. I obviously have no room to pass judgment here, but I doubt that there would be any issue with your suggested action under normal circumstances. However, with the "lawyers" freaking out I doubt it will happen. Really, it's not that big of a deal. It's not like the entire article was wiped from existence without explanation. The offending section was wiped, sannse very clearly (in my opinion) stated what had happened (instead of hiding the action to prevent exactly this kind of stink), and the rest of the article still stands. It's not like this has happened before, and it's not likely to happen again. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 06:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it could be argued that it was defamation of a private citizen. Oh course, there is still the issue of why the White House would be using tax payer money to make such legal threats? Anyway, did they specifically say what civil and/or criminal charges they were threatening? --Mn-z 06:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah jeez. It's cyberbullying. We remove cyberbullying. Doesn't matter who pointed it out to us, and it doesn't make it censorship. And it doesn't need to be decided on by the community any more than every 'tard who posts cyberbullying needs to be tried by the whole community before an admin bans them. This is a non-issue. --UU - natter 13:16, Aug 6

Per UU. (I say that a lot now.) Nameable • mumble? 13:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure it's "cyberbullying". I would like to hear the authors opinion on that maybe but it's probably not "right" whatever that is... Anyone been banned for this "cyberbullying"? Sannse IS an Uncyclopedia admin ya know and has done exactly what any other admin would have done in the same situation. It ain't nothing to do with the lawyers this one really, it was just an Uncyc issue. In fact I suspect that Sannse has been overly cautious (understandably) to make sure we all know about this one. I got an e-mail from the principle of a school teacher in the Philippines asking me to take down their article last week. It sucked, so luckily I was able to get it huffed at VFD, but never bothered with a forum about it. I would be surprised if ever the lawyers tell us we have to do anything that our own policies don't agree with. MrN  Fork you! 13:45, Aug 6

It would be a non-issue, if the content were pasted here with the name removed, to ensure full transparency. This is not like any other cyberbullying, because it involves White House lawyers making threats, so it should not be treated like ordinary everyday cruft. Also: censoring: deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [1] -- wet Ape (activate) (Riot Porn) 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude, everything is cool. I read it and I'm sure many of the other sysops have now. The text describes the person and what they do, so removing the name would not help. We could remove the text also, but then there would be nothing left to post. MrN  Fork you! 17:30, Aug 6

Yes, it says that she was a receptionist and that the guy pinned her legs behind her head and rode her like a circus pony. I know that, why can the rest of the wiki not be told this? -- wet Ape (activate) (Riot Porn) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! Or the fact that the lady's nickname is REPORTEDLY "Hot Chocolate"? Or the fact her last name is the thing that Mark Foley happened to be attracted to! Or the fact that she is mentioned on The Huffington Post several fucking times! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, she's black. Seriously. And she's Obama's secretary. These are known facts, dammit! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And her initials are DP. Also, since we're reporting someone else's speech, rather than claiming it as fact, it is not slander or libel. -- wet Ape (activate) (Riot Porn) 00:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, you can Google "Obama's secretary" to find out her name. And I bet she only found this by Googling her name - Sounds like she may or may not be quite egotistical! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And she may or may not have given the reporter, "30 seconds at the copier to get the evidence that America needs." MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

bollocks. come on guys, we've got bigger fish to fry. let's not gain recognition via whining about removing some unfunny possible cyberbullying because someone asked politely. and i'm serious about the fish thing: i've got a basement full of them and only two skillets, and modus won't stop leaving carp on my doorstep. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are so dyslexic. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

no wonder everyone refuses to eat my cooking. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks is policy actually. MrN  Fork you! 17:30, Aug 6

Finally transparency and change we can believe in! Chimerica the beautiful. Censorship for all! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me we could have just 'modified' the joke by changing the, er, person in question to a 'generic, faceless White House representative'. I do agree that this particular instance was cyberbullying and maybe crossed that line ever so slightly, but I'm guessing the deleted content could surely have referred to any old random person that works at the White House, since the explicit mention of the person seems to be the problem here. I'm also sure the guys at the White House have a very good sense of humour since they never even cared to mention the article on them... oh, whoops, I bet they will now. -- Hindleyite Converse 10:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hurray for state censorship! —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, all this discussion just for this?

It was libellous. It wasn't particularly funny anyway. Sannse did what any admin would have done. And I suspect that the White House regularly crawl the web for names of stuff members and suchlike; national security and all that. Also: Hello, I'm back, kind of. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 14:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

`Tis about god damn time. ~ 14:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Zombiebaron

• I looked up the definition of "libel" and it says "a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person." I'm pretty sure the paragraph in question was not printed in order to defame the lady. In fact, I'm pretty sure the point of the article was to be funny. Now, here's a little something you can do. Go google "White House Receptionist". Now, in keeping with our whole not-currently-naming-names-because-the-white-house-is-involved policy, I won't name the name of the person involved in the "cyberbullying". HOWEVER, if you have completed the above Google search you can probably find her name for yourself. To me, that makes her famous enough. If she doesn't want people on humour websites to know her name, she shouldn't let it be published. My feeling is that the writer of the article in question probably discovered her name through a similar Google search. So, basically, she's famous enough, and the paragraph was done in the intention of humour. Sure it was tasteless, but I doubt it was designed to make her feel bad. But, like, I've got no problem with it being removed and all, since we were asked to, I just feel we should get the facts straight. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  For example, her name can be found here and from the video, I would bet she does put her legs behind her ears and gets fucked like a circus pony. Now that is libel. -- wet Ape (activate) (Riot Porn) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  This person does not have a Wikipedia page. If we are going to draw a line anywhere it should probably be there. MrN  Fork you! 16:02, Aug 7

Clemens177 still causing a fuss ! For any noobs - he came, he saw and he went out big time in about of a month earlier this year. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Google search results are a slightly better measure of internet notability than Wikipedia having a page about you. Googling the name of the person in question returns 63,100 hits. Googling "ROTUS" (her job title) returns 92,600 similar hits. When you google "Zombiebaron" you only get 13,100 hits (obviously, I'm using myself as an example because I'm pretty notable). Therefore, I'd say she's notable. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

wow, googling 'gerry cheevers' returns 59,600 hits...but the uncyclopedia article on Gerry Cheevers is seventh in the search results! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was third when I tried it. Behind en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Cheevers, and www.gerrycheevers.com. The bostonherald is left trailing behind you. Are you sure that you are not the real Gerry Cheervers and that this is not actually a vanity article? MrN  Fork you! 17:04, Aug 7

eat my dust, herald! as it says on my userpage, i am not cheevers himself, but i may have been him in a past life. although he is still alive, so that scenario is not very likely. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Screw consistency. Time is an illusion anyway. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Satire, you fuckers

How can anyone be defending a personal attack here when the site is supposed to be about satire? You know what that is, right? Do you? -- Style  Guide 19:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

the line between satirizing a person and personally attacking them is very fine, and poorly defined. and oftentimes the line runs over inanimate objects, such as haystacks, further confounding potential definers of either concept. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's all fun and games until somebody gets dragged to Gitmo by the Secret Service. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 19:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The line between satire and personal attack CAN be a fine line but, having looked at the deleted portions of the article in question, I can say that, in this case, things were quite clearly NOT satire. In this case, the content clearly failed our UN:HTBFANJS rule, which is enough to justify deletion on its own; that the White House complained just provided a little urgency. --Sir gwax (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is Clemens177

I am not an attorney, but from what I understood, "public figures" can not cry "libel" or "slander" when they are in the public eye, and when it is clearly satire. For there to be any kind of legal case, the "ROTUS", as the President called her when he put her in the public eye, would have to claim that she is an unknown (impossible, thanks to her boss) and further that my allegation was so credible as to damage her reputation in some kind of actionable way.

I am truly flattered that a woman making probably three times what I'm making who talks with Obama each day finds it credible that any who read my article would honestly think I had sexual relations with her. However, as an anarchist, I rather think that to the extent anyone would be dumb enough to believe it, I more slandered myself.

Be that as it may, I can't help but remember the time that Larry Flynt of Hustler pretended to have got an interview with Jerry Falwell, or Swaggart or some such, and claimed that Falwell admitted having sex with his own mother. But as a public figure, and as it was clearly satire, there was no actionable suit or criminality.

The same clearly applies here.

However...I'm just so tickled, that after forty years of being an armchair anarchist, that I'm finally oppressed!!! And by the President of the United States!!! I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to care about being censored, while I'm grinning my ass off and calling my friends to let them know that the fucking President of the world's most powerful nation actually read my piss poor article!!

*solemn voice*  I have finally arrived!!

(Could the ban I asked for be removed from me now? I'm obviously your most widely read UnNews reporter!)

-- Clemens 177

Could it? I don't know. Are you going to be a drama queen or, like wine or cheese, have you matured? And I am our "most widely read thingy". Seriously! The King of Mars put a price on my head and everything! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've a restraining order against the person who had been stalking me here, so there is no more issue. Clemens177

Clemens 177, as long as you aren't one of those right-wing milita tea bagger 9/12 Glenn Beck fake anger and astrotruf members of the "mob" that is protesting Obama's birth certificate or universal health care, you got nothing to worry about. I mean it was not like when Republicans were in charge that the Liberals bashed Bush and made his guest list public and whatnot. Not like the liberals compared Bush to Hitler or yelled out loud in public to protest his policies. After all the big difference between a left-wing nutjob and a right-wing nutjob is guns, lots and lots of guns. NRA really means the Nuts for Rearming Anybody. Forget about it, not like they will add your name to a list to be taken to a FEMA camp when a crisis arrives or something. No such thing exists, and there are no "death panels" either no matter how much Sarah Palin talks about them, and she is another one of those right-wing nut jobs with guns. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I do believe she may be able to claim that she is not a public figure. I did some quick internet browsing, and didn't much about the exact definition, but its more narrow than completely unknown. --Mn-z 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bush's guest lists were public and the media listed anyone who visited the White House. So much for a more transparent government now that Obama is in office, the guest list is off limits? How is this change we can believe in? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MrN!

I appreciate the ban lift. I am aware that my behavior will be watched by you, and as I previously mentioned to you, know that my own President will be watching me, too!

It is an awesome responsibility to know that when I write my UnNews articles, that I will be informing the world's most powerful leader, but it is a responsibility that I will live up to, always remembering humility, and always triple checking my facts and sources, as I continue to bring to the world - and Obama - the most up-to-the-microsecond UnNews! Clemens177

Clemens is back!

I'm fairly excited, for one. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Guilder! It's good to be back. I guess my mistake with a nameless D.C. lady was in not sending flowers afterward! In any case, it makes a great story for me to share with my friends and family, so I'm pretty jazzed! I also love that the article just sits there censored, a testament to the far reach of my pen! Give me a few days to a week, and I'll get back into my groove as an intrepid reporter for UnNews, though admittedly, I'll be avoiding any more of that subject or anything like it! Clemens177

Jes for the record, I doubt very much the man himself knows anything about it... just his legal department. But on a more positive note, I've not had any email from your stalker for at least two weeks... so maybe the drama there has subsided -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

lol...actually, given that Obama spoke of her so often, I prefer to think that it was brought to his attention, and he read it and sent it to his legal staff! After all, not a sparrow falls without Father Obama knowing about it! I am, on another note, sorry to hear you got bombarded with emails up until two weeks ago...wow. But that's all over now. --Clemens177

I think on the issue of satire v. cyberbullying, we need to look at a couple of things

1. Is it knocking someone down a few pegs that needs it or humiliating someone without cause?
2. Is it funny, because, without question, it's certainly being a dick.

Anonymous man who helped me on my journey through the White House.

With regards to question #1, I think it's safe to say that, while the secretary to the President is certainly a more powerful position in the world than, say, Uncyclopedia administrator, it is not a particularly pompous position that needs some hot air deflation. So I don't think it's a particularly good target for satire. It's the old Michael Phelps vs. Special Olympian test. Yes, make fun of Michael Phelps' accomplishments, because he's overly lauded for what is, essentially, a worthless exercise. But when you do it to a special olympian, you're taking a cheap shot at someone trying to make a good situation out of a bad one. Maybe the comparison is not so old, because looking at it now, it kinda sucks, but people who aren't on a pedestal have no need to be knocked down.

As to point two, as I understand it, the humor comes from a reporter sleeping through the White House to get a story. As such, it's funnier protecting the identity of the person in question. Although, if you must pick a promiscuous target, surely there are others in the White House staff that make better, funnier targets, particularly if they're so well-known they can be pictured and not named and everyone gets the joke. Especially if this person has had their name dragged so far through the mud, it's impossible to defame them any longer.

I think a better guideline would be notability, rather than if the subject "needs knocked down a few pegs". For example, we have an article on Trig Palin. --Mn-z 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is that?--<<>> 17:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The infant son (or possibly grandson) of Sarah Palin who has Down's syndrome. Which, of course, is freaking hilarious. --Mn-z 21:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you say so.--<<>> 22:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Worse, the liberal media keeps picking on Michael Palin. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever notice that Bill Clinton looks like an old lesbian? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Na, I just reckon he's just looking at an old lesbian. MrN  Fork you! 16:38, Aug 16

Maybe the old lesbian's looking at him. Maybe they're having a stare contest.--Almost Sir Random Crap

I assume by "old" you mean "former."--<<>> 17:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you leave Hillary Clinton out of this. Bad enough Bill Clinton is married to her he has to actually look at her too. Good thing he is not too picky over his sex partners. Actually I think Hillary is bi-sexual or at least try-sexual (she'll try anything at least once). --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Noteable White House Staff

White House Office Staff are notable enough to get a Wikipedia article about them, yet not notable enough to be featured on Uncyclopedia and UnNews, eh? Got to keep key personnel anonymous so that they can be protected from ridicule and other stuff, because this is change we were promised. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I do believe the person in question in not mentioned at that page. --Mn-z 02:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Who? Tom Brady? Wait, was I not suppose to say her name? Um... Oops? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious. Is anyone working for the government fair game, or just people working for the White House? Maybe it's just anyone working for the Executive Branch... or anyone related to Obama in some way? I personally think the article on the Palin kid is in bad taste and should be removed, as well. Or does this only apply to Democrats? Where is the line? Seems like some people need to sort out their own opinions on this matter, as there is some hypocracy. I, personally, think the Wikipedia test is a good one. Also, Dexter, I'm banning you for cyberbullying. I really think that's what you're doing.--<<>> 12:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Government employee does not always equal public figure. The person in question is a mere receptionist. (I.e. a paper pusher not involved in public policy.) Otherwise un-notable low level government employees, (local, state, and federal), such as mailmen, school teachers, low ranking members of the armed forces, private secretaries of elected official, FBI agents, et cetera are obviously not public figures. --Mn-z 14:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus on this page that what happened here was not UN:CBN. Sannse removed some edits. Just about every active admin on the site looked at those edit. Everyone agreed they were not funny. I think that's it. MrN  Fork you! 14:21, Aug 17

But.... you're leaving all of the possibilities of drama out of it! Can't you make just one angry remark about someone to make a whole dramafest? Please?! Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 14:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Christ, is this shit still running? Storm. Teacup. How about we get on with our lives? Go write something funny, folks. --UU - natter 14:27, Aug 17